If the band chooses to carry on after John's death, it's a controversial move. Many fans feel this is a slap in the face to them, and to an extent they could be correct. It's hard to see the Who as the Who with only "the two" on board, but I think you have to look at it from a different angle. This isn't a money-grab - these guys aren't exactly desperate for cash, what with their songs playing being Claritin and Nissan ads recently and "Who Are You" as the theme to CBS' enormously successful CSI - AND "Won't Get Fooled Again" on CSI: Miami. No, it really appears that if these guys go out as the Who again, it's because they really feel the spirit of the band is there. Townshend and Daltrey have been through hell in the past year - Townshend especially, following his January child-porn arrest - and if they follow through on plans to record a new album in the fall, the resulting album is sure to be a come-back for the Who the likes of which few bands have ever pulled off.
And maybe, just maybe, the best way for Pete and Roger to move on from the past is simply to carry on. Afterall, saying goodbye isn't the hard part. Survivors pick up the pieces of the lives left behind and put them back together in a way that allows everyone to just get on with it. Maybe putting the Who to rest would be the easiest way for Pete and Roger to get on with it. But maybe it's not the best way.
See ya, John!
(More exciting fun at unproductivity.)
Article comments
1 - Temple A. Stark
OK That's just scary. It'sa been a year !!!!!!!!
I saw The Who about a week later at the Gorge at George in Washington state.
The good pics and commentary are here.
2 - Tom Johnson
Those early shows must have been very emotional for the band and fans. I can't imagine having seen them literally just days after John's death. Pino Palladino's one of the absolute best bassists in the world, but having someone else stage-right must have been very difficult for those long-time fans, the ones who were there for the Keith Moon days, to handle.
I don't know whether you're interested or not, but you can order a copy of the show you saw. A bit pricey, but a great keep-sake. I actually forked out the cash for FOUR of these shows (for the few "rarities" they played at various shows.)
3 - Eric Olsen
Therer is nothing wrong with carrying on, but I think they should call it something else to acknowledge the importance of the missing half of the band, and they were a real band where the sum was far greater than the parts.
I am also still really pissed at John for being such a dumbass at such an advanced age.
4 - Temple A. Stark
$16 isn't pricey. No way. And I am a little disappointed - I thought you were talking about the Gorge show. :)
Oops - nevermind 16 pounds sterling IS "a bit pricey"
5 - Temple A. Stark
I didn't even scroll down - I didn't even think they wold bother - but, yep, The Gorge concert is there.
Thanks for getting me there.
6 - Tom Johnson
Eric: I too would probably rather see the future works be issued under something else, maybe just under their own names. In fact, that might be a better suggestion, since they wouldn't have the weight of The Who's legacy on them. They'd be free to perform whatever they wanted live - it wouldn't have to be a greatest hits show like any Who show is likely to be now. Given Pete's stubborn personality, I doubt it's likely anything they do will be called anything but The Who. But, like I said, I think that what they come up with might just live up to the moniker. Pete's got a lot of demons to work through after the past year . . .