Marcus Surrealius bushchoked at
Tue Aug 17 22:50:04 CDT 2004

> One can make the argument that Daltrey contributed
the least to The Who's sound,


I have, haven't I?

> but even *that* is debatable.  A Who without Daltrey
as singer? It's hard (!) to even wrap my mind around
that one....

Well, imagine Long John Baldry. Eric Burdon. Colin
Blunstone. Adam Faith. David Bowie. Etc. There are
countless possibilities, including (I hate to even put
this in your mind) Rod "the Mod" Stewart.
These were all singers who were of a similar mind as
either Pete or Roger. One can only imagine the riches
we'd have gotten if we had, say, two songwriters the
caliber of Bowie and Townshend in the same band. 

> Would Pete have *sounded* the way he did if Daltrey
had left The Who in 1965?

Probably not, he'd sound more the way he wanted to.
Refer to the new IOW DVD's interview.

> Who would've brought out all that 
anger in Pete?


Actually, I think Pete was just angry. He didn't need
Rog to bring it out in him. Life was doing a fine job

> Kinda like there's still a Who without Entwistle &
Moon?  A
different Who, but a Who nonetheless?  Right?

Yeah, a "kinda Who." Not a "Who." To just disregard
John's part in the band is something I cannot do. He
was more important to the sound of The Who than Roger.
I love Rog's voice, but it's not irreplacable.

> Last year, Wilson regrouped with Van Dyke Parks to
finish the record.


Most likely a big mistake. Smile will mean nothing
now. It could only work in context, that is: pre-Sgt.

"It's your money. You paid for it."
  George "and Haliburton is getting it" Bush

Cheers         ML

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.

More information about the TheWho mailing list