Marcus Surrealius bushchoked at
Mon Aug 16 17:58:18 CDT 2004

> I agree with you on that  one. But more people would
say JL was the most important member of the Beatles"
and they wouldn't say that about JE and The Who.


Some would. I would. I don't know if I agree about
Lennon, either. He was certainly more important than
Paul in the beginning. But after Sgt. Pepper's, he got
farther from the band.
So I'm assuming your argument is that it could still
be the Beatles with only John and Paul, so it's OK if
it's Pete and Roger.
But...then I'd have to say Roger isn't nearly as
important to The Who as was Entwistle. I don't care
what "more people would say." They don't look that
deep. They accept a cover band lead singer for, say
Journey for instance. Or that Aerosmith purchases
their songs and puts their names on them.
I'm looking at the dynamics of the band, the interplay
of music. The Who wouldn't have been considered the
greatest live band had they not had Entwistle! Did you
ever see them with John? At least watch the Royal
Albert Hall DVD and pay attention to what John is

"Secondly, the tactics of our-as you know, we don't
have relationships with Iran. I mean, that's-ever
since the late '70s, we have no contacts with them,
and we've totally sanctioned them. In other words,
there's no sanctions-you can't-we're out of
 George "Why do I have to know this shit?" Bush

Cheers         ML

Do you Yahoo!?
Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.

More information about the TheWho mailing list