Re: Pete and the Who

[WFang01@aol.com]

Jon, re:

>And let's assume that at some point in the future he were to make the
greatest song/album/rock opera or whatever that he ever did--i.e., he finally
releases a completed Lifehouse. The real fact is that few people would pay
any attention to it if it was not a Who album.  Even his new Best Of album
(which is quite good) has not even made the Billboard top 200 albums chart.

I think "Psychoderelict" was one of those albums and, although great "as is",
probably should have been a Who album...

>>The best analogy to Pete's situation I think is that of Paul McCartney's.
 For almost 20 years after the Beatles broke up, McCartney was often bitter
towards the group, and wanted to distance himself from it as much as he
could.  (On his 1976 tour, for example, he only played 5 Beatles songs.)  And
McCartney had significantly more success as a solo artist than Pete ever had.

I'm not sure the analogy works here. Paul has been riding on the Beatles fame
and name and never came close to producing anything of Beatles "quality"
(whatever that means). Most of his stuff were real "duds". Pete on the other
hand, continued to produce quality music, with his only mistake, (in my
opinion) was the "guest singers" on "Iron Man"...

-wf