Head, heart and hips: The Who in context

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

Disclaimer:

Given the recent controversy about discussing acts other than The Who, I
should declare that this posting is going to do just that. If you're one of
the 'Who and nothing but The Who' contingent', read no further, and skip to
the next button-trading message (no insult intended, I'm into collecting too!)

I just thought I'd like to extend the Who/Beatles thread into
Who/Beatles/Stones. Why? Because 'conventional wisdom' (in this country at
any rate) has it that the Beatles and the Rolling Stones were the most
'important' bands of the 60s (if you asked a random selection of the public
to name two sixties bands the chances are those are the two names that would
crop up most often). Dylan's up there too, but tends to get treated a little
differently on account of being a solo act. Guitar bands were THE thing
between - say - 1963 and 1970 (the span of the Beatles career). So where do
The Who fit into this? In a typical critics' poll, they'd probably come in
the 'next batch', i.e. in with the Beach Boys, The Dead, Led Zeppelin, etc.
(you can argue over the specific names but you get my drift). Why is this?
Do we the people of this list think this is...right? fair? unfair?
irrelevant? And what is it about the Who that draws us to them specifically
rather than some of those other bands? Well, I've been thinking about it,
and it led me to attempt an objective comparison of The 'Oo and 'those other
two bands'. 

To use an oft-quoted 'yardstick', music can be said to appeal to some
combination of 'head, heart and hips': The head for 'intellectual' content
(does it make you think?), the heart for emotional appeal (maybe a stirring
melody, or a sentimental lyric. Probably also includes physical attraction,
i.e. 'cuteness'.  If you like, the 'pop music' factor) and the hips for
sheer physical impact (does it make you want to dance, or make love? Does
the bass rattle your teeth? - The 'rock' or 'groove' factor). Taking the
Beatles and the Stones first, it's clear that they had different (but
complementary) combinations of the three. Here's my ballpark 'marks out of ten':

Beatles (63-65): Head 3         Heart 10        Hips 5
Beatles (66-70): Head 8 	Heart  9	Hips 3


Stones (63-65):	Head	1	Heart	5	Hips	7
Stones (66-70):	Head	2	Heart	4	Hips	10


Now for The Who:

Who (65-67): Head	7	Heart	5	Hips	8
Who (68-70): Head	10	Heart	4	Hips	10

Or, to sum up: 

The Beatles made you think a bit (especially later on), they rocked a bit
(especially earlier on), and they had a *huge* general appeal to a wide
audience (good looks, good tunes).

The Stones didn't make you think much, but had plenty of singles-chart
catchiness (early days), and an enormous visceral impact (especially later on).

The Who in many ways had the lot (that's why I like 'em!): by far the most
'cerebral' act of the three, a powerhouse live act to at least equal if not
exceed the Stones and a matching pop sensibility. But check the dates. That
'heart' appeal was the most important factor in the early years - The
Beatles grabbed the market, and the Stones coat-tailed in on the basis of
their slightly alternative rebel appeal. The Who didn't hit the market until
65 by which  time the other two had the top slots stitched up; and the
'intellectual' factor was not yet regarded as important. By the time 'Tommy'
came out the hierarchy was already established. 

Do I care? No, not really. Three great bands, hundreds of memorable
recordings, and for those lucky enough, any number of memorable gigs. Enjoy. 

Mike Mooney