Who AND Beatles

["Leo O'Sullivan" <Leo.O'Sullivan@globalone.net>]

For those who spot my name with dread, please skip this message for it
is a huge bloated tome this time. For the other masochists...enjoy.
	On the eve of battle, I climb out of the Who trenches and purposefully
stride forth to the middle of No Man's Land to address both of the
opposing Great Armies.
	Let me first say that I am a Who fan first and foremost.  No other band
ever connected so completely with me or means more to me.  I can't
imagine the world without them.  They are one of the defining elements
of who I am.
	Let me also say that I truly love The Beatles.  They are the only other
band whose existence I cannot imagine the world without. Their songs
have helped me stay sane in an insane world. 
	That said, I'm going to throw down my not so humble opinions on where
these two titans stand in my eyes (and ears).
	Culturally, lyrically, musically, and in terms of the bands and artists
they have influenced The Beatles are clearly ahead.  Their influence on
our culture and our music is so staggering that it can easily be
dismissed as hype or exaggeration.  It isn't.  The combined songwriting
might of Lennon and McCartney in their prime produced a deluge of
brilliant songs so massive that it swept The Beatles through the Sixties
(the most creative period in pop music history) as pop's unchallenged
champions.  Lyrically, I feel The Beatles were superior to The Who not
because their lyrics were more profound (they weren't), but because they
were far more accessible than Pete's lyrics often were.  Also the
content of Beatles' lyrics is much more varied than content in Who songs
(aside from the early Beatles broken record of boy meets girl songs). 
The Who wrote about loneliness, confusion, rage, isolation, and
spirituality (plus some sci-fi stuff).  The Beatles wrote about anything
and everything.  I disagree with the idea that The Beatles simply wrote
some good melodies.  They also wrote some nasty rock and roll ("Helter
Skelter", "Revolution", etc). Plus, I hate to say this Pete, but IHMO
The Who never wrote a great love song (some good ones, granted, but most
songs were about loneliness or sadness, not "love").  The Beatles wrote
tons.  Musically, The Beatles constantly pushed the envelope and
inspired peer bands to do the same.  If The Beatles hadn't become the
poster boys for self made bands (English bands), the British Invasion
may not have hit America so completely thus giving these other bands
their chance.  Again, musically, The Beatles tried everything while The
Who didn't vary much outside the different phases their music evolved
through (R&B, power pop, HARD rock, etc).  These are not absolutes
here.  The Who had their share of offbeat tunes also, but The Beatles
stretched more I think.
	Now that I've shown what kind of Who fan I am, let me finish.
	No one in The Beatles holds a candle to anyone in The Who in regards to
musicianship.  Excepting the voice which comes down to a matter of style
preference (McCartney had probably the best voice, but Roger's force
gets him the prize hands down.  Lennon and Harrison are not even in the
running.  Lennon is way too nasally; there's a reason why he double
tracked his voice so much.  He hated it.).  Other than vocals, toe to
toe, The Beatles get creamed.  1)Moon vs Starr:  please!  2)Entwistle vs
McCartney:  John runs circles around Paul.  Just listen to the bass runs
on "The Real Me" as Thunderfingers rampages through the song. To be
fair, I think McCartney is the most underrated bass player in Rock. 
Technically there are certainly better and faster, but Paul has some of
the catchiest bass lines ever,  as if he's writing a second song while
the main tune is playing (ex: "With A Little Help From My Friends"). 
He's one of my favorite players, but John could teach him a hell of a
lot.  3) Guitar: Finally!  Pete VS George, John And Paul:  Sorry, I.S.,
but Pete crushes George Harrison from day one.  George is a minor
leaguer compared to Pete who's solos make George's solos blush in
embarrassment.  Yes, George could play many different lead styles plus
rhythm, but he's a jack of all trades, master of none.  He's mediocre,
even on that damn sitar.  I give George credit for playing catchy, very
memorable solos to Beatles classics ("Let It Be"), but any solo Pete
does on any track of the Quad album blows any Harrison solo away.  One
of the sore points in The Beatles history was the fact that McCartney
didn't think much of George's playing (watch Let It Be where Mac TELLS
George exactly how he wants a small riff played).  Paul was right.  As
to "Pete's playing was more on par with John Lennon's, in that they were
both essentially rhythm guitarists", I have to laugh.  Lennon couldn't
have played "Pinball Wizard" if he sold his granny glasses to do it. 
