Re: who beat who

[Lev Polinsky <lev@alacrim.alanex.com>]

First:  Ray Davies show:  saw it (Irvine) and loved it.

Second:  re this whole Beatles thing...
> From: "Leo O'Sullivan" <Leo.O'Sullivan@globalone.net>
> Subject: Who AND Beatles
> 
>         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.

It's also important to know that the Beatles were the first ones.  They
were the first British group to do ANYTHING outside Britain.  Look at
the names in British pop that came before the Beatles.  Now look at a
random page in the phone book.  Odds are, you'll recognize as many names
in one as in the other.

> 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.

Does that make Danielle Steel superior to Steinbeck?  She's a lot more
accessible.

> 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).

And teen angst.  One more thing (see below) we can trace back to, and
blame on, the Who.  Additional subjects by the Who could include: 
divorce, Meher Baba, masturbation, Meher Baba, child abuse, Meher Baba,
farming, Meher Baba, plane crashes, Meher Baba, etc.

> 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.

I agree.  The progress from 1962 to 1967 is absolutely astounding, and
the influence on the scene as a whole, as well as on each band in
particular, cannot be underestimated.

>         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!

Ah, but what about Moon vs. Starkey?  (As they'd say in Chicago, Tha
Moon.)

Also, as far as vocals:  don't forget the harmony/backing vocals, an
area where both bands excelled.  Imagine Substitute sung by only one
voice.  Or ICE. 

> 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.

I think Paul really gets slighted because he's not flashy.  His bass
work, especially when listened to through a good stereo, is absolutely
phenomenal.  Second to one.  Now if only he didn't run off to play
guitar and piano whenever given the chance...

> 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.

Whoever cited Roll Over Beethoven as an example of GH's versatility, go
back and listen to how shaky he is on that intro.  I think the easiest
way to sum it up is this:  there's only a couple of GREAT bits of guitar
work in the Beatles discography, and the best one by far was played by
Eric Clapton.

> He's mediocre,
<snip of a bunch of stuff I agree with>
> 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 don't think there's much debate as to who the most exciting live band
ever is--it's clearly Grand Funk Railroad.

>         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.

I think the drugs really affected MacLen's writing near the end. 
Lyrics-wise, a lot of the latter-day stuff is utter gobbledygook.  Note
to Doors fans:  nonsense is not profound.  Nonsense is nonsense.  Note
#2 to Doors fans:  Robby Krieger wrote Light My Fire.

> 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.

Again, what I said earlier applies:  there's a whole lot of crap on the
Beatles' later albums.

> ...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").

Frank Zappa's "Dancing Fool" isn't bad, either.

> 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").

Deep Purple, Yes, Black Sabbath, Eric Clapton (though he came close). 
Hard to say whether Led Zep would have done disco as anything more than
a joke.

And I think McCartney deserves at least a month in hell for releasing
Silly Love Songs.  That song is unlistenable.

> 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.

Sure, but then we got about a million horrible groups trying to use
synths and failing miserably.  If anyone must shoulder the blame for the
horrible synthesizer music of the past 25 years, it is the Who.  They
started it.

In the end, I have to agree with Leo:  the Beatles are my favorite
recording artists of all time (after Wild Cherry, of course).  But the
Who are my favorite Rock Band.  And that's a higher honor, in my book.

- --Lev.

P.S.  Speaking of Wild Cherry, does anyone else think it's really funny
that Intel took out the "..white boy" part of that song for the MMX ad? 
I guess Intel prefers really really sterile fun.  Or maybe it was just a
miscalculation.