[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Boots/also:Could you live with the horns?




 DrJimmy writes:
 >I know I am going a little off the subject here, but does are there 
 >any listers that LIKE the Who with the horns ? 

 >For the sake of arguement, say the Who stayed together as a band 
 >and made another record after the '89 tour. 

 >Do you think that Pete would have had a "horn section" on the new album 
 >or would he just put in the "horn section" on the road ? ( Assuming 
 >everything was peachy in Whoville and they toured again..)

 >What's your opinion ?

 I'm one of those who believe the Who became less and less the WHO as more 
 people got up on stage with them.  I don't MIND the horns when they play parts 
 from Quad or Tommy or Who's Next that require them (My Wife, The Overture, 
 5:15, etc), but I really don't like WGFA, Substitute, etc with the new horn 
 parts.  It completely clutters up the sound of the original songs.
 
 With PRT's current interests, anything new probably would have had horns on it, 
 and it wouldn't have been Entwistle, whose horn playing is unique and wonderful 
 and seminally WHO; for others to play those parts would have diluted the sound, 
 and made it just that much farther from the Who.
 
 The Who has never been a band like Yes, King Crimson or Zappa that can 
 introduce new spices to the recipe and have it come out tasting very good.  The 
 band (IMHO, of course!) has always revolved around PT's songs played by The 
 Four Guys.
 
 
 OK,
 KLW
 
 PS:  Happy (belated) birthday Pete!