RES: Objective Who/Beatles comments

["Oswaldo Akamine Jr." <motax@uol.com.br>]

Well, man, I guess we've reached a point of no return at all. I mean, if
Pete or Paul were to read this list, they'd be laughing. Beatles and Who
are quite different and magnificent bands on their own; both bands are
above any kind of comments such as "this one's better, that one's hard
rock". Trying to draw good/bad comparisions between them is like
drawning comparisions between letters and numbers.

Oswaldo Akamine
http://www.motax.com.br

-----Mensagem original-----
De: owner-thewho@igtc.com [mailto:owner-thewho@igtc.com] Em nome de Mark
R. Leaman
Enviada em: quarta-feira, 5 de setembro de 2001 12:12
Para: TheWho@igtc.com
Assunto: Re: Objective Who/Beatles comments


> exceptions were not one of them.  Yep, the Who were harder than most 
> but
to
> say they claim, easily, the title of the first "hard" rock band isn't
easy.
> Especially when you consider acts like The Yardbirds, The Animals, 
> Cream
who

Nigel:

Both the Animals and Yardbirds were Blues bands, like the Stones, and
not hard Rock bands. You might have had a case with the Kinks, but I
would then have countered with the fact that their LP cuts were standard
R7B and Blues offerings. Not so with The Who. Cream came later, so that
lets them out of the running. They were no heavier than The Who anyway.

> great period of "pure" pop i.e I'm A Boy, Picture Of Lily, I Can See 
> For Miles etc, etc.

Except that My Generation (album and single) were both hard Rock.

> interest.  I probably won't buy the new L@L or RAH DVD.  Rehashes are 
> just not that interesting to me, unless they are in person.

Jeff:

Get with it. Support the band or they won't tour (or make a new album)
again. Imagine their thinking: "If we can't sell LAL with Tommy, we'll
never sell a new album."

> Let's See Action.

You first.

> You do realizer your entire "objective" look at the Beatle and Who is 
> colored by your Who fanaticism and obvious dislike of The BEatles.

Drew:

Untrue, and I have almost as much bootleg Beatles as I do Who. My
objective look at the Beatles and Who are colored by my intimate
knowledge of their music. I'm a Rock fan first, and a Who fan because
they're the best Rock band...not the reverse.

> said it before and I'll say it again, as much of a HUGE Who fan I am, 
> if there were never The Beatles, there'd never have been a Who.

Sure about that? All the members were in bands before the Beatles made
it.

> Trust me, 'twas TheBeaTles who-> outgrew you, not the reverse.

AEB:

Well *I* am not too young to remember when it all came out the first
time, and the Beatles are definitely not above a certain level. Remember
the Monkees were considered on an equal level at the time. The Who went
beyond that level with Rael in 1967, and only went up from there. I know
it's not politically correct to say the Beatles aren't the greatest band
in the history of time, but anyone who can divorce themselves from
Beatles-can-do-no-wrong-ism will see that many bands went beyond them
and recorded better music. And one factor that should be taken into
account is exactly what Rich noted: Who music stands the test of time
better than Beatles music.

> And no matter if they where important bands or not. I dislike George 
> Bush, and he's important.

Bjorn:

Not really. He's just an ignorant fool who was appointed (not elected)
President because of his father and because he promised to do what he
was told to do.


"I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I
   believe and what I believe-I believe what I believe is right."
            George "My IQ is 91" Bush


               Cheers                 ML