Re: WN vs QUAD + Stones & Beatles

[mleaman@sccoast.net (Mark Leaman)]

>John is definately a better bassist today, however someone pointed out to 
>me that he doesn't take as many risks as he did with Moon on drums.  I 
>don't think Pete can play as fast as he used to (he himself admitted that 
>in the MSFL WAY notes from '92) so that tends to hamper his solo 
>abilities.  But since Keith is the catalyst in this opinion and it's the 
>reason I stand by his peformances on WN.  His drumming on Goin' Mobile 
>gets my blood rushing everytime I hear it.  It as if he was throwing 
>nothing but strikes, in that "ZONE".

Ian:

I hope you're enjoying this debate as much as I am.
Pete was obviously a better lead player better in 1989. What he played in
Hey Joe, for instance... You know that you can't go by what HE says. He says
so many things.

>But if that's the case, how could the Who play Bargain without the MOOG 
>synth parts, or My Wife without the horn break?  And certainly the 
>counter-point synth work of Baba and WGFA were never a problem live, 
>because they were only used as background.  Yet on Quad the backing 
>tapes were the main focus of the material, which put 
>the band in trouble on stage.  It's like the Beatles unable to play Sgt. 
>Pepper live because of the complexity of each track.  Quad is like that 
>in a lot of ways.  Quad fails where Tommy succeeds. 

Well, comparing Bargain live and Sea And Sand live, I'd say that S&S sounds
more like the original stripped of the extra stuff. Bargain was adapted,
somewhat.
You should say: "On QUAD live in `73, the backing tapes etc." However, that
was just the way they did it that time. Since, they have played many songs
from the album without the tapes quite successfully. Drowned from Toronto
`82, for instance, is quite good. 5:15 and Love Reign O'er Me are concert
regulars, sans backing tapes. The Real Me and Punk have also been done live w/o.
The difference between SGT. PEPPER'S and QUAD is that The Who actually
played QUAD, whereas The Beatles had an orchestra in the studio. The songs
aren't really all that complex. Had they wanted to tour, they could have
done them. They didn't want to tour.

>I like both of the above songs.  However our resident die hard Stones fan 
>(who stands apart as the only one on this list who feels the '69 Stones 
>were a better live band than the Who) would argue that Ya Ya's isn't 
>their strongest live material from that era.  I certainly have boots for 
>proof of that statement.

All of the boot Stones I have from `69 have terrible sound quality, so I
can't speak to it being better than GYY-YO (and I would welcome the chance
to improve that). I can say that given the live evidence I have, not The
Stones (nor anyone else) could touch the TOMMY tour. It was then that The
Who proved the claim that they were the greatest live band. The claim that
was made by people who saw all of the majors, not Who fans.



                   Cheers                   ML

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