they're tryna trick us into thinking The Who were/are as celebrated/popular/important as The Beatles and The Stones by placing The Who in context w/those groups. i've noticed The Who playing gigs McCartney and/or The Stones have previously played. like the SB half time show. and VH1 gave The Who an hours-long tribute special like last yr or som'n.

meanwhile whenever i hear the group play these days i hear the same songs - and they're not among my faves. 'Pinball Wizard', 'Won't Get Fooled Again' and 'Who Are You'. they're no 'Can't Buy Me Love' or 'Hey Jude' or 'Satisfaction' or 'Sympathy for the Devil' but they want us to believe The Who's songs are on the same level of acclaim. those songs are not. and The Who generally don't have enough classics (albums or songs) to be placed in the same company w/the Beatles and Stones. but they're tryna trick the kids into believing that's the case.

it ain't.

fuck you.

Townsends overrated as a guitar player too.

fuck you.

just the British invasion, the Mod movement, and riding the wave. Sorta how I see certain folks during the Dilla invasion.

However that said, they did give some innovation to both the studio and the stage triggering synths - normally pre-recorded but pulling from the synth racks - while they played. That's a stage scenario now used like water by alot of pop bands (normally pre-recorded/alongw ith the vocals - see Frank Ocean and the Weeknd and other talentless pop acts) but back then was almost unthinkable. Honestly it should have stayed with them. That and the fact that Townsend wrote mostly all the material and played the majority of instruments outside of the drums.

Other than that, yeah they suck ass and it was their "look" that sold them. Once Zep came along - it was pretty much a wrap. However their music was so "British" I don't think most Americans really got it, but the Brits - same folks who made Slade their darlings, love em. SMH.

chalk this one up to being a 'time period/overly white British/ had to be there type of thing'.

Actually, the love affair is all about two things....

The impact Tommy had on rock music (everybody and their mama wanted to be a high concept album with an actual storyline after that for better or worse) and The Who as a live band...


Let me say this for The Who...

As a live band (in their prime) they shit on the Beatles and Stones (Sans the Mick Taylor, Exile era)...They just do...

They played harder, stronger and with more passion...They made their peers look like a string quartet...

Do they have the catalogue of the Beatles or level of song? Nope...

Would they humiliate them live onstage?

Absolutely....

GOAT of his era......long live Prince.....God is alive....

I would say their impact came well before that

Quadrophenia would be the one (Hell even Sting debuted in that film). Tommy may be one that many remember but I'm fairly sure the film and the movie got a lukewarm - somewhat 'way too much going on' response from the critics, sorta a sign of the end in terms of newer music from them.

However that's true... I would argue their live shows were way more energetic, harder rocking, etc. However again.. folks are saying The Beatles and the Stones (who actually weren't so bad live themselves) but you see for my money it's Zepp. Once Zepp came along the game shifted cause Page is a better guitarist, Zepp had better songs, etc. As an elder once told me 'it was all about the Who until we found Zeppelin'.

>I would say their impact came well before tha

Mixed bag.

Monterey put them onto the American radar. But that was 1967 - I believe The Who Sing My Generation hadn't even been released stateside until just before that - and they were opening for Herman's Hermits on that tour, if memory serves. Not an ideal setting, analolgous to Hendrix opening for the Monkees.

So the Monterey Pop film was released in 1968 which put them square in front of filmgoers, and gave them the ability to headline.

Tommy then launched them from clubs and into the theaters, then the arenas and eventually the stratosphere. It was enormous.

>Quadrophenia would be the one (Hell even Sting debuted in that
>film).

Nah... despite the corniness of Tommy, it's a whole story. Quadrophenia, the story isn't at all clear from listening to the record. The live show, which is where they really dove into using triggers, was fraught with technical difficulties.

It doesn't help that the movie, when it finally came out (three years or so after the Tommy film, and almost a decade after the Tommy record), kinda stank.

> Tommy may be one that many remember but I'm fairly
>sure the film and the movie got a lukewarm - somewhat 'way too
>much going on' response from the critics, sorta a sign of the
>end in terms of newer music from them.

That's b/c the film kinda stinks too. It does a great job telling the story in a unique way, but it can't hide the corniness of a story about a deaf dumb and blind kid who plays pinball.

There're some great scenes in there though. The Marilyn Monroe chapel is one of my favorite cinematic pieces. Creepy, bizarre, and fucking groovy... and god god, Arthur Brown as a priest. Singing over Clapton's guitar doing a Sonny Boy Williamson tune. Damn fine stuff.

> but you see for my money it's Zepp.

I think the Zep-Who comparison is pretty valid... Zep's going to come out on top, largely b/c their catalog is stronger, but that's possibly in large part b/c it's smaller.

As far as getting an idea of where each LZ might have gone... Townsend's post-Who catalog, for example, is way way better than either Plant's or Page's.

-------
so I'm in a band now:
album ---> http://greenwoodburns.bandcamp.com/releases
Soundcloud ---> http://soundcloud.com/greenwood-burns

my own stuff -->http://soundcloud.com/lonesomedstringband

avy by buckshot_defunct

Tommy did have impact - regardless of the impact of critics to the film. To this day it remains one of the most imaginative and self indulgent rock films... ever.



