[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: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 05:15:24 -0400 (EDT)
> Ian, I'm not understanding a few things here. First of all, does the lack of
> the original keyboard player negate the Moodies? The rest are still in the
> band. If so, then what does that say about any band who replaces a member?
> And there are so many of those...
>
I'm speaking of what the Moody Blues became, which I admit to knowing
before I paid my ticket, IE why bother touring? The same can apply to the
current Pink Floyd.
The band without Waters is so afraid of changing drastically from Waters'
style (it's different but not that much) because they think they might
turn off the "The Wall RULZ" fans. Of course my favorite Pink Floyd
ended after Dark Side, so I know I'm in the minority.
> >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.
>
> Except that Zep should have called it quits after the death of Plant's
> voice. And I could argue that a drummer is nowhere near as essential in Zep
> as it was for The Who, if essential at all.
While it may be easier to imitate John Bonham, his sound is hard to
copy. I contest that Bonham was as best a fit for LZ as Moon for the
Who. Bonham wasn't just a timekeeper, he was a force by himself. But
here's what I don't understand, when do you think Plant lost his voice?