The Who Mailing List Digest, V11 #179



huntington at mindspring.com huntington at mindspring.com
Sat Jul 10 15:51:45 CDT 2004


ML,


>Degrading your band's already tarnished repuation is
BAD JUDGEMENT.
>You may like the band as a laughing stock, 

I don't think the band is a laughing stock. 
C'mon, you're going to lump the Drifters in with The Who? I've seen one of these Drifters shows in a sleazy bar, playing to about 30 people. I mean I see your point, but I just can't let it pass as a viable statement on Roger and Pete continuing to use "The Who". I mean if they (The Who) decided to do something different, I wouldn't argue. There is a good case for changing the name. But it's their choice. I don't really care what they call themselves. And I'm not apologizing to anyone for continuing to be a fan.

However, I would say issuing countless "best hits" compilations and doing reunion tours with no new music has done more to sully the band's reputation than continuing to use the name. Do I call that bad judgement? Well, you've got me there. I may. But I'm certainly not dwelling on it. They threaten to be an active band (new music) in the next year. In fact they have already released new music. New music I like. So I suspend judgement of their judgement for the moment. I'm really excited about what may happen. I give the benefit of the doubt.

You are free to judge them as you wish of course.  

>Yeah, that's why people still think he's gay after 25
>years and who knows how many women.

You mean you're still hung up on that? Maybe you're not, maybe you're just hung up on what other people think. I don't think Pete's sexuality has anything to do with his merit as a musical artist. And if someone thinks it does, then I don't value their opinion.

>YES, The Who gave me those expectations. That's why
>they were the greatest Rock band to ever walk the face
>of the Earth. You can call it "haughty" if you like,
>but it doesn't apply. 

And I suppose this is the real issue then. Your expectations. You're welcome to them. The Who meant something to you beyond their music. And you hold them accountable to that standard. That is your right. But you are doomed to disappointment. A lot of bands and musicians meant a great many things to people in the 60's and 70's. (For the record, I was born in '66.) I can only try to imagine the power of this expression at that time. But for those that survive, the world has moved on. Only those that died in their prime will always remain in that state. 

The Who's music is transendent for me as well, but somehow I suspect for different reasons. I allow them the right to change their spots without judgement for the sake of loss I feel when I think of so much talent that never wrote or performed again. 

You speak of a lot of bad judgement. Does that mean you judge the band directly? Or do you judge them for not being accountable to FM radio fans and forcing you do defend your fanship to people who think Pete is gay, or buggers children, or profits on the graves of his former bandmates? 

> And I didn't know the South had the market cornered
on weird names. 

It's possible.

> Watch it.

Watch what?

I was trying to say, watch what you say about the South. I'm a Southerner. As such, I feel alot of stereotypes are outliving their accuracy with people such as yourself. I'm not saying that the South doesn't have it's undue share of racism and close mindedness as a result of a clinging to a bygone era. It's just that to some Southerners, the Old South was the greatest society that ever graced the face of the earth. And they refuse to let it die or change. I am not one of those Southerners. Our numbers are growing. And we still call it the South.  




More information about the TheWho mailing list