1965 - The Who Sings My Generation
1966 - A Quick One
1967 - The Who Sell Out
1969 - Tommy
1971 - Who's Next
1973 - Quadrophenia
1974 - Odds & Sods
1975 - The Who By Numbers
1978 - Who Are You
1981 - Face Dances
1983 - It's Hard
1994 - 30 Years of Maximum R&B
2000 - Live At The Royal Albert Hall
2002 - The Ultimate Collection

at least compared to the Beatles. The Beatles stopped playing live shows pretty early on. Nobody got to see Sgt. Pepper, etc played live. Who knows what those shows would have looked like...

-------
so I'm in a band now:
album ---> http://greenwoodburns.bandcamp.com/releases
Soundcloud ---> http://soundcloud.com/greenwood-burns

my own stuff -->http://soundcloud.com/lonesomedstringband

avy by buckshot_defunct

The Fab Four - not the Beatles are a great Sgt Peppers tribute band.
Saw them in VA they do the whole Peppers and Magical Mystery Tour live... with backing dubs for keys but really convincing.

here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8q-ShxRCUA

>at least compared to the Beatles. The Beatles stopped playing
>live shows pretty early on. Nobody got to see Sgt. Pepper, etc
>played live. Who knows what those shows would have looked
>like...


They would have sounded like that Rooftop gig...Good, but not on the Who's level....

GOAT of his era......long live Prince.....God is alive....

if they were world touring, selling out stadiums? The rooftop gig, while probably not that impromptu, has a back to basics aesthetic to it. Those songs aren't their big, arrangement-heavy tracks.

While it's all speculation, I think it's fair to say with their resources and creativity, the Beatles could have put on some crazy live shows, if they wanted to.

>Townsends overrated as a guitar player too.

He was one of the first incorporating feedback and sheer noise into solos and really elevated the power-chord to its current status in rock.
I find the Who overrated in numerous ways but definitely not that. Being a good guitarplayer is not just about technique or the ability to play bluesy, soulful or funky-ESPECIALLY not in aggressive rock.

Hendrix built on a lot of stuff he did and undeniably added both technique and more "roots" but that doesn't mean that Townsend didn't have impact on him.

before Townsed did though I believe..

and both of those guys were very big influences on Jimi Hendrix...particulary johnny guitar....

I felt like Townsend overstated a bit what Jimi took from him...the way he made it out was like Jimi had not been exposed to those types of things prior to seeing them from Townsend..

but there are accounts of him doing it before The Who even came out when he was playing with other groups....

Townsend is a great guitarist..no doubt...I just don't put him as high as others might.

They're still alive
They have the song of the "generation"
And they'll take a check to play okey doke events.

In general I agree with you, but they also once had Moon. They are legendary even if nowhere near the legends.
________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

not "the best" but the greatest. And also very likely the greatest character in rock history.

I don't consider myself a rabid fan (anymore) and haven't really listened actively to them in 25 years, but it's more revisionist to downplay them then to give them props.

-------
so I'm in a band now:
album ---> http://greenwoodburns.bandcamp.com/releases
Soundcloud ---> http://soundcloud.com/greenwood-burns

my own stuff -->http://soundcloud.com/lonesomedstringband

avy by buckshot_defunct

If not that's pretty fucked up.
________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

and Ringo's son gets checks for the shows they're doing now that he's playing in.

fuck you.

>they're tryna trick us into thinking The Who were/are as
>celebrated/popular/important as The Beatles and The Stones by
>placing The Who in context w/those groups. i've noticed The
>Who playing gigs McCartney and/or The Stones have previously
>played. like the SB half time show. and VH1 gave The Who an
>hours-long tribute special like last yr or som'n.

The Who is a fascinating band with a fascinating history, both musical and social.

>meanwhile whenever i hear the group play these days i hear the
>same songs - and they're not among my faves. 'Pinball
>Wizard', 'Won't Get Fooled Again' and 'Who Are You'. they're
>no 'Can't Buy Me Love' or 'Hey Jude' or 'Satisfaction' or
>'Sympathy for the Devil' but they want us to believe The Who's
>songs are on the same level of acclaim. those songs are not.
>and The Who generally don't have enough classics (albums or
>songs) to be placed in the same company w/the Beatles and
>Stones. but they're tryna trick the kids into believing
>that's the case.

To put things in a little bit of context:
-The Who came after the Beatles and Stones, sure, by about a year to 18 months, but they was among the first to be truly aggro in rock music, both musically and in physical presentation. There's a reason their 1965 records are considered proto-punk by many. Wtch a video of them from 1965 and compare it to a show by the Stones or Beatles from the same era, and it's very very different - but still very very influential.
-The Who played prominent time slots in the three era-defining shows of the classic rock period: Monterey Pop, Woodstock, Isle of Wight, and featured prominently in the films and soundtracks for all three. The Beatles and Stones played none of those.
-in fact, while their live performances of the last 20 years may make it difficult to see, a lot of their reputation rests on being an album band with an incredible live show, rather than a singles band with massive sales
-The Who were the first act to bring rock music to "respectable theaters," most notably the Metropolitan Opera House
-Tommy, while corny as hell, was incredibly influential and has been recorded in at least 4 iterations - the original, the London Symphony Orchestra version, the soundtrack to the film, and the soundtrack to the Broadway musical.
-The Who were among the first acts to tour arenas, and made shitloads of money by doing so.
-The Who had 9 straight US top ten albums between 1969 and 1982, and another in 2006 (!)
-Inductees into the Rock Hall in first year of eligibility; Kennedy Center Honorees; Grammy Lifetime Achievement Honorees; etc. etc.
-Personal anecdote: in 1989, they did their 25th anniversary tour. I camped out for tickets to the Veterans Stadium show. The Vet held something like 80,000. people. I didn't get tickets because they sold out before my turn came up.
-Since at least the late '70s, segments of rock journalism has considered them the 3d part of the trinity with the Beatles and Stones.

