Parts is Parts...
O'Neal, Kevin W.
Kevin.ONeal at vtmednet.org
Wed Aug 18 10:29:34 CDT 2004
>From: Marcus Surrealius <bushchoked at yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: Ingredients
>I'm used to that. It's "automatically" never made me
Rarely are things automatic. They just come to be.
>Ringo being about 1% the drummer Keith was, I'd say
But it still *was* The Who to you after Keith died and was replaced by
that loser ....umm, umm,....what's that guys name....Lenney something???
>Nope. Now it's HALF the Beatles. "Half, Eddie, HALF."
So, it's a numbers thing to you.
75% of the original band is ok.
What about 60%?
That's kind of simplistic, isn't it?
>"Guts?" I'd say John and Keith were the blood and guts
>of The Who.
How can that be if we all acknowledge that The Who can't be without
And, that Roger is the voice of The Who and couldn't be replaced.
Keith was "replaced."
John was "replaced."
>> You can't imitate his voice. Just wouldn't be the
>And no one can imitate John, nor should they.
Bass sound can indeed be imitated. It is not a human trait that belongs
only to the one person, like Roger's voice, and Pete's writing mind.
And, there are plenty of bass players out there that can duplicate
John's playing style and runs.
Granted, it's blasphemous to do so, but...
>But not suitably. Tony Butler would have done it, and
>it could have still been The Who.
So, it's Pino that you have the problem with.
It's not a 50% thing, it's the replacement?
If Tony Butler were playing, you'd be at shows and still supporting "The
>He plays too jazzy, and it doesn't work well with The
>Who. He'd be OK with John McLaughlin.
I've heard some balsey runs by chicken-head man.
But not live.
To me, the jury is still out.
>Sure I do. I can't place another bass player in there
>and get the same outcome.
Nothing, other than the original is the same.
But, The Who still could have been the greatest live band with a
Just like another band wouldn't necessarily be the greatest live band
just because John was on bass.
>No, but you're ignoring what I said before...that
>without Keith, John and Pete gave more.
I contest that.
I don't sense a different playing style or more bass from John after
And, while Pete *felt* like the weight of the show was now on him, his
effort post Keith was not giving more.
Actually, quite to the contrary.
>gone too...and there's just not enough in Pete to pull
>it off alone.
But he's not alone.
Zak is monstrous.
Pete is *now* giving it "more."
Pete is pushing Roger who is the rock.
And let's not forget about Rabbit.
AND, if they simply turned Pino up, the run away locomotive would again
be charging down the track.
>OK, so when
>you're watching Pete or Rog, then you tend to focus on
>what they are doing. Senses engaged.
I thought your stance was that Pete and Rog weren't the center of The
>If it was just "any" name...but it's not. Some things
>mean more than just the sound the letters make. Some
>things STAND for something.
>Unless they're diluted to the point where they don't
You make it sound like current activity is tarnishing their past
This isn't even possible.
The past is the past and is archived, and will not change.
That greatness will always remain what it was...great.
And, if you look past the 2 reviewers working for tabloid type rags, who
only harped on the obvious "should give up before getting old" and
didn't even bother to comment on the actual show...their current work is
being received fantastically. I'd argue better than most predicted or
could have even imagined.
So, where is this damage??
Maybe a bit of Patina. But, that's usually a positive thing if one can
appreciate age and what age has to offer.
>Because they aren't The Who.
But they would be if Tony Butler were there?
>> John gave his life as a result of it.
>No, he gave his life for a rush and a hooker.
That's what I mean. He kept living the "rock" life.
>> The story doesn't end when you turn a page to a new
Not when they continue!
>Only real life drags past the ending.
>This isn't a story, it's real life.
It hasn't ended!
>From: "Scott Schrade" <schrade at akrobiz.com>
>Subject: Re: Ingredients
> A Who without Daltrey as singer?
>It's hard (!) to even wrap my mind around that one....
Because it can't be.
It's just too big and hard.
Kevin in VT
This message, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, privileged, and/or protected from disclosure under state and federal laws that deal with the privacy and security of medical information. If you received this message in error or through inappropriate means, please reply to this message to notify the Sender that the message was received by you in error, and then permanently delete this message from all storage media, without forwarding or retaining a copy.
More information about the TheWho