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

"Is you is or is you ain't The Who..."




Two very different views have been presented here, and I'd like to respond
to some of each...my 10 cents worth, since 2 cents is understating it...

Jim wrote:
>At the time of IT'S HARD and the tour that went with it, Roger was thinking
>of shutting the Who down as a road band because he felt that it was the road
>that sent Pete into his drug haze of the early 80s (I hold that there were
>several factors that did this, but that's for another post).

I have always heard that it was Townshend who wanted the non-touring Who,
and that Daltrey went along with it rather than have NO Who at all.
Personally, I would have been happy with a studio-only Who...Robert Plant
should take notes here, considering his voice is gone after two songs.

>>>>Since then, Pete has followed different paths - the old introspective one
>with Chinese Eyes and Psychoderelict as well as a purely descriptive one with
>White City and Iron Man.  He tends now towards greater projects - new
>presentations
>of Tommy, Quadrophenia, perhaps Lifehouse.<<<

I have to disagree with both of you here. I think that WHITE CITY &
PSYCHODERELICT are easily as strong as Lifehouse and QUAD...WC being in
effect the sequel to QUAD as it were. They might not seem as strong without
The Who playing them, but had they I think those two would have ranked right
up there. The content is certainly there.

And Joe wrote:
>In almost thirty years of listening to the Who fanatically I've come to
>realise (IMHO) that Townshend IS the band backed by three outstanding
>musicians. It is very evident from listening to Townshend's demos that 90%
>of the genius of the songs was there before they even reached the studio.

I have to agree with this. Daltrey, Entwistle, and Moon are/were fantastic
performers, and added a lot to the performance of those works. BUT one
listen to the TOMMY Demos speaks volumes. If The Who had broken up at that
moment in time, Townshend could have easily tarted those demos up and
released it as an album. And the odds are it would have been just as big.

Richard said:
>>At least one person on this list thinks they shouldn't be called the WHO
>>because their drummer died, but of course he's wrong. Without Moon AND
>>without Townshend on lead guitar they are Daltrey's band. The sourpuss on
>>acoustic rhythm is purely ornamental.

To which Joe replied:
>And that's just what they should be called - Daltrey's band. The Who died -
>let them rest in peace and let's enjoy the music they left us. I just wish
>Townshend would make the 100% commitment to bury the dinosaur. I don't want
>the embarrassments of 1979, 1982 and 1989 to continue.

And I have this to say:
Even without Moon they were The Who, just as Ray and Dave Davies are now
(w/sidemen) The Kinks. Not the same, but still The Who (and The Kinks).
Things change, people come and go...but the band as a unit can still exist.
I think it's rather unrealistic to expect a band to stay the same for 30
years. In fact, it would be what Townshend DIDN'T want...a mockery of what
they used to be. Going through the motions. A lot like The Stones. 
No, a band must change or do the same thing over and over. Would you be any
happier if The Who were still out there playing the standard set again and
again? One of the strengths (IMHO) of the band was their ability to change.
If they had stayed the same, with the three instrument concept, there would
have been no TOMMY...let alone WHO'S NEXT & QUAD!
I admit to some embarrassment of the `89 tour...not because of the core band
or even the extra guitarist, but because of the horns and percussion and
singers. In this way, The Who became what Townshend spoke against in
TKAA...a caberet act. They played the songs to perfection...and since when
were The Who about perfection? Especially live? Sure, I want them to
change...but not to add members until they become The Who Review. An
entirely new Who album, performed as such, might have changed this...but I
think the horns (at least) were intrusive and uncalled for. Who needs them
to add power to the three most powerful chords in the world (that is, Baba
O'Riley)? In the end, they detracted from that power.
I wouldn't even call this band Daltrey's band, though. It was Pete who
dictated the situation. Daltrey's band could exist ONLY if Townshend wasn't
involved.

>As for Daltrey - stop your bellyaching and do as Entwistle does. Just tour
>and work hard. Thank your lucky stars that Townshend provided for you as he
did.

Daltrey, if so desperate for The Who, could easily tour with Entwistle,
Simon Townshend, and Zak Starkey (or Philips) and imitate the sound of The
Who to eveyone's satisfaction. Lots of people raved about The D sings T
tour, and how much it "sounded like The Who." You know that if I was unhappy
with the horns, a damned orchestra is WAY too much! So I passed with not a
hint of regret.
So I don't feel sorry for Rog in the least. He has options. As you say: he
should get out there and tour. Not with an orchestra, and not with all of
the other crap...just a core band who can pretend to be The Who for a night.
Lots of fans would be happy, Townshend could then do whatever he wanted, and
there would be no conflict over "Is you is or is you ain't The Who."



                   Cheers                   ML

"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."  L. Long