*edit* in other words, even if the current "who" is a lame shadow of their many previous incarnations relying on a handful of overplayed songs, and even if they have never sold as many as Pink Floyd or Elton John, the idea that they are a top=tier act worth of comparison to the Stones and Beatles is far from a new idea and has some historic merit.

-------
so I'm in a band now:
album ---> http://greenwoodburns.bandcamp.com/releases
Soundcloud ---> http://soundcloud.com/greenwood-burns

my own stuff -->http://soundcloud.com/lonesomedstringband

avy by buckshot_defunct

>The Who is a fascinating band with a fascinating history, both
>musical and social.

not really.


>To put things in a little bit of context:
>-The Who came after the Beatles and Stones, sure, by about a
>year to 18 months, but they was among the first to be truly
>aggro in rock music, both musically and in physical
>presentation. There's a reason their 1965 records are
>considered proto-punk by many. Wtch a video of them from 1965
>and compare it to a show by the Stones or Beatles from the
>same era, and it's very very different - but still very very
>influential.

sure.

>-The Who played prominent time slots in the three era-defining
>shows of the classic rock period: Monterey Pop, Woodstock,
>Isle of Wight, and featured prominently in the films and
>soundtracks for all three. The Beatles and Stones played none
>of those.

Beatles & Stones are/were bigger than those festivals. they didn't play any of the 3 but are still around. Beatles are around even though 1/2 of the members are dead. if the Who hadn't played those festivals would they still be around?

>-in fact, while their live performances of the last 20 years
>may make it difficult to see, a lot of their reputation rests
>on being an album band with an incredible live show, rather
>than a singles band with massive sales

that makes sense.

>-The Who were the first act to bring rock music to
>"respectable theaters," most notably the Metropolitan Opera
>House

*yawns*

that Rock Opera shit is almost as boring as actual Opera.

>-Tommy, while corny as hell, was incredibly influential and
>has been recorded in at least 4 iterations - the original, the
>London Symphony Orchestra version, the soundtrack to the film,
>and the soundtrack to the Broadway musical.

*yawns*

so?

>-The Who were among the first acts to tour arenas, and made
>shitloads of money by doing so.

'The Who Sell Out'. LOL

>-The Who had 9 straight US top ten albums between 1969 and
>1982, and another in 2006 (!)

*yawns*

Beatles had a NUMBER ONE album in 2006. a compilation. of songs that'd appeared on dozens of compilations before.

>-Inductees into the Rock Hall in first year of eligibility;
>Kennedy Center Honorees; Grammy Lifetime Achievement Honorees;
>etc. etc.

and here goes the revising. b/c i wouldn't have given the group most of those honors. RRHOF, sure. Kennedy Center? hell no. Grammy Lifetime Achievement? for what? no.

>-Personal anecdote: in 1989, they did their 25th anniversary
>tour. I camped out for tickets to the Veterans Stadium show.
>The Vet held something like 80,000. people. I didn't get
>tickets because they sold out before my turn came up.

cool story, bro.

j/k

>-Since at least the late '70s, segments of rock journalism has
>considered them the 3d part of the trinity with the Beatles
>and Stones.

*record scratches*

so what i'm talking about stretches all the way back to the late 70s? wow.

>*edit* in other words, even if the current "who" is a lame
>shadow of their many previous incarnations relying on a
>handful of overplayed songs, and even if they have never sold
>as many as Pink Floyd or Elton John, the idea that they are a
>top=tier act worth of comparison to the Stones and Beatles is
>far from a new idea and has some historic merit.

again, let's name songs. The Who do not have nearly as many classics in their catalog as The Beatles or The Stones.

2nd tier act. they don't move to the 1st tier simply b/c they're not dead. Crosby, Stills & Nash ain't dead either. are they 1st tier? Creedence Clearwater Revival? 1st tier? i see the Who on the same level as those acts, but for the revision of history.

fuck you.

>not really.

I dunno, man. I never get tired of watching The Kids Are Alright. And when I stumbled onto one of those VH1 things last year, I was glued to the set. Up til Keith Moon died, anyway.


>Beatles & Stones are/were bigger than those festivals.

Brian Jones was an honorary MC at Monterey. And there were rumors all weekend that the Beatles would make an unscheduled appearance.

> they
>didn't play any of the 3 but are still around. Beatles are
>around even though 1/2 of the members are dead. if the Who
>hadn't played those festivals would they still be around?

yep


>that Rock Opera shit is almost as boring as actual Opera.

maybe, but 25 years after it was made the Broadway show was in the middle of an almost 900 show run.

And the point to the 4 iterations (plus a film and a theater adaptation) is simply to say that not a lot of rock albums have gotten that kind of treatment.

