Would you accept Paul & Ringo as "The Beatles" like Pete & Roger are "The Who"

I have to say that the best concert I ever saw in my life was The Who in 1996. Quadrophenia tour, the Ox was still with them. I've seen more concerts than I can remember, and that Who show is always my benchmark.

However I remember thinking during the show "This is incredible, but it's not the Who without Moon." Zack Starkey was good, but no mortal can compete with Moon.

That said, I can't understand why fragments of bands insist on calling themselves by their group names. The Who, Smashing Pumpkins, The Beach Boys...none of those bands have the artistic right to wave those flags.

Pete and Roger are...well, Pete and Roger. Not too much Who about them.

Would you accept a tour of Paul and Ringo as The Beatles (I always thought Paul and Ringo should join Pete and Roger and form a new band. Each has what the other is lacking, in terms of a full band)?

Mick and Keef as the Stones?

Would they get the same pass as Pete and Roger?

 

No

 

i think it would be cool

 

It's interesting that you say Pete and Roger get a pass, since literally every thread about modern Who activity is filled with posts about how they're not really The Who and they should have broken up when Moon or Entwistle died.

 

Pete and Roger are not The Who.
As Mazzy said, they should be called The Two.

 

No.

McCartney/Ringo : Beatles is not the same as Pete/Roger : The Who.

You can make an argument that, from a brand standpoint, Pete and Roger have been the focus of The Who for over 30 years (with all due respect to The Ox). Casual fans, when thinking of The Who, probably think of Pete and Roger and remember they had a crazy drummer back in the day. Not saying that's right or wrong. Just the way it seems to be.

But I'm guessing that even the most casual of Beatles fans visualize "Lennon/McCartney" before they think of George - or Ringo.

 

No. Roger and Pete are the leaders and frontmans of the group, its understandable that they still call themselves The Who, if Brian May and Freddie Mercury got together(I know Freddie is gone), people would be OK if they call themselves Queen, I guess.

 

No - It would be closer if it was John and Paul, but even that wouldn't be enough.

The Beatles are the definitive example of the sum being greater than the parts and you can't get away with a lesser version.

 

Paul McCartney and Rings???

 

Nope. I would love to see them together, maybe Paul could be a part of the All Starr Band. I think that's something he would have done in his younger days, just for fun, not anymore.
Throw in Pete Best and you would get a lot of interest from people who might not otherwise go to a show.

 

Sure, if the two of them would perform live together. Heck, I would even take a Paul and Ringo album!

 

To me, The Who aren't The Who.

 

No way

 

No, no, no...
No band was every made up of personalities and music the way the Beatles were.

 

Townshend wrote the songs, so without him: no Who.

A band with Pete Townshend in it, playing Who material, could just about get away with calling itself the Who. Add Roger Daltrey and the reasoning is enhanced.

I don't think the same could apply to a Macca/Ringo project, as Macca wasn't the exclusive songwriter in the Beatles (I know, neither was PT in the Who, but I think the point holds, just about).

 

No.

 

I hope this thread inspires a lot of "The Who ended for me in (fill in year)" posts because those are always so awesome and illuminating.

 

By extension, Yoko, Olivia, Barbara, and Nancy should start a group called the Beatlettes.

 

Julian Lennon, James McCartney, Dhani Harrison, and Zak Starkey would be the Beatlings.

 

they ended for me with It's Hard.

 

they both know that wouldn't work, thankfully. and them joining with pete & roger would be pathetic at best. ringo cutting moon's parts sounds almost funny. ringo doesn't even seem to want to play ringo's parts by himself anymore on his tours.
i would never ask my 15 year old dog to play frisbee anymore. would be hard on him and could kill him.

 

Well...damn! You took the wind out of my sails.

 

Using my same logic earlier, as much as I'd hate to say it, the average listener would accept Keith and Mick as "The Stones," much like Axl and Slash = GNR, or Perry and Tyler = Aerosmith.

Personally, no Charlie = no Stones. I'd still be happy to see Mick and Keith perform and/or record as a duo - but Charlie is as much a part of the Stones and just as intgregal to their sound. They wouldn't (or shouldn't - and won't) be "The Rolling Stones" with just the singer and guitarist.

Thank goodness none of us on this board are "average" listeners!

 

I'd gladly accept them as Paul and Ringo, that should be enough to fill the seats.

 

No way. I don't accept The Who with only two members. They should be called The Two. If McCartney and Ringo did anything, they would have to be called The Twotles.