Is it just me?
pkeets at hotmail.com
Sun Jun 20 23:22:04 CDT 2004
>Yeah Jim, me too actually. I always prefer hearing Daltrey's
of Pete's songs, always. But we're back to the same argument again - Is it
The Who? If they want to form a new band around themselves, then sure, why
the hell not, but just please don't call it The Who. How about calling it
The Why?, which to my mind would be a far more appropriate moniker
(snigger). I'm racking my brains trying to think of some parralels in the
history of rock where bands have fractured and one or two of the original
members have formed new bands (with new names), doing new stuff along with a
few old faves. All I can think of at the moment is Johnny Thunders and The
Heartbreakers, which contained I think 2 members of the New York Dolls.
There was also that album Lou Reed made with John Cale back in the nineties,
which they could have very cheekily called a Velvets record, but didn't. Oh
shit, I'm thinking about the Beach Boys now - is it true that there's a
version of this once great band touring with only Mike fucking Love as a
founder? That's a truly scary thought, a Beach Boys with no Wilsons, or even
a Jardine. At least Brian Wilson has the taste and good sense to make solo
records and not try to live off his erstwhile group's name.
This seems to have to do with individual business practices. I see news
bits that such and such band had gotten in a new singer and they'll be
starting a tour, etc. Metallica went through some bass players, didn't
they--and nobody seems to complain about this much. So why is it such a big
deal for The Who to have a new bass player? Because they were such an
unusual group, for one thing. It's hard to audition for a new genius.
Also, what we've ended up with is a name that's holy to the hardcore fans.
It has a particular meaning and represents a particular body of work that
the fans have invested heavily in--and they don't want it to change in any
way. There ARE some fans out there that think TED should never have started
touring again. All these new performances are flooding the bootleg market
and reducing the value of their collections, etc. ;)
In this case, (referring back to Plato) one essential requirement is for The
Who to have produced the music before 1982 (or 1967, or 1975, or 1979,
depending on your particular age and taste in Who periods.)
This isn't the only kind of investment, of course. Much of the fan
investment seems to be emotional, but the question is whether this
investment (in one way or the other) is something that should strongly
influence Roger and Pete's decision on whether to stick with the Who name.
I agree that it's one factor to consider, but there are others equally as
important, including the clout the Who name holds in the music world. From
the DST and Quad tours, we already know that this clout does not transfer.
>From will you? to I do, MSN Life Events is your resource for Getting
More information about the TheWho