What is Who?

[Hart Deer <D.Deer@students.oglethorpe.edu>]

>>  Re:
>>> I must admit, I find it hard to believe some of us are still complaining
>>> that The Who aren't The Who anymore.
>>
>>Me too. After all, it was no longer the original band once Doug Sandom
>>left, right? Why is it OK for other bands to get new members...but not
>>for The Who? 
>
> I agree totally. If the band was "The Who" with KJ, then they are certainly
>still The Who with Zak. Noone seems to complain that The Rolling Stones are
>still The Stones without Brian Jones or Mick Taylor or Bill Wyman. Or that
>Pink Floyd is Floyd without Roger Waters. Or that Genesis was still Genesis
>without Peter Gabriel. The list goes on and on. Maybe Who fans are just less
>forgiving than the fans of other bands? Regardless, the band is still THE
>WHO to me!

That's all well and good; certainly, the current Who tour has attributes
the Who
has never had before, even if the Who is lacking Mr Keith Moon. But as to the
question, "Is it the Who?", what is really meant by that? Is it a question of
quality, is this Who as good as the previous Who? No, not really; Dire Straits
may be as good as or better than Led Zepplin but certainly is not LZ. Is it
just
a name? If I went out and threw together a garage band and called it The
Who, it
certainly wouldn't be the Who, so there has to be some association that goes
beyond the name. Is it the surviving members of the band that make it The Who?
That would imply that Keith Moon is an unfortunate casualty though nonetheless
expendable. Is it indeed that Keith Moon is expendable? Certainly, if Pete
Townshend died, there could be no more Who. So is Pete's presence the
measure of
the Whoness of the Who? No, because Pete does non-Who stuff all the time.
So that
make Pete a neccesary but not sufficient condition for the validity of The
Who.
What if John or Roger had died and not Keith? Would we still have The Who?
I think
so. But what if two others had died instead of one? Maybe not. So then, is The
Who really The Who when you have Pete plus just enough of the old band to
constitute legitimacy? Well then, how is each member rated and at one point
between original performers and methods of performance does The Who become
really
The Who? I think it certainly helps that Pete is doing as much electric
playing 
as he is. Still, if the validity of The Who is determined by how much of it is
left and if enough of it is left (even as it continues to expand and
improve in
other ways, because if you had the Who's current band without TED, it sure
wouldn't be The Who), then isn't the current Who a bit less of The Who than
it was
even if it is still The Who?

I'm not giving answers, I'm just asking questions. BTW, actually, many
people do
complain the Floyd ain't Floyd without Waters anymore, not that they should...

- -Hart Deer