Ingredients



Marcus Surrealius bushchoked at yahoo.com
Wed Aug 18 14:23:10 CDT 2004


> The truth is only one. After the death of Moon The
Who should have quit. 

Tom:

I didn't think so at the time. I was young, and
selfish when it came to music. But now I feel like it
might have been better.

> 1964, broke in 1978, having launched five
masterpieces (Sell Out, Tommy, 
Live at Leeds, Who's Next and Quadrophenia) and 

SIX! My Generation!

> All I know is not one of those guys can do the
"Yeah!" (WGFA)

Chris:

Long John Baldry could have. He had a tremendous
voice. And Eric Burdon, albeit with a bit more of a
threatening sound. More of a growl. Stewart would have
sounded artificial, but then he IS artificial anyway.
Bowie, clearly no. But the band would have been a
different animal anyway.

> could even have legs. To the general public, The Who
is more Roger than anyone else.

We are the elite, they are the masses.

> He could go out alone and still be The Who to them, 

Uh, well, he's tried that and it didn't work.

> that no one seems to realize is that The Who is
Roger and Pete's to do with what they want.

I realize that. But they don't always make the best
decisions, as we know from history.

> ours. Just because we have some romantic vision of
the perfect rock combo brought together by divine
intervention or the serendipitous confluence of fate,
does not mean that they have to buy into that too.

But...it's NOT a vision! It WAS a reality!

> This one inflammatory statement is the linchpin of
your argument.

David:

Yeah. Sparks discussion, doesn't it? And what's funny
is I'm often called on making inflamatory statements
which cause discussion.

> You never waiver and I respect you for that. 

Ah, shucks. It's just the way I see it.

> Apparently a proper definition of "The
Who" is elusive. Or at least one has not been offered
which satisfies all fans.

Definitely. I suppose it's all about what elements of
The Who are important to the individual fan.

> The principle song writers for both groups are the
main ingredient that gave
each its own identity outside of being just another
garage band, that would
seem evident. 

See, there we differ. I think the sound of The Who,
the sheer power and unique interplay they had (thanks
mainly to John and Keith) was the thing that propelled
them above the rest. The songwriting, well...I
personally like Pete's better, but the vaulted "most
people" we write about would say the Lennon/McCartney
songs were best. I think we'll agree, at least, they
were more commercial. So why can I say, with a
straight face The Who are better than The Beatles? The
unique sound.

> I never fully understood this until John died, but
going back and listening
to live tracks, it's actually painful to realize what
was lost in 2002.

For me too.

> His bass is the base that holds the band up on their
well
deserved pedestal. This is even true of studio
recordings.

Complete agreement here, and well put.

> I would venture a
guess that a great many bands would have benefited
from having John on bass.

I often play a "game" where I play a band's song and
imagine what John and/or Keith would be doing if they
were on it. Every band would have been better with a
Keith, at least.

> been lost. As for
Roger almost leaving the band in what, 1965, remember,
they really weren't
"The Who" we all know and love at that point.

Hmmm...I don't know. Sure, they evolved from there but
it was the essential band intact. And I'd bet that
live they weren't all that much different from when
they performed Tommy live a few years later.

> endeavor, they are who they have always been. Even
so with The Who.  

I think music is a little different, though. Rock
music is littered with the bodies of bands who have
made compromises...like Journey and Judas Priest using
a sound-alike lead singer or Aerosmith purchasing
their songs and then calling them their own. I expect
more than that from The Who. Any other band, including
The Beatles, I could take it from. But not The Who.
Let's go back to the "most people" argument. What was
your reaction when you heard Journey got a coverband
singer? Was your first reaction "They have a right to
do that." or more like "Heh! Losers!"?

> Rarely are things automatic.  They just come to be.

Kevin:

Not this time.

> 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???

Lemmy? Motorhead?
It wasn't The Who, but we thought it was.

> So, it's a numbers thing to you.

Not unless you mean "subtraction."

> What about 60%?

You mean, like Def Leppard where the drummer loses an
arm?

