The Who: Why not call themselves Townsend and Daltrey?

ealasaid76

I can't believe they're going on tour as the Who. 30 years ago, Keith Moon died. John Entwistle died 6 years ago.

I would love to see those two live, but not as the Who.

Anyone with me?

xSmackSoundx

Agreed

Ledbetterman10

disagreed

I know you're referencing "Page & Plant" but those two got together like 15 years after the end of Led Zeppelin. Unlike Zeppelin when Bonham died, The Who carried on right after Keith's death, so why wouldn't they continue on after John's?

LikeAnOcean

Who cares. It's just a name. A title.. it has nothing to do with the music. Don't read it if it bother's you that much.

ealasaid76

Would Pearl Jam be Pearl Jam without any of the guys? Meaning: Stone, Jeff, Mike or Ed?

I don't think so. See my point?

release30

Then if Zep goes on a full tour we will just call them The Page, Plant,and JPJ Trio....

Wilds

Disagree. This is a good question and subject to debate and personal opinion.

Ledbetterman10

Speeddiva8 wrote:

Would Pearl Jam be Pearl Jam without any of the guys? Meaning: Stone, Jeff, Mike or Ed?

I don't think so. See my point?

I think that's different just on the basis of, as I've said, they carried on as The Who after Keith died.

but I see what you're saying and I think it holds true with other circumstances. Was Black Sabbath with Ronnie James Dio "Black Sabbath" umm....no. Was Pink Floyd really "Pink Floyd" when they were recording without Roger Waters. I say no.

But The Who with Ringo's son on the drumkit? I'll take that. It's all in good fun.

Pearl Jam can't carry on as "Pearl Jam" if a member leaves. and at this point, that even includes Matt.

ealasaid76

If JE dies, no original bassist...and they have a fill in player, plus a drum player...then it's NOT the Who.

Sure, they can play the songs, but it's not the same.

Don't site Zeppelin, because they still have 3 original members.

Brain Of E

Yes I believe that they can continue using the name The Who, just like Axl Rose can continue using Guns 'N Roses. This is how they've been recognized all this time. If they started releasing stuff as Roger & Pete, people would be like "Who the fuck is Roger and Pete and why are they covering the Who?" I think that if you have at least one original member that was a major contributor and are still playing the same songs, then you can continue using the same name. Pearl Jam didn't change their name when Dave was booted, and they still won't change it if Stone or Ed or whomever leaves. The above reference to Sabbath was correct, just because Ozzy was gone, they could continue using the name because they played the same songs and Iommi was still a major contributor. Audioslave could have kept the name RATM because Morello was still in the band, but they chose not to play the same old songs, so they changed the name.

More examples:
Van Halen
Metallica
Pink Floyd
Journey
Faith No More

norm

so you only listen to the beatles with pete best?

gleemonex

I agree. The Who is not The Who anymore. They should change their name.

Stephen Flow

lol who cares.

red mos

Speeddiva8 wrote:

I can't believe they're going on tour as the Who. 30 years ago, Keith Moon died. John Entwistle died 6 years ago.

I would love to see those two live, but not as the Who.

Anyone with me?

I see your point, but many bands have carried on with the bands name after original members have passed or have added new additional members to the group. Bands have been doing it time and time again. I don't like it though when bands get new lead vocalists. I mean the vocalists can usually do a decent job, but carrying on in that sense really does kind of bug me even though bands have done that religiously too. I did see Foreigner last year and it's a whole new band with the exception of guitarist Mick Jones. Kelly Hanson still did a decent job on vox but it was weird calling the band foreigner. Got to see Jason Bonham on drums though, that was kick ass.

ajedigecko

Speeddiva8 wrote:

Would Pearl Jam be Pearl Jam without any of the guys? Meaning: Stone, Jeff, Mike or Ed?

I don't think so. See my point?

i see it.

ajedigecko

red mos wrote:

I see your point, but many bands have carried on with the bands name after original members have passed or have added new additional members to the group. Bands have been doing it time and time again. I don't like it though when bands get new lead vocalists. I mean the vocalists can usually do a decent job, but carrying on in that sense really does kind of bug me even though bands have done that religiously too. I did see Foreigner last year and it's a whole new band with the exception of guitarist Mick Jones. Kelly Hanson still did a decent job on vox but it was weird calling the band foreigner. Got to see Jason Bonham on drums though, that was kick ass.

i went to aic show here last year in wichita........the guy is an amazing replacement.

adam42381

So you're saying Guns N' Roses should just be called the Axl Rose Project? Oh, wait, that actually makes sense sense he's the only original guy...

