Seasonings Of The Witch

Marcus Surrealius bushchoked at
Thu Aug 19 13:40:29 CDT 2004

> I *never* would say that Pete & Rog should stop 


Nor would I, and I hope I'm not giving that

> But I do think that they are trading 
on the brand name when they shouldn't be.

That's exactly how I see it.

> see what sort of a fan base they can build.  I think
it would be 
large -- heck it might be unchanged from their current

I've been thinking about this too, thinking about
Roger going out alone as The Who and why solo he gets
smaller crowds than the band is getting. SURELY
everyone here, given the chance to see one of them
solo, would attend. I can only imagine that the people
seeing them now are of the same mind. It can't be TOO
many casual fans, right? So why are the crowds smaller
for Pete or Rog solo?

> Well I don't know if I would call AC/CD and Pink
Floyd mediocre bands.


Fair enough. I've never been an AC/DC fan at all, so
I'll just leave that one alone. Pink Floyd I took
separately, and see what it did to that band? Now
there's the "Waters" camp and the "Gilmour" camp of

> Journey and Van Halen were good bands that produced
a lot of commercial success, yet they are mediocre in
my opinion.

I do think the first Van Halen album was great. But
the next few sounded like lessor versions of the
first, then they got REALLY commercial (Jump!). So I
only listen to the first album.
Journey I never liked at all. They just seemed too
contrived. Good musicians, but the polar opposite of
my favorite band.

> As for David Bowie, I love the idea of a
Bowie/Townshend collaboration.

Me too. I think they would have complimented each
other, like Lennon and McCartney did.

> I assume you still hold Bowie in
high regard to this day.

Yes. And his last three albums have been as good as
anything he's done after Diamond Dogs. However, I
don't like him consistantly...didn't like the Eno
period at ALL nor the 80's "warm-and-friendly" stuff.

> Question: Has his band stayed the same through all
these years? 

No, after the Spiders From Mars he's never really had
a band as such. As you say, that lets him off the

> This name is
ultimately about business. It is a brand. To walk away
from it, especially
when no one else on earth can claim it, would be
"pound foolish."

They don't have to walk away from it, first of all.
They can acknowledge that things have changed by
adjusting the name to Who2 or Who's Left or something
like that. Secondly, doing that sort of thing is fine
in the short term, but usually comes back to haunt you
in the long run.

> when they go into the studio with this new lineup, I
hope to God that no one
in the room is thinking about the glory days of 1975
or trying to live up to
what's been done before.

I wouldn't mind if the songwriting was reaching for

"I don't remember debates. I don't think we spent a
lot of time debating it. Maybe we did, but I don't
   George "who am I again?" Bush

Cheers         ML

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. 

More information about the TheWho mailing list