Re: Calling it the Who without Pete...

Ian, re:

> They at least KNEW 
>that their drummer was essential to their music.  The original members of 
>the Who ignored that simple fact.  

The members of the Who knew it, too. Therefore, at that time, they didn't try
to recreate that chemistry, and instead, set about developing a new form.

>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.

Was this *You* directed at me? I wouldn't label myself desperate to hear this
version of the Who. I don't expect there ever to be a '70s-style Who, and I
don't expect the upcoming shows to be anything different than has been
offered by the DST tour or the 89 tour. But, it doesn't mean I'm not going to
go or not enjoy myself.
If they're going to do it, I'm not going to write Pete and tell him he's an
idiot for revisiting old works, in some's opinions, reliving the past. They
can do whatever they want to and call themselves whatever name they want.
I'll still be there smiling away with aching eardrums.

Litgo