Blind Melon

People are always so up in arms about a band keeping the same name if a band member or members leave... who cares, as long as there is one original member, then I say why not keep the name? I was actually thinking of starting a band and after everyone album, completely new members, no one from the previous album would be on this one and keep repeating this.

dana_b

cutback wrote:

so you only listen to the beatles with pete best?

Are you seriously comparing Daltrey and Townshend to Pete Best?

I don't give a flying fuck what they call themselves. They've been making incredible music for years and have the right to cll themselves any damn think they want to.

Wilds

It really is up to the band. I know there are legal obstacles sometimes. I'm ok with Page and Plant calling themselves Page and Plant, or Led Zeppelin. It sure felt like a Zep concert when I was there.

I saw the who on the late 90's Quadrophenia tour with JE and felt good about the idea that I was seeing The Who. Saw them again at the Rock Honors and felt the same way.

As for Floyd. They have gone through some changes. It's hard for me to call a Waters less Show a Pink Floyd concert, but they did produce a record or two without him.

That one is tough. Gilmore does have the name, but without Waters I don't completely buy it. Same as if John, Ringo and George had got together. I would have a hard time calling them the Beatles. But had it been John and Paul with either Ringo or George I wouldn't mind so much. Heck just John and Paul might have worked for me.

As for PJ. I think they could make it work with any "1" gone except for Eddie. He is too much the face and voice of PJ.

I'm not saying it would be easy, just that it could be done. Hopefully that doesn't happen for the next 40 years.

reversedarwinism

I know PJ loves them... whatever... my mom always liked them and I grew up with them, but they never got me like other bands. To me, its just corny, cheesy, clownish music. I like a few songs, but dislike most. "love reign over me" = cheese ball

augustwest

Speeddiva8 wrote:

I can't believe they're going on tour as the Who. 30 years ago, Keith Moon died. John Entwistle died 6 years ago.

I would love to see those two live, but not as the Who.

Anyone with me?

ha ha the only thing holding you out from seeing pete and roger is because of what they call themselves...omg! that is some funny shit

personally i could care what pete decides to call himself...he's the reason for buying a ticket. period.

augustwest

reversedarwinism wrote:

I know PJ loves them... whatever... my mom always liked them and I grew up with them, but they never got me like other bands. To me, its just corny, cheesy, clownish music. I like a few songs, but dislike most. "love reign over me" = cheese ball

have you ever listened to quadrophenia from start to finish?

have you ever seen the movie?

my guess is that you haven't. do your homework man! lmao

lazygun_99

LikeAnOcean wrote:

Who cares.

Potential new album title right there.

Get_Right

I dont really care what they call themselves as long as I get to hear townsend and daltrey play live again.

Get_Right

reversedarwinism wrote:

I know PJ loves them... whatever... my mom always liked them and I grew up with them, but they never got me like other bands. To me, its just corny, cheesy, clownish music. I like a few songs, but dislike most. "love reign over me" = cheese ball

I used to feel that they were no big deal until I saw them live.
love reign over me is not one of their best songs IMHO-nor do I really care for the PJ version.

Townsend is one of the greats.

surfanddestroy

I don't care what they are called as long as the music still sounds great.

Yefa

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

but I see what you're saying and I think it holds true with other circumstances. Was Black Sabbath with Ronnie James Dio "Black Sabbath" umm....no. Was Pink Floyd really "Pink Floyd" when they were recording without Roger Waters. I say no.

Agreed on Pink Floyd, but not on Black Sabbath. Heaven And Hell had Butler, Iommi, Ward, and Dio and is considered a classic Sabbath album. Mob Rules had the same lineup except Vinnie Appice was on drums instead of Ward...also considered a high quality Sabbath album.
I saw "Heaven and Hell" (really the Mob Rules lineup of Black Sabbath) twice last year & they were superb. I'm hoping to see them again next month on the Masters Of Metal tour.
At this point I don't think any person with ears would argue that Ozzy is currently a better singer than Dio.

Soupy

Pete Townsend wrote 95% of The Who's music and lyrics. Roger is the singer the most unique sounding part of any band. No doubt Keith was an amazing drumming and John was great on Bass but they can be replaced with out to much of a loss. You lose the creative writing force or the vocalist and it's different.

Joe2TheRevenge

Why bother putting out albums that sound like The Who, and touring Who material, and not call it the Who?

seriously.

It's not like Townsend died and Daltrey brought in some random guitar player to write all the music.

You've got the music and the voice. No one really cares about the drummer anyway. Or the bass player. Anyone can play their parts.

g under p

Speeddiva8 wrote:

I can't believe they're going on tour as the Who. 30 years ago, Keith Moon died. John Entwistle died 6 years ago.

I would love to see those two live, but not as the Who.

Anyone with me?

Hell No, they have a right to call themselves whatever they want and they put on a wonderful show March 2007 on their final stop in Hollywood, Florida.

Peace