Re: Who's Next

[Dave Elliott <dae@cbcosmos.att.com>]

> I have to admit that I can't, for the life of me, get why everyone likes to
> fire that other version of "Pure and Easy."  I think it blows the doors off
> the "Odds and Sods" version, which I find slow and puny by comparison.  I
> suppose it might have something to do with the fact that the "unreleased"
> version was the first one I ever heard, and the "Odds and Sods" one was new
> to me, but I think the one that's on Who's Next now is categorically
> superior anyways.  I was, therefore, pleased as punch to find that that
> version was going to be on the new WN.  Diff'rnt strokes, I suppose.

That's the bottom line.  It IS a matter of opinion, no doubt.

The reason I like the Odds and Sods version is:

	- I've been listening to it for 21 years, which provides built-in
	  bias

	- IMO it is more polished, and the drums are more full sounding.
	  Conversely, the new WN version sounds like it was recorded in the
	  1967 time frame, with tinny drums and a demo-like quality to it.

	- It sounds so different from the recorded material prior to it on
	  the CD that it breaks the continuity of the work.  If you listen
	  to the whole thing, the new songs really do sound like they were
	  tacked on to an existing work.  Pure and Easy, being the first of
	  the new songs, is the one that makes this awkward transition.
	  
As you said, though, diff'rnt strokes.  I probably wouldn't notice Pure and
Easy so much if the other new material was stronger.


Dave Elliott