more pompous beatles nonsense

[Sroundtable@aol.com]

In a message dated 09/08/2001 10:28:07 AM Central Daylight Time, 
TheWho-Digest-Owner@igtc.com writes:


> All The Beatles had to do was to come out and 
> play..no gimmicks...just THEM...they would electrify the audience and they 
> would still be able to do it today if Lennon was alive.
> 
> 

No gimmicks?  A large portion of their popularity was their boyish, cherubic 
looks that drove little girls wild.  So, yes, they didn't have to act wild on 
stage.  Yes, the Who initially did those things live to get noticed because, 
as were most british rock bands at the time- they were trying to distinguish 
themselves from the beatles who were discovered first and were the sensation 
at the time.  had they not created their hard sound and wild performances- 
they would just be another talented beatlish band and could never make their 
own mark.  the beatles sound was nice, catchy, and producers knew it would 
appeal to the masses and therefore- wham!, beatlemania.  the who preferred 
the harder sound which was a harder sell because the mainstream wasn't ready 
for stuff that radical, yet- so the Who did what they had to do.  Pete, 
Roger, Keith, and John were more talented musicians and better performers 
than the Beatles- and to somehow downgrade the Who because their live act was 
a huge part of their identity is ridiculous.  The Who's MUSIC is better, in 
my opinion, and they didn't need the wild live stuff to be great- it just 
enhanced their greatness.  I have never seen the Who live and am a rabid fan.