Who/Beatles again (no apologies)

[Mike Mooney <m.j.mooney@bradford.ac.uk>]

At 18:27 13/10/95 -0400, WhiteFang wrote:

> Why couldn't The Who have done
>what they did without The Beatles? Let's see how well you can constuct a Rock
>& Roll, "It's A Wonderful Life"...
>

Okay, that's a good challenge. Here's my 'what if' for a world without the
Beatles...

1. John, Paul, George and Ringo are totalled in a car crash on their way to
the EMI audition (hooray, I hear some of you say)

2. The Detours turn into the High Numbers (with Keith). Their main
influences are U.S. R&B/blues/soul, Dixieland jazz, surf music, cool
jazz/blues (Mose Allison). Pete Townshend is also tentatively into
avant-garde art (e.g. auto-destruction) from his art school studies. So far,
so good. 

3. The High Numbers find it very difficult to get any gigs, due to the
domination of the UK (and US) pop scene by 'corporate MOR'. Their chance of
getting a recording contract is nil. 

4. After a year or so of frustration caused by having to play Cliff Richard
and Bobby Darin covers in sedate dancehalls, Pete leaves the group to
concentrate on avant-garde music (Stockhausen, Cage, etc.), painting and
writing. 

5. The other three struggle along with a replacement guitarist, eventually
jacking it in and going back to their day jobs. 

6. The 'Rock revolution' never happens. 

What I'm trying to say is not simply that The Who were influenced by the
Beatles (although they were, enormously - just ask Pete why he started
playing Rickenbackers for example), but that the Beatles - almost
singlehandedly - *created* an environment in which pop music 'mattered', one
in which record companies all started rushing to sign long-haired groups
with strange-sounding names, where 'youth culture' began seriously to
influence the mainstream. They did it by managing to be subversive enough to
attract the kids, but 'showbizzy' (and talented) enough to get some respect
from the establishment. Before The Beatles, guitar groups meant sweet
fuck-all (a young man didn't have nothing in the world those days), after
them (for a while at any rate) they were 'bigger than God' as Lennon
succinctly put it. 

Now, if the Beatles had been wiped out as in the scenario above, who's to
say that Pete Townshend and co. couldn't have triggered the same revolution?
I don't know, but all my experience of that period tells me it wouldn't have
happened. For whatever reason, the Beatles phenomenon was a one-off that
changed everything. And thank God it did, it gave us The Who, the Stones,
electric Dylan, and all the goodies that have come along since. 

Of *course* The Who were a more powerful live act, of *course* Pete was a
'smarter' writer (and thinker) than Lennon. That's not the point. The point
is that he was able to do what he did because the scousers had opened the
floodgates (and peoples' minds).

And before anyone starts up the 'this is the Who list, why are we talking
about the Beatles again?' line, can I add that my personal musical hero is
*not* John Lennon (much as I loved him), but Pete Townshend; my all-time
favourite album is *not* 'Sergeant Pepper' (don't like it at all, actually),
but 'Who's Next'; I have *all* the Who's albums and singles (except Face
Dances and It's Hard - sorry Pete!); this is the *only* music list I
subscribe to. I just think that musical context is important, which is why
we *should* talk about it. The Who don't (and never did) exist in a vacuum,
and there's a lot more to their music (and the rock culture in which in
developed) than 'Awlright, these dudes kick ASS!' 

Knowing that Pete Townshend (rock's no.1 intellectual) is 'hip to the
Internet', I often wonder if he lurks on this list. If he does, I think he'd
be deeply depressed by the standard of 'debate' these last few days.

Fuck dancing, let's have some art...

Just my two penn'orth.

Mike Mooney