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

RE: Objective Who/Beatles comments



All interesting points especially when someone attempts to catch me out by
referring (semi-correctly) to Yardbirds / Animals as "blues" bands.
However, if you review carefully, earlier set list from The Who I believe
that you'd find "the blues" played as much an important part in their
generic history, I recall Townshend in an interview somewhere states that
one of his favourite guitarists (and influences) is Jimmy Reed now if he
ain't playing the blues then I am purple!  The blues / r & b (60's style not
today's style) had a very important influence on The Who.  Infact Pete
Meedan re-wrote a Slim Harpo track as the High Numbers first single.

This is all part of general discussion and how we each, as individual's,
perceive the Who and their formative roots.  Infact if you delve far enough
back you'll discover that The Detours, featuring Townshend, Entwhistle,
Daltry had at one point PT playing banjo and they were perhaps more trad
jazz.  All of this is highly personal and each person's take is unique to
them.

As I was growing up in the mid-sixties in the UK it would be hard pushed to
find a band that wasn't, in way or another, influenced by the blues.  I am
sure that people within this discussion group will throw up a myriad of
examples to prove me wrong BUT at the end of the day the Who were as much
influenced by the blues, by trad jazz, by c & w, by primative "blue beat"
ska / reggae and what they did was distill it all down into a sound that
was, and still is, pretty fucking unique.  Good references points are Dave
Marshes bio"Before I Get Old"; Gary Herman's "The Who" and numerous
interviews in Rolling Stone mag from late sixties upto early '80's.

At the end of the day, FOR ME, there isn't a band in the world that can come
close to the total majesty of THE WHO when they were firing on all
cylinders - be that in the live environment, on albums, or singles, they
were just totally fucking amazing.  Infact legend has it that the Rolling
Stones refused to have their "Rock n Roll Circus" performance released (at
the time it was orginally recorded) because, in their opinion, The Who blew
them off stage.  I believe it was more to do with the fact that by the time
the cameras rolled for the Stones it was the early hours of the morning and
they, and the audience were well tired.  But, rewind your memory and at that
time, December 1968, The Stones were regarded as the Greatest Rock n' Roll
band on the planet.

Now, as I reach 48, I look back on those glory days with fond memories but I
also appreciate (with the wisdom of age) that towards the end of their
actual recording career The Who were stumbling around, somewhat.  Again,
this is all personal opinion stuff so let's not us all get our knickers in a
twist.......what I've written is true, purely for me!


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-thewho@igtc.com [mailto:owner-thewho@igtc.com]On Behalf Of
Mark R. Leaman
Sent: 05 September 2001 16:12
To: TheWho@igtc.com
Subject: 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