Ingredients



Frate, Chris (EM, PTL) chris.frate at penske.com
Tue Aug 17 10:45:28 CDT 2004


I agree totally with your last paragraph. I would like to add that I think they would be less The Who and more of a tribute band had they gotten someone who just mimicked John's bass lines, although I still believe that they should have gotten a more aggressive bass player. One other clue that they are still "Who" enough is Pete's demeanor. I don't think he acts nearly as animated or aggressive when he does any other type of show. To me that means that there is some special indefinable spark that is present with that music, when he gets together with those guys. I sure didn't see that in 1989, or even with Kenney that much, so they actually might be more "Who" now than then! It seems much more genuine now. I, for one, am just happy that Pete and Roger are still around and doing something together. I just hope they do it in my neck of the woods soon!

-Chris in Cleveland

-----Original Message-----
From: thewho-bounces at igtc.com [mailto:thewho-bounces at igtc.com]On Behalf
Of O'Neal, Kevin W.
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 10:26 AM
To: thewho at igtc.com
Subject: Ingredients


>Marcus Surrealius 
>Ingredients
>
>> 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.
>
>Deni:
>
>Some would. I would.

You're in a vast minority.

>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.

But, without question, John and Paul were the key to The Beatles.
Arguably the greatest writing tandem in history.
It was John and Paul, then behind them it was George and Ringo.
Just like it's been Pete and Roger, and behind them was John and Keith.

>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.

The dynamics of the history with both of these bands is vastly
different.
The original drummer of The Beatles was replaced by Ringo.
Still....The Beatles.
Had Ringo died and was replaced by a Zak or another drummer with close
"family" ties to The Beatles, it still would/could have been The
Beatles.
If then after years as The Beatles, George dies, and is replaced by a
session guitarist with close ties to John Lennon, it could still be The
Beatles.

The transformation of The Who didn't just happen overnight.

>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.

How about what "more people would say" on this list?
We don't look that deep???

Clearly Roger is the face and voice of The Who.
He's the front man.
He's the guts of The Who.
Without Roger, there is no and would never have been The Who.
You can't imitate his voice.  Just wouldn't be the same.
But, ... and I'm not saying Pino plays like John, But...bass can be
imitated...
When I can hear Pino, he seems to be playing some mean chops.
He just needs to be turned up!

>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!

You don't know that.

>Did you
>ever see them with John? 

I have.
Obviously John was the best bassist on earth.
But, that didn't automatically make him the most important link in The
Who.

>At least watch the Royal
>Albert Hall DVD and pay attention to what John is
>playing.

Why, is it hard to pay attention to what John is doing?
See?
Not the most important link.
Pete and Roger have *always* gotten the most attention.

Now that *that's* settled...

To me, it really comes down to letting Roger and Pete do what the fuck
they want.
People around here always harp that "they don't owe us anything" , and
"who are we to tell them what to do" and "it's their life, their
careers."
I personally am not going to get hung up on a name.  I'm not going to
boycott their current music and activity, and stand in the way of the
surrounding excitement and joy as expressed by interested people on all
lists because of a difference of 3 letters and 1 number (diff. between
"The Who" and "Who2").
Why should the current band give up "The Who"?  Why can't they play that
catalog of music??
It's theirs.
They've worked their asses off for many years.  Gave blood, sweat and
tears for the music.  Keith gave his life for it.  John gave his life as
a result of it.  Pete almost lost his life too.  Roger has struggled for
decades to keep it all together. 
Why should they give it up now?
It is a story.
The story doesn't end when you turn a page to a new chapter.

It continues..........

Kevin in VT


_______________________________________________
thewho mailing list
thewho at igtc.com
http://www.igtc.com/mailman/listinfo/thewho




More information about the TheWho mailing list