>'The Who Sell Out'. LOL

My favorite of their records!

Also, the Petra Hayden a capella covers version is pretty nice.

>Beatles had a NUMBER ONE album in 2006. a compilation. of
>songs that'd appeared on dozens of compilations before.

See, no one is saying The Who is >>>> the Beatles. In fact, I just googled "The Who comparisons to the Beatles" and "the Who comparisons to the Stones", and there is no link in the first several pages for either that even mentions the Who (though there are several that mention One Direction. Go figure.)

There's a limit to how often you can run specials on the Beatles and the Stones. Are The Who a decent selection for after that? Sure.


>and here goes the revising. b/c i wouldn't have given the
>group most of those honors. RRHOF, sure. Kennedy Center?
>hell no. Grammy Lifetime Achievement? for what? no.

"The Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award is awarded by the Recording Academy to "performers who, during their lifetimes, have made creative contributions of outstanding artistic significance to the field of recording.""

Looking over the list of awardees, however, I'd say it's based on equal parts "artistic significance" and "recognition of long-term popular impact" more than creative contributions. Though in either case I think an argument can be made easily for The Who.

As for Kennedy Center honors, I agree in that I think they should be reserved for American musicians.

>so what i'm talking about stretches all the way back to the
>late 70s? wow.

"Along with the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, the Who complete the holy trinity of British rock." rolling stone, 2001

"Prime contenders, in the minds of many, for the title of World's Greatest Rock Band." - RRHOF, 1990

"No other group has ever pushed rock so far, or asked so much from it" - TIME, 1979

>again, let's name songs. The Who do not have nearly as many
>classics in their catalog as The Beatles or The Stones.

I don't feel like getting into a song-listing post. I'll just say again that no one is comparing the Who to the Beatles or Stones.

>2nd tier act. they don't move to the 1st tier simply b/c
>they're not dead. Crosby, Stills & Nash ain't dead either.
>are they 1st tier?

lol, they're my 2d love! Don't make me do this again.


>Creedence Clearwater Revival? 1st tier?
>i see the Who on the same level as those acts, but for the
>revision of history.

I'd say The Who and CSN/Y is a relatively good level of comparison. CCR, not really, if for nothing else the fact that their creative period was only 2-3 years while The Who retained a decent level of consistent quality and creative output for far longer. Maybe they have the same number of singles played on classic rock radio, but that's a pretty poor measure of greatness.

By that token, the Dead falls far shorter than any of those bands you mention, or anyone in maxxx's sig, and I'd put them above the Who in terms of 'greatness' and impact (regardless of which act I prefer).

-------
so I'm in a band now:
album ---> http://greenwoodburns.bandcamp.com/releases
Soundcloud ---> http://soundcloud.com/greenwood-burns

my own stuff -->http://soundcloud.com/lonesomedstringband

avy by buckshot_defunct

>There's a limit to how often you can run specials on the
>Beatles and the Stones. Are The Who a decent selection for
>after that? Sure.

and this is the reason why The Who get that treatment.


>I don't feel like getting into a song-listing post.

i'm sure. plus i have no doubt The Who would fall woefully short of the Beatles and Stones if such a list were created.

I'll just
>say again that no one is comparing the Who to the Beatles or
>Stones.

okay.

>I'd say The Who and CSN/Y is a relatively good level of
>comparison. CCR, not really, if for nothing else the fact that
>their creative period was only 2-3 years while The Who
>retained a decent level of consistent quality and creative
>output for far longer.

agreed.

Maybe they have the same number of
>singles played on classic rock radio, but that's a pretty poor
>measure of greatness.

well...

>By that token, the Dead falls far shorter than any of those
>bands you mention, or anyone in maxxx's sig, and I'd put them
>above the Who in terms of 'greatness' and impact (regardless
>of which act I prefer).

agreed. Dead > Who in terms of greatness and impact. both are 2nd tier acts.

fuck you.

>and this is the reason why The Who get that treatment.

and it's a perfectly good reason.

>>I don't feel like getting into a song-listing post.
>
>i'm sure. plus i have no doubt The Who would fall woefully
>short of the Beatles and Stones if such a list were created.

Probably. But it's also somewhat futile b/c you're not familiar with The Who's catalog. There are songs I consider great on all of their records, that like Bomb said stand up to anything from anyone, that don't get any airplay and aren't likely to show up in most of those documentaries and VH1 specials -

Blue, Red & Grey
Tattoo
Can't Reach You
Slip Kid
Trick of the Light
I'm One
Too Much of Anything
Naked Eye
jesus christ, the whole fucking Live at Leeds album
Disguises
Pictures of Lily
Circles (Instant Party)
The Good's Gone
Much Too Much
So Sad About Us

Jeeze. Guess you talked me into it. I'm a sucker.

Is it as many as The Beatles or The Stones? No. But - especially considering this is just personal favorites and avoids any conspicuous hits, of which they have enough to fill two CDs or more - it's much better than just respectable or even most "second-tier" acts.

-------
so I'm in a band now:
album ---> http://greenwoodburns.bandcamp.com/releases
Soundcloud ---> http://soundcloud.com/greenwood-burns

my own stuff -->http://soundcloud.com/lonesomedstringband

avy by buckshot_defunct

fuck you.

