pete can't win

[Sroundtable@aol.com]

In a message dated 02/15/2002 6:02:34 PM Central Standard Time, 
TheWho-Digest-Owner@igtc.com writes:


> Why not a Who show that doesn't 
> include Can't explain, Subsittute, Baba, WGFA, Pinball, etc. Try some 
> challenging stuff like Guitar & Pen, Song is Over, Another Tricky Day, 
> Daily 
> Records, A Quick One, or some of the new Who covers like Saturday Night and 
> Fire, instead of the boring as shit Summertime Blues?
> 
> 
OK- we're getting a little unrealistic here.  Maybe it's because I'm a 
relative Who novice and am not tired of Baba and Can't Explain yet, but 
either way Pete gets roasted.  You rip him for playing too many hits, but if 
the Who plays the show your suggesting, they will get ripped for playing shit 
only hardcore fans know.  As things are now, the Who are playing to audiences 
made up more of former fans and casual listeners and less of hardcore fans 
like us.  This would not be true if there had been a few albums since 1982, 
but there haven't been.  To play too much obscure stuff would be a bad move 
for them professionally.  It would be great for us since tickets would be 
cheaper and seats easier to get, but it would be bad for the band.  In 
essence, the Who wouldn't think it worth it to tour since it would be a lot 
of work for little money.  In their late 50s, it has to be worth their while 
to undertake tours.  If I were in my late fifties I'd probably feel the same 
way.  Pete can do his solo projects with no Who interference, Roger can work 
on his acting, and John can take his band and play the clubs.  To criticize 
Pete for the Who playing WGFA and BOR, etc is really unfair, IMHO.  I am 
looking forward to my first full Who gigs this summer and i WANT to hear all 
these songs because they are great songs played by the greatest band in the 
world.  Sue, I'd like to hear relay and a quick one and i'm the face and 905, 
but i'm not going to gripe if they aren't played.

kevin mc