For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
tatters
If, sometime in the 1990s, Pete Townshend and John Entwistle had recorded and toured without Roger, would that have been The Who? I think maybe yes. Just barely, but yes, maybe.
Quote
shortfatfannyQuote
tatters
If, sometime in the 1990s, Pete Townshend and John Entwistle had recorded and toured without Roger, would that have been The Who? I think maybe yes. Just barely, but yes, maybe.
No,I don´t think so.Consider the "Queen"revival,it´s strongly questionable to name
that "Queen",not only Freddie´s dead and John Deacon not willing to take part.
The same with the Who and Led Zeppelin,because the identification belonging to groups of this caliber is mainly manifested with their singers.
So a Led Zeppelin without Plant is just anything - but really not Led Zeppelin.
That Jason Bonham was engaged at the show was to the opposite really charming,he
fitted perfectly.
Not the question, but regarding the stones - if there will be ever a show with just mick and keith without charlie and ronnie (beside others prominent or not prominent) they
COULD but they WOULDN´T call it stones - maybe glimmer twins,...remember the show
they did for NY in 2001 - they didn´t appear as the rolling stones.
Quote
tatters
I disagree with your Stones comment, though. As long as Mick and Keith are in the band, they will call it the Rolling Stones. Nobody is going to pay $500 for a "Glimmer Twins" ticket. The casual fans who fill the stadiums don't even know what that means.
Quote
mr edwardQuote
tatters
I disagree with your Stones comment, though. As long as Mick and Keith are in the band, they will call it the Rolling Stones. Nobody is going to pay $500 for a "Glimmer Twins" ticket. The casual fans who fill the stadiums don't even know what that means.
Which is exactly why they WILL call it Led Zeppeling and May and Rogers are touring as Queen. Money. If they played just for the un of it or to proove they can still rock, why not take on a new bandname and see who would still come to see you?
Quote
mr edward
Okay, ROLLINGSTONE, but do you think that there's actually something on stage that even deserves the name Queen? Without Mercury, Queen had four members, only half of them are playing...
Quote
ROLLINGSTONE
So is it all about when a lead singer leaves? Is it all about how many originals are left in a line-up? Or is it all really just about the name of a band? A mere label.
Ridiculous extreme: The Classical Masters are long gone but their music thrives and lives on.
Quote
Ladykiller
It could be possible, that the 3 do the music and when it's nearly finished Robert Plant join them and does the vocal parts! I do not think, they will release an instrumental album.
Quote
shortfatfanny
No,I don´t think so.Consider the "Queen"revival,it´s strongly questionable to name
that "Queen",not only Freddie´s dead and John Deacon not willing to take part.
The same with the Who and Led Zeppelin,because the identification belonging to groups of this caliber is mainly manifested with their singers.
Quote
GazzaQuote
shortfatfanny
No,I don´t think so.Consider the "Queen"revival,it´s strongly questionable to name
that "Queen",not only Freddie´s dead and John Deacon not willing to take part.
The same with the Who and Led Zeppelin,because the identification belonging to groups of this caliber is mainly manifested with their singers.
The main identification with The Who is manifested through Roger Daltrey???
Quote
tattersQuote
GazzaQuote
shortfatfanny
No,I don´t think so.Consider the "Queen"revival,it´s strongly questionable to name
that "Queen",not only Freddie´s dead and John Deacon not willing to take part.
The same with the Who and Led Zeppelin,because the identification belonging to groups of this caliber is mainly manifested with their singers.
The main identification with The Who is manifested through Roger Daltrey???
To a large degree, yes.
Quote
tattersQuote
GazzaQuote
shortfatfanny
No,I don´t think so.Consider the "Queen"revival,it´s strongly questionable to name
that "Queen",not only Freddie´s dead and John Deacon not willing to take part.
The same with the Who and Led Zeppelin,because the identification belonging to groups of this caliber is mainly manifested with their singers.
The main identification with The Who is manifested through Roger Daltrey???
To a large degree, yes.
Quote
skipstone
Lynrd Skynrd is a perfect example - it's barely a shadow of the original band. Whereas the Waters-less Pink Floyd was just that.
Another worthless one is The Beach Boys. Oh yeah - Boston.
Quote
GazzaQuote
tattersQuote
GazzaQuote
shortfatfanny
No,I don´t think so.Consider the "Queen"revival,it´s strongly questionable to name
that "Queen",not only Freddie´s dead and John Deacon not willing to take part.
The same with the Who and Led Zeppelin,because the identification belonging to groups of this caliber is mainly manifested with their singers.
The main identification with The Who is manifested through Roger Daltrey???
To a large degree, yes.
Considering Townshend writes almost every song, and every career decision they make seems to originate from him, I wouldnt have thought that to be the case to anyone who knows the first thing about the band.
Quote
Gazza
LOL...well you made a good effort!
I do think you dont have to be 'Who-obsessed' to know who the main focal point of the band is, though.