Who or not Who
jmljohnson3 at yahoo.com
Sat Feb 4 11:17:18 CST 2006
This is true. Not sure what came first, rebellion and then The Who or because of The Who I became rebellious, but when I found them, it was a match made in heaven.
I wrote on my blog about accepting The Who (Pete and Roger) of 2006 and it being right that they are exactly who they are today. www.johannainvista.blogspot.com.
It is so wrong, in my book, to curse them for not still being the Who of the 1974 and to go on to curse them for having the gall to think about walking on a stage and performing in 2006.
We (who fans) have debated this as long as I can remember. My brother who turned me on to the Who many moons ago is one of the naysayers that are doing all cursing. Everytime we get together, we have to debate this before the family meal. We have to.
Anyway...check out the blog if you want.
JimTheWhoFan at aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 2/3/2006 10:32:22 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Sroundtable at aol.com writes:
>>They ARE The Who because THEY say they are. It's time to get over it
already and just accept what we get. <<
I do NOT have to accept what they deign to give us. Look over much of Pete
Townshend's written output--one of his major themes is that people should NOT
accept what they're given. Should Bobby in LIFEHOUSE have accepted a world
without music? Should Jimmy just accept that his life has no meaning? What about
the residents in White City? Are they just to take what they're given? Should
Ray High just sit back and accept that he's a has-been?
Pete and Roger can do what they do. And I can comment on that output and
that's just the way it goes.
thewho mailing list
thewho at igtc.com
Brings words and photos together (easily) with
PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.
More information about the TheWho