[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Who's NOT the best



>So in addition to powerful playing & singing and great
>lyrics, we've got an unconventional drummer, an
>unconventional bass player, and music composition that
>departs from the norm?  No wonder I worship this
>band!!  ----Rich B.

>What *is* wrong with these people who don't get The
>WHO like *we* get The WHO?  They have some kind of a block.  A barrier.
>Maybe they're afraid.  Like I heard Roger say in an interview:  "WHO music
>is too demanding for some people.  It *demands* that you listen to it.  It
says,
>'Come here, you !' "   --- SCHRADE in Akron

   Hey all:

   Obviously i agree with this to a certain extent (or i wouldn't be
receiving this list every day) but i have to point out, in defense of
plenty of intelligent, knowledgable music fans who aren't on this list that
you're not entirely "right". That is, your opinions (as stated here) are a
bit short-sighted.
   Some people prefer what i call background music. Which is not to imply
it's not challenging. i have a friend who listens to Miles Davis'
fusion-jazz alot. It's incredibly challenging writing and masterfully
performed. More so than the Who, to be fair. But the Who are more "in your
face".
   "In your face?" i have a friend who listens to Rage Against The Machine.
As "in your face" as you can get. More so than the Who, to be fair. But the
lyrics are pretty obvious, not as intelligent, humorous or personal as the
Who would do.
   Great lyrics? i have a friend that loves Bob Dylan, for that very
reason. The guy is a genius at turning a phrase, whether writing about
himself, telling a story, or making a joke. Even Pete would agree that Bob
Dylan can write a better lyric than Pete could. But The Who have Roger's
voice, unquestionably superior to Dylan's.
   Great singer? There are plenty of better singers out there than Roger,
it would be pointless to start squabbling because if you like a voice or
not is just opinion. Technical ability? Bobby McFerrin, Mariah Carey, Paul
Stanley, countless classically trained singers. And i'm sure there are
better bassists than John (Stanley Jourdan pops to mind), and better
drummers than Keith (okay, maybe not... but there COULD be).
   The REAL reason we like this band is that all four members are
technically great (as in they all perform well) and the music is
challenging, but not so challenging that it loses what we like about it.
WHat i mean is, Frank Zappa wrote alot of challenging music, but Pete's
hooks are more satisfying (to us). Likewise, some people find the Who TOO
challenging and prefer easier hooks (take any repetitive top 40 song for
example). 
   We're not right, they're not wrong. Music is just entertainment, and
what entertains you may not entertain the next guy. What seem like
"logical" reasons why a band is good or bad (technical ability,
credibility, poetic lyricism) all break down when studied too carefully...
that is why ALL rock critics are full of shit. 
   All that being said, i included the last line of this e-mail message to
see how many people skimming the list respond to that without reading the
rest of this rant (i love that band), and i love the balance of these four
characters fighting in the chaotic brilliance that is the Who's music. i
love the honesty, humor and intelligence of their lyrics. i love the fact
that this music has brains and brawn: Thoughtful Rock. It never fails to
wrestle emotion, never gets so progressive as to be dull or needlessly
complicated, and never fails to make me think about the music.  
   

   Oh and by the way, Led Zepp sucks.


   peace&anarchy,   jeffree