Can someone explain why The Who are opening for Roger Waters?

Like it or not, it isn't Roger Waters.
It's The Wall
or Dark Side in full
Some day both albums will tour or become Broadway/Las Vegas staples without Pink.
Bank on it.

The best thing would be dueling Rock Operas. Tommy v. The Wall

 

I agree, when it was still the 3 + Zak I didn't miss Moon that much. But without John they just don't sound like the real Who to me anymore.

Roger puts on a great show no matter who he is playing with it seems, so whether it's PF or not doesn't make much difference. YMMV

 

could be a nice title for the next Who album...

 

I know you said this in jest, but it's only Roger who goes to be early.

 

is that a shot at Roger's vocals?

 

It'd be great if Waters set ended up consisting of a 100 minute jam on 'Walk With Me Sydney'. Give the crowd a singalong on the Sunday night.

 

They both rule!

 

Why is GE Smith a hack?

 

Possibly because Waters doing Pink Floyd numbers would be more relevant and of interest to a younger audience than The Who. Pink Floyd have way more widespread appeal.

 

It was a financial decision...

Changing "The Who" to "The Wall" in big letters on the stage was going to be easier than other options.

 

Er, because The Who aren't very interesting, but Waters is great?

 

Most of you guys probably saw this post in the other thread about the festival but if not: this article reveals that the acts are not all being paid the same -- the Stones, McCartney and Waters are considered to be the headliners and are being paid more:

Sources say primary headliners the Stones, McCartney and Pink Floyd’s Waters will pull in between $7 million and $10 million each, while the “support” acts (an odd concept for legends like Dylan, Young and The Who) will well earn more than $1 million apiece. According to a source familiar with the talent layout, at least four of the acts will score the highest paydays of their respective careers.

Could the Stones-McCartney-Waters-Headlining Desert Trip Concert Rake In a Staggering $100 Million? »

 

This festival would be the greatest ever if it was 1972.

 

'Roger' will headline, one way or another.

 

If Roger did "Walk With Me Sydney" in any capacity, it would be the coolest thing he ever did!

 

If I said, back in '72, that Pink Floyd would be bigger than The Who, laughter would abound.

 

Well stated. What a mess indeed. This would have been a mind blowing concert about 20 or even 30 years ago. Today? Kinda sad. Will the folks in the expensive seats rattle their jewelry?

Love,
Billy

 

Could it be Daltrey's voice is shot in my opinion? Waters never had one so less people will notice.

 

Well, THAT doesn't make any sense ... -E

 

I missed it--thanks!-E

 

Because Who's on first.

 

This is why!

 

That Pink Floyd has more widespread appeal is one of those crazy things I've just had to accept, like Nirvana getting big instead of Swervedriver, but it's the Roger Waters solo part that was hard to swallow. Waters' songs about his father dying in the war and that crazy friend he had are more relevant to a younger audience than The Who's many anthems about teenagers (and others) on the outside looking in? I mean, it genuinely doesn't make any sense to me. That said, on a more log(ist)ical note, I have been schooled on Roger's late-career success as a solo act, of which I genuinely was totally unaware, so this thread really has served its purpose. The answer may not make sense to me on any level, but it answers the question by invoking figures of which I was totally unaware. -E

 

Time for the lot to pack it in