[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Calling it the Who without Pete...
- Subject: Re: Calling it the Who without Pete...
- Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 03:18:30 -0400 (EDT)
The problem I have with this article is 1) I read it almost 14 years ago,
2) it
hurts me to read it and 3) it only adds fuel to the fire to the Who is the
Who debate. You really have to be desperate if you want to hear the Who
in such a form they are so unrecognizable from what they were.
Let's think on a realistic level "for a moment". Honestly I'm shocked
that so many list members are so desperate to see a fraud. I've seen
plenty of them myself (the Who '89, Moody Blues '91, the list goes on
depressingly.) All the Who are now is just a damn name, nothing else.
When you hear the name currently it's now a tour item, a price object, a
prize, not a rock band. AthosWhite's argument is irrelevant because he
only thinks of rock bands as those who are lead by true leaders. Anyone
who listens to the Who will tell you that's where the stereotyping
begins. Unlike the beach boys, the beatles, the kinks, the Who were
built upon strong compliments to PT's music. Without KM or JE, the band
is not the same, or could even rebound to it's original form. Why do you
think Zeppelin called it quits after Bonham's death? They at least KNEW
that their drummer was essential to their music. The original members of
the Who ignored that simple fact.