>both
>are 2nd tier acts.

Why is it important to rank music?

..it's crazy to me.

fuck you.

fuck you.

>
>agreed. Dead > Who in terms of greatness and impact. both
>are 2nd tier acts.

Greatness is subjective but the impact thing? I don't hear it. GD inspired jam-bands? I don't think that can compare with inspiring Hendrix and punk...

>
>>
>>agreed. Dead > Who in terms of greatness and impact. both
>>are 2nd tier acts.
>
>Greatness is subjective but the impact thing? I don't hear it.
>GD inspired jam-bands? I don't think that can compare with
>inspiring Hendrix and punk...
>

fuck you.

The Who was one of the bands hat invented what we today know as "rock" music--not pop like the Beatles, not rhythm & blues like the Stones. ROCK.

They were one of the first rock groups to move away from aping black American blues and soul music to find a uniquely British voice and sound.

They were one of the first (if not THE first) to apply "Art" aesthetics to rock music--and I mean WAY before Tommy. The group kinda WAS an art project in the early days when Kit Lambert and Chris Stamp were making the subject of that documentary.

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

>The Who was one of the bands hat invented what we today know
>as "rock" music--not pop like the Beatles, not rhythm & blues
>like the Stones. ROCK.
>
>They were one of the first rock groups to move away from aping
>black American blues and soul music to find a uniquely British
>voice and sound.
>
>They were one of the first (if not THE first) to apply "Art"
>aesthetics to rock music--and I mean WAY before Tommy. The
>group kinda WAS an art project in the early days when Kit
>Lambert and Chris Stamp were making the subject of that
>documentary.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

GOAT of his era......long live Prince.....God is alive....

>The Who was one of the bands hat invented what we today know
>as "rock" music--not pop like the Beatles, not rhythm & blues
>like the Stones. ROCK.
>
>They were one of the first rock groups to move away from aping
>black American blues and soul music to find a uniquely British
>voice and sound.
>
>They were one of the first (if not THE first) to apply "Art"
>aesthetics to rock music--and I mean WAY before Tommy. The
>group kinda WAS an art project in the early days when Kit
>Lambert and Chris Stamp were making the subject of that
>documentary.
>
>
asthetic to itself was a bad thing???

But it was something that the Who should be praised for doing to rock music?

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

I never said that the injection of "Artsy" sensibilities was inherently a bad thing that was negative from day one... I said that the "artsy" sensibility had trumped everything else to the point where it was all anybody talked about and that yes, it eventually did lead to a decline in catchiness, fun, and democracy in Black music.

Also, if you paid attention to my posts, I was at least as critical and dismissive of "white" rock music that elevated "artsiness" above all else.

(For evidence, look at almost any thread in which I talked about Radiohead, "progressive" rock or in which I argued with jefleejohnson about rock musicians "getting lost up their own arses"--no, I will not link. FInd it yourself.)

The point being: I felt and feel that bringing "Art" to pop music in general was an interesting experiment that yielded some really great results in the early days and occasionally still does. However, it has also led to a lot of pompousness, a lot of pretension, a lot of turgid bullshit... and yes, I happen to dislike it more in Black music. Probably because I listen more to Black music and as such, it is harder for me to just ignore the shit).

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

>I never said that the injection of "Artsy" sensibilities was
>inherently a bad thing that was negative from day one... I
>said that the "artsy" sensibility had trumped everything else
>to the point where it was all anybody talked about and that
>yes, it eventually did lead to a decline in catchiness, fun,
>and democracy in Black music.
>
>Also, if you paid attention to my posts, I was at least as
>critical and dismissive of "white" rock music that elevated
>"artsiness" above all else.
>
>(For evidence, look at almost any thread in which I talked
>about Radiohead, "progressive" rock or in which I argued with
>jefleejohnson about rock musicians "getting lost up their own
>arses"--no, I will not link. FInd it yourself.)
>
>The point being: I felt and feel that bringing "Art" to pop
>music in general was an interesting experiment that yielded
>some really great results in the early days and occasionally
>still does. However, it has also led to a lot of pompousness,
>a lot of pretension, a lot of turgid bullshit... and yes, I
>happen to dislike it more in Black music. Probably because I
>listen more to Black music and as such, it is harder for me to
>just ignore the shit).


the movement of rock towards art in this post here was mentioned in a complimentary manner regarding The Who...there is no question about that...

your previous references of Black music moving towards art was used as a criticism....

"when did Black music become infected with this highfalutin idea of Art?"

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=17&topic_id=76532&mesg_id=76532&page=3


You're applying 2 different standards to the 2 forms of music.... ie double standard...

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

the who put everybody to sleep at the halftime show.

they were a 2nd tier band at best and they weren't seeing the top tier ones then or now.

them turkeys got cbs blasting " who are you nightly and it still don't mean much.

them turkeys been riding off of "tommy" for 50 years and not much else.

they had some moments, however not like what is being pushed on us though.

mistermaxxx R.Kelly, Michael Jackson,Stevie wonder,Rick James,Marvin Gaye,El Debarge, Barry WHite Lionel RIchie,Isleys EWF,Lady T.,Kid creole and coconuts,the crusaders,kc sunshine band,bee gees,jW,sd,NE,JB

Miami Heat, New York Yankees,buffalo bills

fuck you.

that song doesn't get old to me.