> That's kind of simplistic, isn't it?

It would be, but that's not it.

> How can that be if we all acknowledge that The Who
can't be without Pete.

Well...there was a time, not so long ago on this very
list, that people argued that if Pete didn't want to
go out as The Who, then why couldn't Simon take his
place and go out with Rog and John. After all, the
songs have been written. Simon can play like Pete.
Sing like him, too.
Why not?

> Keith was "replaced."

With slack taken up by John and Pete.

> John was "replaced."

With NO ONE to take up the slack.

> Bass sound can indeed be imitated.

Oh, yeah, cover bands do it all the time. Cover bands.

> So, it's Pino that you have the problem with.
It's not a 50% thing, it's the replacement?

Well...I do have a problem with calling it The Who
without the two most unique musicians. On the other
hand, with Zak they proved it COULD be done if they
find the right person. So I'm open to that. And Pino
is NOT the right one. Then again, as you pointed out,
neither was Jones. So it's not like they couldn't FIX
the problem.

> If Tony Butler were playing, you'd be at shows and
still supporting "The Who?"

I can't answer that point blank. I'd have to hear it
first. In my mind, it works. If Butler played the way
he did in Big Country, no problem.

> But, The Who still could have been the greatest live
band with a different bassist.

No, I don't think that's true. I think it HAD to be
those four guys. No compromises from me on this.

> I don't sense a different playing style or more bass
from John after Keith's death.

I do! I can hear it. He "stepped up." Maybe it's just
greater skill, as with Pete. But it seemed to me the
intensity level was higher. I know that's not a
definite definition. But that's how it is.

> Zak is monstrous.

Zak's great. But he's not Moon. He's only good enough
to cover for Moon when John and Pete are giving us
more.

> Pete is *now* giving it "more."  

But he's not enough, by himself.

> Pete is pushing Roger who is the rock.

But Roger's voice, sadly, is failing. And it's
understandable, I don't fault him for it. He lasted a
Hell of a lot longer than, say, Robert Plant.
But...realistically...I play the newer Who material
for friends and they say he sounds like an old man.

> And let's not forget about Rabbit.

He's alright. Seems like a nice guy.

> AND, if they simply turned Pino up, the run away
locomotive would again
be charging down the track.

Nope. Pino doesn't have it in him. He's too studied,
too delicate, too considered. Much like the manner in
which Keith played, you know John just instinctively
knew what to put in any open space. He didn't plan it
out in advance.

> I thought your stance was that Pete and Rog weren't
the center of The Who?

I didn't say that. I said they weren't ALL of The Who.

> You make it sound like current activity is
tarnishing their past activity.

Yep, that's how it sounds.

> This isn't even possible.

Anything's possible.

> The past is the past and is archived, and will not
change.

Are you saying that someone can't tarnish their
integrity by showing a lack of it at a later date?
Doing something like that puts into question motives.
Maybe they DIDN'T have integrity, maybe they just
wanted you to think they did.

> And, if you look past the 2 reviewers working for 

No one influences me in this area. You KNOW I felt
this way in 2002!

> So, where is this damage??

How did you react when you heard Judas Priest replaced
Rob Halford with a cover band singer?

> But, that's usually a positive thing if one can
appreciate age and what age has to offer.

That's not what's happening here.

>Because they aren't The Who.

But they would be if Tony Butler were there?

> That's what I mean.  He kept living the "rock" life.

I guess. It's a stupid life if it ends so frivolously.

> Not when they continue!

It's over, Johnny.

> I've had a long history with The Who.  First saw
them live in '67 and met them in '71 and was a friend
of John's for years.

Deni:

OK, I'm now officially impressed.

> You might find it interesting :)

I'll be waiting.

> Uhh...your post should have been addressed to Cindy
:)

You're right, my mistake. Sorry Cindy!


"Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're
a-you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as
a sovereign entity."
   George "I learned a new word today" Bush

=====
Cheers         ML


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 




More information about the TheWho mailing list