Re: [TheWhoMaximumRnB] Re: Roger's voice

[JVNNSJSP@aol.com]

In a message dated 10/31/01 12:44:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
campbell@fix.net writes:


> He is dispensable in the overall scheme of things.
> 

Really? I guess that you are merely a Pete Townshend fan then and not a Who 
fan. 

Pete is Pete, Roger is not Pete, nor do I expect him to be. Pete however is 
not Roger either. I don't expect Roger to write creative visionary songs any 
more than I would expect him to play the drums. 

What Roger did was make sure that there was a Who and what he *does* is make 
sure that there still is a Who.  He swallowed his pride for this band. We all 
benefit from this and even Pete benefits.

Voices are voices. Sometimes they sound great and sometimes they sound 
crappy. Roger has the better Rock voice of the two without question. What 
makes the Who so cool is that they have such a dynamic lead singer *and* an 
alternative sweeter voice to break it up so that both are more effective to 
the listener. (John can sing and harmonize but his voice alone lacks the 
beauty/power.) 

Roger is out front and Pete is the source of the energy. What a unique and 
interesting combination. Pete writes the songs, and Roger belts them , and 
like Pete could never do. Doubt Roger? Imagine Pete singing WATER or BARGAIN 
or I DON'T EVEN KNOW MYSELF  or don't even imagine-just listen to THE SONG IS 
OVER and it is there plain as day Who is Who and How important Roger's voice 
is. 

Roger's voice is one thing, but it is his person that drives the band. He 
does not get the credit nor the respect that he deserves. What Roger gets, he 
works for. Also, Roger being out front gives Pete the advantage of "stealing 
the show". I love Roger's voice and his attitude. He is quite indispensable.

Pete solo doesn't have near the impact that Pete has with The Who. Not even 
close.


Jon in Mi