RE: Calling it the Who without Pete...

Q107 in Toronto played an interview just before PD where Pete said that
(paraphrasing from the old bad memory) "When Roger and I get together,
there is something special, just like when Paul and Artie get together,
it's Simon and Garfunkel.  What we have to avoid is the temptation of
calling it The Who".

I know that what i see in '96 will be different than '82.  What i find
interesting is that it is being implied that '96 won't be as good as
'82.  Well, Pete isn't able to put as much into it, because of the
hearing thing, but i'll tell you, he was giving 150% in '93.  Not
necesarily on the ppv show, but when he was in Toronto.  I'm sure every
die hard fan who saw him on the tour cringed when they saw him that
night.  It's not that the ppv was that bad, but it was not what i
believe to be representative of the rest of the tour.
Have the people who are "dreading" these shows actually seen any of the
guys solo stuff from the last 3-4 years?  It was GREAT!  They are out
there defining what an older rock star can do.  Everyone understands
that an old blues guy, say John Lee Hooker (to keep the Who content),
can play until he's 100 (ok, in his '70's), but we resent the fact the
Entwistle LOVES to be up on stage?  Hey, it's all he knows how to do.  
I respect the fact that Pete is travelling unchartered ground recently,
trying new things.  Could the Stones take any of their albums and stage
it on Broadway? I doubt it. (Ok, that's a poor excuse for a slap at the
Stones, but hey, you can see where my loyalties are).  
I'd like to think that many of today's younger artist are learning from
Pete how to keep your career going into your 50's.  Is he a perfect role
model? No, he has said many goofy/contradictory things over the years. 
Is anyone else doing it better?  Not that i can see.  The rule has
always been that R&R is a young man's game.  Back to the Stones again
for a second.  I read in People this week, a short interview with
Charlie Watts.  He was asked about their last 4-5 albums, and he said
the "Stripped" was their best in many years.  Hmmm.  Wasn't it
revisiting old material?
So the Stones can do it and it's an artistic stretch.  The Who does it,
and it's wallowing in one's past.  The public is fickle.
All i know, is that hearing the orchestra perform Quad with Roger and
John a couple of years back was AWESOME.  It brought a tear to my eye,
as i stood there transfixed.  I also remember Pete crouching low, while
waiting for Ruth and Rastus to finish bantering before leaping on the
riser to thrash into "Make me real".  The look on his face told you that
he believed in what he was doing.  
This may not be the case 10 years from now.  
You can sit at home and and debate how they should not be doing this, or
you can go to the show and be part of something extraordinary.

Mike
>----------
>From:
>	btm805@btrtx9.hrz.uni-bayreuth.de[SMTP:btm805@btrtx9.hrz.uni-bayreuth.d
>e]
>Sent: 	Friday, June 14, 1996 2:48 PM
>To: 	thewho@igtc.com
>Subject: 	Re: Calling it the Who without Pete... 
>
>
>Ian, Re:
>
>> Honestly I'm shocked that so many list members are so desperate to see a
>> fraud.
>
>The list members you are talking about want to see two things:
>
>   - life performances of Roger, John, and/or Pete with some good
>additional
>   musicians,
>
>   - Who songs (or Who members' solo songs) being played at the
>concerts of the
>   above.
>
>These list members are all well aware that they won't ever see anything
>like
>The Who pre-'78 again.  They know that
>
>   a) a lot of drummers have tried to imitate Keith, but no one has
>really
>   proven to be able to replace him,
>
>   b) though they have artistically improved since '78, Roger, John,
>and Pete
>   cannot hide their age and cannot create such vehement stage shows
>like in
>   those good old days anymore.
>
>So, where's the fraud?  We know what we can expect, and we know what we
>cannot
>expect anymore.
>
>As for the name:  Of course, something like `The New Who cover The Who'
>would
>be a formally more correct name for Roger and John on tour, even if
>they took
>Pete along with them.  But a band's name is like a trademark:  It can
>stay the
>same even if the product changes.  It is the band who have to name
>themselves,
>not the fans.
>
>And I think that there is one good reason why they should use the name
>`The
>Who' on tour:  A lot of people out there in the world have no clue what
>kind of
>guys Daltrey, Entwistle, or even Townshend are, but they know and like
>a couple
>of Who songs and would certainly go and see any nearby concert where
>these are
>performed.  They would not care whether the original band or some cover
>group
>were on stage as long as they can sing along with some tunes.  For
>those people
>(who outnumber us Who fans by far) it is essential that the band is
>named `The
>Who' for otherwise the concert in their home town might not attract
>their
>attention (a fact that THEY might call a `fraud':  `If only I had known
>that
>these guys were The Who, I would certainly have seen the show...')
>
>So - even if it hurts your purism and is incompatible with your
>recollections
>of The Who pre-'78 - accept `The Who' as a trademark necessary to
>attract
>sufficiently large audiences.  As Fang already said:  The band's profit
>is - in
>the long run - also the fans' profit.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Bernd
>