Hank vs. Babe/Beatles vs. Who

["Kipp, David G." <KIPPD@PCMAIL01.SYSTEMS.GEC.COM>]

I promised I wouldn't get into this debate since I have no affiliation for 
the Beatles. However, my spin is the following:
People argue who was the real home run king, Hank Aaron or Babe Ruth. 
Hammering Hank ,despite have more homers, is often discounted because he 
played more games than Babe Ruth.  Is it Hank's fault he remained healthy 
and was blessed with a long career.  Maybe if Babe played as long as Hank, 
he to would have as many home runs. Now for the Beatles/Who..  When did the 
Beatles stop performing as a band? Long before John was killed.  I know 
Keith Moon was not the song writer, but he was the "beat" behind the Who and 
despite his death, the band continued with a new drummer. I think some 
credit should be given to the fact that we can see Pete, Roger and John in 
1997 and Beatle fans will never see Paul, George and Ringo.  I watched Paul 
on VH-1 Sunday and found his conversation really interesting. I'm sure fans 
dig his new album. At one point, he was asked, probably for the 1 million 
time, about a possible reunion with Sean or Jullian taking John's place.  He 
said it would never happen, that would not be the Beatles.  Yea we know 
that.  But people die, shit happens and music goes on.  Do it for the fans? 
Donate the money to charity? I know the band I'll be seeing this summer is 
not  the original Who, but right now it's the only Who we've got. And thank 
God for that! True, they haven't produced any new material in 15 years, but 
they have reunited to celebrate landmark pieces like Tommy and Quad. On the 
other extreme, I can't wait to see younger bands, like Pearl Jam and REM, 
evolve as they age and experience life and music differently.  I only hope 
their careers are as enduring as Hank's and The Who's. In my opinion, The 
Who score a point for simply being around.

Dave