The Who Vs The Rest

[Cliff Barua <baruac@aestor.am.doe.ca>]

As a British-born babe of the sixties ('I Can't Explain' was
released the week after I was born), and a huge fan of the
Royalty of British Rock (Who, Led Zep, Beatles, Stones),
I'll have to offer my two pence on comparing them and their
sales.  I have to agree with some of the comments offered
earlier:  I don't think anyone compares with The Who when
playing live, and the Who had some timeless individual songs
(comparable to the Beatles and Stones, and many more than
Led Zep).  But the advantage that Led Zep and The Beatles
have is their finite lifespan.  People will forever remember
the 8-10 years of these two groups where there was little to
complain about.  Even when attempts are being made to
rekindle things now (Page-Plant, Anthology "new" songs),
there is relatively little criticism.  The Stones, though
putting out inferior material, seem inexpicably able to
still pack 'em in.  I think the Who (and their back
catalogue) would have been better off if they'd packed it in
after Keith died.  They became somewhat of a laughing stock
after that - putting out very poor albums and countless
"farewell" and "reunion" tours.  Pete has gained back some
of that respect with the play "Tommy" and hopefully people
will now revisit the original album and other Who albums
from that time and replenish the lost mystique of the Who
pre-1978.  Led Zep was smart not to replace Bonham (maybe
they realized they were on their way down as well with
Presence and In Through The Out Door).

Also, please refrain from saying that the Who's influence
can be seen in Green Day.  Green Day reflects the lack of
musical standards prevalent in today's alternative music
(just look ugly, hate your parents, create a mosh pit). 
Remember one thing:  the Who COULD PLAY (and quite well, to
say the least).  And it's good to see the relative tykes on
this list (18?? 21??) in the climate of mostly crap music
out there today.

Thanks

Cliff