[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Getting it all togetherSun Dec 7 13:17:06 PST 1997



"Really? That kinda contradicts your earlier statements. The Beatles were
recorded far more better than The Who during the same period..."

This is highly debatable. As rock became harder, the Beatles still sounded like the fab four, increasingly irrelevant. 

Just compare I Feel Fine to Anyway, Anyhow, Anywhere - two contemporaneous numbers. 

Even Lennon found the vocals on left, backing tracks on right to be "flippin' lousy".

-g

----------
From: 	WFang01@aol.com[SMTP:WFang01@aol.com]
Sent: 	Friday, January 12, 1996 5:59 AM
To: 	thewho@mpath.com
Subject: 	Re: Getting it all together

In a message dated 96-01-11 21:33:14 EST, you write:
Mark, re:

>That doesn't change the fact that the songs (already recorded) were buried
by MCA. And sure I love MY GEN...but when they had enough material for two
albums, why not have two? The Stones, Beatles, and Kinks were cranking out
four a year at the time...

You are confusing two issues. MCA (actually Decca) may have controlled the
"b" sides (hardly what I'd call making or breaking The Who's success), but
the decision to release or not release albums was up to the band and it's
management. Pete Townshend didn't have "four a year" worth of material to
crank out. Where was this magical material supposed to come from? Don't blame
the record company for that!

>> And so was everyone else, yet... A lot of Pete's reluctance to write had
to do with the legal battle. Please recall the singles that were released
from  MG while The Who were in this battle: A Legal Matter, La La La Lies,
The Kids Are Alright, not to mention Substitute three times (in the UK). Did
Pete do this, or the record company? The answer to that IS the answer...

Actually neither. Shel Talmy kept releasing singles from "My Generation" and
the band and it's management tried "ducking" the legal problems, thus the 3
"Substitutes". Pete was writing all kinds of songs during this period, check
your "Scoops" and boots. It was Kit Lambert who decided which would go to The
Who. 

I think you're going down the wrong road with this whole line of "lawsuit" vs
Pete's writing. Look at the history of the band and Pete. I don't see this
period being any different than any other period in terms of "low output" and
that may be "unique" to The Who and has nothing to do with The Beatles,
Kinks, or anyone else...

>>Oh? The label doesn't hire the producer? That's news to me...
Really, my friend...you know more about The Who than you do the recording
industry. It's simply not that cut and dried.

Kit Lambert managed AND produced the band up to "Who's Next". Look at the
labels on your favorite "oldies"... The Who were no big deal in the 60's
until "Tommy". What makes you think anyone really cared?

>That isn't out of line with the music of the time. (re "Sell Out's" poor
drum, etc. recording)

Really? That kinda contradicts your earlier statements. The Beatles were
recorded far more better than The Who during the same period...

>>Polydor and Decca did have those songs. And more, too, which were released
as B sides. Think about the relationship between labels and artists at the
time. It's not as true now, but back then the artists were often forced to
tour, record, appear, and other things. This I know, for I have friends who
recorded with major bands at the time. The artists were pretty much at the
mercy of the label.

Again, you don't know your Who history. As an example, read the original
liner notes for "Odds & Sods". As for the "label", "Track Records" (The Who's
label) was owned by Lambert and Stamp (The Who's management). Polydor & Decca
couldn't release material they didn't have in their possession, or are you
aware of certain levitation techniques that we don't know about?

>Relay was on the charts an entire 2 weeks, and JT only 8 from the time of
release. They were barely heard, compared to the airplay WN got. Look, I
remember that! I was there!

I was there too. Fortunately, on the NYC stations they were played a lot. In
Myrtle Beach...


>>Sure, but don't you think that Lifehouse would have been better than WN?
The songs that have emerged from it indicate so. It would have done wonders
for Pete's mental health, too, which could have only benefited us. But the
label "...didn't want another double album.

Again, facts all mixed up. It was Pete, not the label that made "Who's Next"
into a single. He gave up on "Lifehouse" after almost having a nervous
breakdown. "Who's Next" is one of THE most successful Rock records of all
time. Do __I__ think that "Lifehouse" would have been "better"??? Can't tell
yah. I never heard it!

>>As for QUAD, it was a complete commercial failure. This sent Townshend into
a depression...I'm sure you know this, `cause you ARE up on your Who History.
So the band's best work didn't get heard...very little promotion, too. Again,
I was there. I remember this.

hMMM... my "Who history" tells me reached 4 on the charts (perhaps one of our
chartmeisters can confirm this #--How do you define, "complete commercial
failure"???) On the other hand, the stage performance of the same got royally
screwed up due to the band's inability to perform well with the "backing
tapes"...


>It's very easy to sit at your desk and say, they should have done this and
>they should have done that 20 or 30 years ago. 

>>But isn't that what YOU are doing, and have been doing? What, I can't
discuss it now? Does it matter that I felt the same at the time? I guess
not...

No, that's not what "I'm doing". The band did what the band did. Period.
There's no going back in the "time machine" to fix the problems of history. I
don't sit here and moan of "The Ghost Of Who Past", but all of my replies to
you are responses to just that. It's very easy to say, "...they should have
done this and should have done that..." Nobody will ever know, will they?
Perhaps if they reached success earlier, they would have broken up sooner.

If you want an honest perception of our differences, I can simply state it
this way:

You're looking to change their past. I'm looking to influence their future. 
You're looking for blame. I'm looking for solutions. 

You want to make people your way. I want to help them do their jobs better.


I'm willing to continue this "discussion" with you, but I'm afraid that we're
turning off "the masses". If the rest of the list wants to "vote" "continue"
or "Stop", I'll be more than happy to comply with the majority wishes without
prejudice (hint: vote "stop" so that I can do something more "positive" with
my time... :) )

wf