“So back we go to these questions — friendship, character… ethics.”

i had to look it up b/c i know it as 'Teenage Wasteland'. LOL

fuck you.

though I did enjoy seeing the Blue Man Group recreate the synth part beautifully on their PVC instruments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_Y26JNd3g4

-------
so I'm in a band now:
album ---> http://greenwoodburns.bandcamp.com/releases
Soundcloud ---> http://soundcloud.com/greenwood-burns

my own stuff -->http://soundcloud.com/lonesomedstringband

avy by buckshot_defunct

>they're tryna trick us into thinking The Who were/are as
>celebrated/popular/important as The Beatles and The Stones by
>placing The Who in context w/those groups.

Who is they? Come up with more than two examples and I'll concede the point.

I don't hear many people trying to put The Who on the same level as the Beatles and the Stones. Those are the twin poles of rock's early identity; everybody else is an also-ran in comparison, though The Who are probably at or near the top of the heap underneath them. I like 'em, but I'm content with a 2CD best-of; never felt the need to really dive into their albums, which says everything I guess.

However, I think it's weird that people are in here trying to say they have no classic songs, or even very few. Baba O'Riley, Won't Get Fooled Again, My Generation, The Kids Are Alright, Who Are You - those are classics up there with all but the very best of the Beatles and Stones. Their lesser tracks (Substitute, Behind Blue Eyes, and... sigh... Pinball Wizard) are as good as the lesser singles of those other two bands. They were a very good band. Not the greatest, but good.

If they have an inflated rep, it's not because they're still active. It's because a real second-tier act like CCR could never inspire a scene like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Asha8x15uo

Or this (dopey as it is): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1Kss-8eEko

CCR wrote some highly enjoyable songs, but Fogerty's best tune doesn't touch The Who's 6th or 8th best. Bottom line.

--

but you cannot deny them their place - that is revisionism. Do I think they were assholes?

Well answering the Smother's brother's when asking the lead singer "Where are you from?" and he says "Oz"... says it all.

However that's relative. Their place in music is undeniable.

>>they're tryna trick us into thinking The Who were/are as
>>celebrated/popular/important as The Beatles and The Stones
>by
>>placing The Who in context w/those groups.
>
>Who is they?

them.

>I don't hear many people trying to put The Who on the same
>level as the Beatles and the Stones.

SB half time show producers. VH1. start w/them.

Those are the twin poles
>of rock's early identity; everybody else is an also-ran in
>comparison, though The Who are probably at or near the top of
>the heap underneath them. I like 'em, but I'm content with a
>2CD best-of; never felt the need to really dive into their
>albums, which says everything I guess.

agreed. and i could do w/a single CD, if that.

note: there are no Who songs in my library.

fuck you.

>them.

yuh huh.

>SB half time show producers. VH1. start w/them.

The Who playing the Super Bowl = The Who being as big as The Beatles..? Fucking Shania Twain played the Super Bowl; I don't see anybody complaining that she doesn't have any songs as good as "Hey Jude" around here. Because obviously, that is stupid.

>agreed. and i could do w/a single CD, if that.

I feel that way about a lot of great bands though. Don't have time for everything. Actually, I'll admit right now I don't own one Beatles full-length. That doesn't change the fact that I think they're probably the greatest pop-rock band ever, but I just don't need to hear all their material on a regular enough basis for it to be worth owning, to me.

>note: there are no Who songs in my library.

Note to your note: that is close to a meaningless statement. I'd accept it as meaningful if we instead replaced it with a poll of people who are at least somewhat interested in pre-80s rock 'n roll. But this whole "win an argument by asserting and re-asserting personal preference" thing does nothing for me.

--

fuck you.

fucking a woman who just lays there and grunts sarcastically.

--

so, i agree.

fuck you.

I only have The Who Sing My Generation, and then the LSO version of Tommy (which is excellent).


Ah, no, I also have Sell Out.


I'm not sure I own any other albums. I don't think so. But I was immersed in their music and albums during my earliest formative (in terms of taste) years... hell, I remember going over the the house of the neighbor who had HBO just so we could catch the "Farewell" concert special in 1982.

-------
so I'm in a band now:
album ---> http://greenwoodburns.bandcamp.com/releases
Soundcloud ---> http://soundcloud.com/greenwood-burns

my own stuff -->http://soundcloud.com/lonesomedstringband

avy by buckshot_defunct

which is not to say i've never had any Who songs in my library. just that i don't now.

i had a copy of Tommy during college. and i sold it b/c it bored me.

fuck you.

>they're tryna trick us into thinking The Who were/are as
>celebrated/popular/important as The Beatles and The Stones by
>placing The Who in context w/those groups. i've noticed The
>Who playing gigs McCartney and/or The Stones have previously
>played. like the SB half time show. and VH1 gave The Who an
>hours-long tribute special like last yr or som'n.
>
Uh, The Who had been getting those looks long before any of this but apparently you missed it.

They were headlining stadiums in '89 when they got back together sans Moon.

They're certainly bigger than a lot of other acts who've done the halftime show (Tom Petty for one example).

The Who have generally been rated exactly where they currently are my entire life in terms of rock history, which is not quite Stones/Beatles but the very next tier of the Brit invasion bands.