Pete may not be the best lead guitarist of all time, but he is WITHOUT
peer on rhythm guitar.  No one touches him, although Keith Richards is
damn good.  Lennon's songwriting ability was brilliant, his playing
(lead or rhythm) was adequate at best.  Listen to the "Love You" jam at
the end of Abbey Road for the Lennon parts (The Beatlesongs book tells
you who played guitar in what order on that); it's cool but it's nothing
special.  Lastly, Mr. McCartney picked up the ax now and then and the
only regret is that he didn't do it more often.  He plays the solo on
"Taxman" and on "Good Morning, Good Morning", two of the only great
stand out solos that exist anywhere in the Beatles songs.  But since
there's not enough evidence to support McCartney's guitar abilities, the
vote must go to Pete.  This is all forgetting the fact that Pete was the
most exciting rock guitarist on stage ever (Hendrix alone matchs his
showmanship).  In fact, The Who stand alone live.  Rent the newly
released Rolling Stone's Rock And Roll Circus and watch The Who
obliterate Jethro Tull, Clapton, Lennon and even the Stone themselves
once and for all.  It's no accident that the Stone's management tried to
sell the movie's rights to The Who; they stole the show and upstaged the
Glimmer Twins.    
	I agree with I.S. that Sgt. Pepper's was probably the most important
rock album ever (for influence, etc) (but it came out in '67 not '66),
but to defend the Beatles' songs by pointing out the "absolute crap"
that Pete has written is a big mistake, for here is where The Who are on
the firmest ground.  I'll concede that The Beatles have a greater number
of classic songs than The Who, but the Beatles also have a mountain of
crap that they've tossed at us, whereas The Who have been fairly
consistent.  If "Squeeze Box" is to be hammered for it's childish lyrics
about sex, then Paul McCartney should be drawn and quartered for "Why
Don't We Do It In The Road" (the song and the lyric).  Talk about
monotony.  And if we're going to justifiably attack the lyrics of some
Post-Moon Who songs ("Did You Steal My Money", etc), then let's not
forget that The Beatles inflicted "Wild Honey Pie" and "Revolution 9" on
us in their prime.  "Wild Honey Pie" is definitely a candidate for the
most annoying, nauseating song in rock history.  Besides that, I'm from
the old school; I love Kenny Jones, but arguments about The Who's merits
should be kept to the Moon years since the band changed fundamentally
after he died.  That said, to attack songs from Face Dances or It's
Hard, essentially songs from a different band with a different makeup
opens the door to attack the post Beatles efforts of Lennon and
McCartney.  Here is where The Who come out ahead.  In the early 80's The
Who were still capable of songs like "Eminence Front" and "Cry If You
Want" while Paul McCartney was crooning "Say Say Say" with Michael
Jackson.  I also come from the old Seventies school of, and I quote,
"Disco Sucks".  The Who never wrote a disco song, never rode a disco
beat of any kind through a song.  In fact, the Who wrote the only
anti-Disco anthem still worth listening to ("Sister Disco").  Paul
McCartney's late Seventies early Eighties stuff reeks of Disco's
influence.  He surrendered to the Night Fever (ex: "Silly Love Songs",
"Say Say Say", "Ebony and Ivory").  Therefore, if no other argument can
be made, The Who were the only great British rock band or artist who
refused to give in to the Disco fad (ex: Kinks - "Superman", Stones -
"Miss You", "Emotional Rescue").  For those of you too young to
remember, this was a musical war which saw the end of many great rock
bands who caved in and never rocked again. The Who rocked straight
through it.  The Who were also the first band to successfully
incorporate synthesizers into a rock song (that wasn't some arty
symphony piece by King Crimson) thus giving us WGFA and "Who Are You"
for starters. 
	In the end, it comes down to a matter of personal opinion.  It's truly
apples and oranges comparing the bands' songs. Both were miles above the
rest of the rock world.   Mark L. said that "Rock music has been called
an expression of frustration".  If that's true, which I believe it is,
then on that basis alone I feel The Who are the truest example of a Rock
band.  If the Who expressed one emotion better than any band of any
genre of music that emotion was frustrated rage.  God knows I love the
Beatles, but nothing has ever given me the release of "Won't Get Fooled
Again" or "My Generation" or "I Can See For Miles" or "Who Are You". 
The Who tapped that primal rage of youth and roared it back at us all. 
For me, that's why they are the best. Because they provided the purest
channel for what everyone most needs today.  A safe place to rage.      
	Oh yeah...Happy Birthday Pete Townshend, God Bless You!
- --Leo