Re: IH > WAY, A Farce

[mleaman@sccoast.net (Mark Leaman)]

>Those pesky opinions, which this argument is based upon anyway.  I think 
>GHS would've been a better album with it because there are some true dogs 
>on that album (Dancing with Mr D, Can you Hear the Music). 

Ian:

Did I say every song was great? Not too many albums like that by anyone.

>> OK isn't good enough for The Who. My point was that they did better on IH.
>
>It's Hard is less than OK, it's barely passable.  But again mind you it's 
>not bad compared with that current music scene.  I judge Who albums but 
>good, better, great, and for the ages.  IH is just good. 

In regard to your scale, I would say that the current scene should be a
stronger factor. With that in mind, IH is "better." Look at what the other
bands were doing at the time. No one in 1982 was recording music I would say
was "for the ages." Can you give me some examples? Music had changed, and
"for the ages" has become all but impossible for any band.
  
>If IH is "putting out their best" I'm ready to throw up. 

It was the best they could do at the time. Which was better than most were
doing. Thankfully, Townshend got freed from some of his demons and improved
afterwards. But IH is damned good anyway, and I make no apologies for liking it.

>Compare that to "IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII've Had Enough Being Nice"  
>How many minutes into I've Known No War for Roger to express himself?  
>Roger showed that he didn't believe in the IH material but yet he still 
>put his gut on the line for WAY.  

Let's finish it, then. "IIIII've had enough of being nice/I've had enough of
right and wrong/I've had enough of trying to love my brother/Ooooh!" What
about that artificial "Ooooh?" You think Rog sounds good on Had Enough? It
sounds like he's straining to me.

>I disagree. First of all, Eminence is another Pete syth composition, 
>which gets a little tiring by this point.  It's the same formula for 
>Baba, and WGFA.  The actual rhythm for the song isn't really innovative 
>anyway. 

In 1982, music was extremely synthed-out. Duran Duran, Reflex, A Flock Of
Seagulls...not innovative, but what was by then?

>I've only heard comments such as "next to the Stones' Let It Bleed it's rock's 
>most assured record" or "this is the Who's magnum opus".  Sterile never 
>entered the equation concerning Who's Next.  If you don't think WN is the 
>Who at their peak then I can't help you.  I'll admit I've never been one 
>of these die hard Quad lovers, but I do know the album where all four 
>memebers reached their stride (IE Keith Moon isn't the same drummer on 
>Quad, argue Bargain and Goin' Mobile against any tune on Quad).

Now this is very strange. I must say that whoever wrote that Stones/Who
review knows little to nothing. LET IT BLEED was disjointed, because it was
recorded at different times. It sounds like what it is: a bunch of songs
thrown together. It bears more relation to ODDS AND SODS, really. Assured?
That could be said of YA-YAS, but...WN had a common theme and was recorded
(for the most part) at the same time. That sort of thing shows in a work.
I do think the drumming on QUAD is better than that of WN. Listen to Dirty
Jobs, Cut My Hair, Punk Meets The Godfather, Sea And Sand... WN is great;
one of the Who's classics. But it's not the end-all and be-all of the Who
catalog. It's got what has been called a "chilly perfection." Which is
unusual for The Who, as I'm sure you'll admit.


                   Cheers                   ML

"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."  L. Long