Above peer-or-near-peer bands like The Kinks, The Animals or Cream stateside & before the later tide of Zeppelin.

>meanwhile whenever i hear the group play these days i hear the
>same songs - and they're not among my faves. 'Pinball
>Wizard', 'Won't Get Fooled Again' and 'Who Are You'. they're
>no 'Can't Buy Me Love' or 'Hey Jude' or 'Satisfaction' or
>'Sympathy for the Devil' but they want us to believe The Who's
>songs are on the same level of acclaim. those songs are not.
>and The Who generally don't have enough classics (albums or
>songs) to be placed in the same company w/the Beatles and
>Stones. but they're tryna trick the kids into believing
>that's the case.
>
>it ain't.

Nobody's trying to trick anybody, you just don't like The Who is all.

But their standing isn't some new or artificial development if you were a follower of that genre/era, they've always been a part of that scene just slightly beneath 'the big two' but as a live act in their prime they were far better than either of those two bigger bands.

--

great musicians, legendary players, probably more than ever thanks to probably to Maxx and his ode to all things past tense. It's a good thing, I'm sure more ppl are learning than participating.

but i do so i didn't.

fuck you.

but that's okay, player.

fuck you.

are considered a key influence to that scene.

The Sex Pistols covered Who songs while famously insulting the Beatles.

that explains much.

fuck you.

>are considered a key influence to that scene.
>
>The Sex Pistols covered Who songs while famously insulting the
>Beatles.
>

>>>>>>> the one from Monterey Pop.


(Yes this is primarily for fans, but it's an incredible performance of a great song, so if you don't know it, look it up)

-------
so I'm in a band now:
album ---> http://greenwoodburns.bandcamp.com/releases
Soundcloud ---> http://soundcloud.com/greenwood-burns

my own stuff -->http://soundcloud.com/lonesomedstringband

avy by buckshot_defunct

I love watching it over and over.

of (compared to the Monterey performance) tighter where it needed to be and looser where it needed to be.

Of course, the better sound quality helps enormously, but a chief difference is that in R&RC, they nailed the harmonies, but they were pretty slipshod at MOnterey.


And.... Keith Moon.

-------
so I'm in a band now:
album ---> http://greenwoodburns.bandcamp.com/releases
Soundcloud ---> http://soundcloud.com/greenwood-burns

my own stuff -->http://soundcloud.com/lonesomedstringband

avy by buckshot_defunct

because The Who in one song (well, really more like a suite) geneated more heat than The Stones did in five or then the Lennon/Clapton/MitchMitchell/KeithRichards 'Dirty Mac' supergroup did either.

I don't think that special ever got replayed on BBC plus wasn't available for sale until the re-release sometime in the mid-90s as a result.

Always loved Taj Majal & Jethro Tull's performances on that too but 'A Quick One' sorta summed up the live personality of The Who as a band and as individuals.

it didn't make an impression, obviously.

i'll see it again.

fuck you.

Vietnam movies always use "give me shelter"
but I don't think that song was a single.

Prince and MJ are often viewed as peers trough out the 80s,
but prince only blew up the the general public in 1984...
then he released some hit singles and a gang of weird albums that critics loved.
By 1988 the "batman" soundtrack was viewed as a comeback of sorts.


the 'problem' here is that critics decide what albums
get written about later, and time erases what actually happened.

critics used to hate zeppelin, from what i understand.
and nobody bought those velvet underground albums.


i understand what you're saying.
i don't know why it happens that way.

On the other hand, The Who were also shit at what they did. After reading Pete Townshend's autobiography, I have a different perspective of their music, but it remains positive. Townshend has not been afraid to say it was he who helped create heavy metal, and considering the session work he did plus what he created in "I Can See For Miles" and "Rael", he simply added his spin to what already existed.

Are they as great as they make themselves out to be? It's all a part of their fulfillment to ride their own hype, because they would have been a mere side note otherwise. Their formula worked. Fortunately, they've made some good music along the way. I can ignore the crap, as I always do.





THE HOME OF BOOK-NESS:
http://www.thisisbooksmusic.com/
http://twitter.com/thisisjohnbook
http://www.facebook.com/book1


http://i32.tinypic.com/kbewp4.gif
http://i50.tinypic.com/hvqi4w.jpg

In the 60's (=the Beatles/Stones-era) before ''Tommy'', they were a cult-act in USA and not really huge elsewhere either. Not comparable at all with Beatles or Stones or even the Kinks (who for the record had a stronger 60's discography and more memorable songs even if I wouldn't necessarily call them better or more "important).

the Who's breakthrough in USA instead came as an IMO godawful arena-rock band in the early 70's which means that they are really more comparable with Zeppelin and Pink Floyd. And note that Zeppelin and Floyd does not have nowhere near as many classic songs as Beatles or Stones either; this was the album-rock era and an album like "Quadrophenia", just like "Dark side of the moon", is bigger than any song contained within.

However, sice the Who, unlike Zeppelin and Floyd, were active in the mid-60's and quite *important* as well for reasons laid out earlier in this thread, the status of them as a notable 60's band in the USA became an early example of rock-revisionism so it's nothing new really even if I guess it has intensified over the years due to constant touring and reunions and other shit which has kept them in the news.

Personally, I think they were an *amazing* singles-act in 65-67; some of the best 60's rock even if it's only a handful of songs and "Sell out" is a really cool, whimsy psych-album and there are some dope stray album cuts and B-sides. Also, they were obviously a smoking live-act.

However, their later stuff is unbearable and even if you count it, they have a very underwhelming discography; it's one thing to be important, another to actually translate that importance to killer albums. I actually find them perhaps the most underwhelming of all classic rock-acts in terms of albums and there's not that many great songs either but I "always" say that here so whatever...

So no, I don't think they deserve to be mentioned next to Stones and Beatles either and it is in fact inappropriate since most people nowadays dig their shitty 70's stuff-Zeppelin and Floyd should be the company, not Beatles or Stones. To be fair, Stones were an arena-rock band in that era too but I think their status/reputation/style was cemented earlier; I can not compare "Exile..." to "Quadrophenia" stylistically-the latter is a bombastic product of early 70's excess, the former is excessive too but product of a different musical aesthetic.

The Who might have more influence....but I listen to the Kinks alot more. Better songwriting....more focused and concise, less epic, much catchier.

Nowadays, everyone goes on about their sophisticated songwriting and shit and I agree; I think Ray Davies sense of melody is amazing and unlike Beatles, he managed to take music hall and other limey-shit into the rock/psych era without losing the dark rock-feel; something Beatles never achieved.

However, the Kinks were also a dope, clumsy and rugged garage.rock band and that side of the band is a bit underrated nowadays; I'd say they were the band that changed the course of grage-rock from 50's-early 60's style frat-rock to the Nuggets-type stuff. That their early albums and many songs at times sound so similar and dumb it's borderline hilarious doesn't really matter to me. And "Till the end of the day" is just perfect rock, just as good-if not better-than many of their later, more sophisticated songwriter-type stuff...

because I'd like to hear em.

I'll take 'Cant Explain' over 'You Really Got Me', 'Substitute' over 'Sunny Afternoon' and so on.

The Kinks tend to get more love on that side of the Atlantic, The Who's act plays(ed) better over here.

I remember Damaja even trying to tell me on these boards that The Kinks were better than the Stones.

They were genuinely successful when they dropped "You really got me" and all the soundalike songs. The Who didn't reach that level of success until "Tommy".

Of course, their popularity dropped off after that and they became more of a cult-band in the US for the rest of the 60's but so were the Who even if they might have had SLIGHTLY bigger singles afterwards.

And I didn't say that they have songs better than the Who's best, I say that they have MORE memorable songs which I stand by 100% without necessarily saying the tracks are better than "I can see for miles". A song like "I'm not like everybody else" for example is better than the majority of the Who's album-tracks in the 60's and it was just a B-side!
And for me, they had more great singles than the Who in the same era (Dead end street, sunny afternoon, waterloo sunset, dedicated follower of fashion, til the end of the day, the soundalike garage-rockers, see my friends etc.).

And I find their albums from "Face to face", "Something else" and the enxt one with the long name way more consistent and just STRONGER than what the Who delivered in album-form the same time.

And yes, I remember that damaja-thread and I was all up in it, not just because I disagreed and he was *factually* wrong but also because his definition of good songwriting meant that he dismissed like 75% of the4 Stones-songs folks put up...

>They were genuinely successful when they dropped "You really
>got me" and all the soundalike songs. The Who didn't reach
>that level of success until "Tommy".
>
I agree 'You Got Me' was the biggest hit either had in that era, which is why the Kinks kept remaking it.

But I don't think The Kinks were 'bigger' stateside & in terms of notoriety for very long after each's initial burst onto the scene around '65.

Once they both started touring the states & doing American TV, The Who's outsized personalities & live prowess elevated them.

>Of course, their popularity dropped off after that and they
>became more of a cult-band in the US for the rest of the 60's
>but so were the Who even if they might have had SLIGHTLY
>bigger singles afterwards.
>
>And I didn't say that they have songs better than the Who's
>best, I say that they have MORE memorable songs which I stand
>by 100% without necessarily saying the tracks are better than
>"I can see for miles".

gotcha.

A song like "I'm not like everybody
>else" for example is better than the majority of the Who's
>album-tracks in the 60's and it was just a B-side!
>And for me, they had more great singles than the Who in the
>same era (Dead end street, sunny afternoon, waterloo sunset,
>dedicated follower of fashion, til the end of the day, the
>soundalike garage-rockers, see my friends etc.).
>
>And I find their albums from "Face to face", "Something else"
>and the enxt one with the long name way more consistent and
>just STRONGER than what the Who delivered in album-form the
>same time.
>
>And yes, I remember that damaja-thread and I was all up in it,
>not just because I disagreed and he was *factually* wrong but
>also because his definition of good songwriting meant that he
>dismissed like 75% of the4 Stones-songs folks put up...

yeah, that was a classic Dam post.

He was blocking everything.

>Of course, their popularity dropped off after that and they
>became more of a cult-band in the US for the rest of the 60's

has always been blamed on their being banned from the performing in the US following their first tour.

-------
so I'm in a band now:
album ---> http://greenwoodburns.bandcamp.com/releases
Soundcloud ---> http://soundcloud.com/greenwood-burns

my own stuff -->http://soundcloud.com/lonesomedstringband

avy by buckshot_defunct