Re: Who/Beatles/and all that brings with it

["Mark R. Leaman" <mleaman@sccoast.net>]

> I'm sure it sold as well as MCA expected.

Scott:

MCA has low expectations concerning The Who, and it's their own fault in the
first place too. MCA sucks.

> breakup & subsequent "reunion" tours.  Rock fans began laughing at The
Who.

Oh, like they're not laughing at the Stones or even the Beatles (for that
matter).

> Just think if the 2000 tour could be substituted for the 1989 tour.....

I don't agree with your tour theory. As a Who fan, the Kenny Jones years
damaged them for me more than 1989, `96 or `00. 1989 went a long way (IMHO)
toward reforming their rep, and 1996 gave them back everything they ever had
(for those who saw the tour). Ditto in 2000.
The problem is that no one outside a selected few (relatively speaking) knew
about any of this. Those I introduced to The Who live during the Quad tour
were blown away. IOW, they didn't expect it to be so good. See what I mean?

> just compared Please, Please Me to My Generation.  HA!

Deni:

PPM is no better than any Monkees song, and not as good as some of them
(like Pleasant Valley Sunday or Stepping Stone). "Last night I said these
words to my girl/I know you never even try girl/Come on/Come on..."
Elvis did better than this.
Whereas MG (in the words of Dave Marsh) were enough to get The Who into Rock
history even if they'd broken up immediately afterwards. You think the
Beatles would have made it in the US if PPM was the last thing they did? No
effin' way...they wouldn't even have been a footnote.
And that is a fact, and you know it's true.

> Oh Brother..this comment is ridiculous! HA!

No, Lennon mentioned it himself as a reason he didn't want to reform the
band. This is a fact. Haven't you read or listened to any Lennon interviews?

> Yes, it was cute!  Still would be cute too!  I can see them all on stage
now
> as they looked back in the Abbey Road Days.

Except they weren't able to play their music live (according to them) during
that period, for some reason that didn't affect any other band playing their
just as complicated music...

> play loud and hard..listen to Helter Skelter, Yer Blues, Revolution, Twist
> and Shout

All AFTER The Who, except for T&S which they didn't write and wasn't very
hard, really. It's R&B.

, Sgt. Peppers

Sgt, Pepper's, hard? Well I guess if T&S is hard, then it might be...maybe,
sort of, a little bit...

> wonderful love songs and ballads!  The Beatles were better musicians with
> the exception of John  Entwistle.

You are not a musician. All three of them were far better (or as good as, in
Pete's case) JPG&R. Another fact.

> What in the world does the roof top  scene have to do with  anything?

Compare the leads George plays to any Tommy bootleg leads (since it's the
only live Beatles to compare during that period)...try one during Sparks,
for instance. And earlier, you can take some Anthology live tracks and
compare them to the early songs on the video 30 Years of Max R&B.
George a better lead guitar player than Pete? Yeah, take a listen to All
You Need Is Love sometime. I love what the Rutles did when they parodied it.

> The Who are next in line.  IMO,that is a huge  compliment for The Who, not
a
> put down.

You're not able to be objective, it seems. The Beatles were pretty good, but
a few levels below The Who. Hell, even The Kinks topped the Beatles easily.
Dylan. Simon & Garfunkel. Cream. Hendrix. Beach Boys (by Paul's own
admission).

> Many!

And they all suck.

> what type of music you are listening to doesn't it?  Yes, if you listen to
> stations that play Metallica..you are correct.

Any Rock station that doesn't play Metallica isn't a Rock station.

> So cuteness was their gimmick, right?

Keets:

If so, it's rather a trite gimmick. Aggression...now THAT is something that
survives!

 > max weinburg (from bruce springsteen's E street band
> AC/DC said ringo was his inspiration as well!

TJ:

Two giants.

> No, but I don't notice them for other classic rock groups, either.

I did. It was an "event" when the LZ complete boxed set was released, as
well as the BBC discs.

> Hey, I hosted a Who gathering prior to all of us rocking with JEB.  Where
> the flog where you?

Kevin:

Trying to make money under the oppressive Bush economy.

> I'd never, nor have I ever heard anyone else say that The Beatles were
> bland.

Well you know I tend to take risks...as such, and I don't think it was much
of a risk anyway. Comparitively, if the Beatles are the mainstream British
Rock band then The Who are the spicey ones. Right? Five alarm chili. Pure
Rock Theatre. That would mean the Beatles were bland, right? La-la-la...

> Yes. There are some.  I'm not doing research on it though.

I have all of their music, and a lot of bootlegs too, and I haven't heard
any.

> typical beach-y music.  John and Paul felt threatened, and the album
raised
> the bar once again.
> They were *very* influenced by The Beach Boys.

You tell `em, boy! I can't believe anyone didn't know this by now. Deni, a
suggestion: watch the Anthology videos.

> Maybe we should all go hunt out Beatles lists and start the same argument
in
> favor of The Who.

Naw...they're so...uh, vulnerable, childlike, innocent. I wouldn't have the
heart to hit them with the truth.

> Please, The Eagles aren't right behind them.  Point not made.  Point taken
> away due to penalty for over exaggeration.  The Stones have consistently
> landed #2.

Not saleswise. So gimme that point back! Saleswise, you've got to hand it to
Henley (Their Greatest Hits is currently the #1 all time selling album). Now
*I* would rather listen to the Stones, and for me the Eagles have less than
two CDs worth of decent material.

> Don't get me wrong.  The polls don't mean "much".  But, if a band is
> consistently listed as "the #1 band of all time" I think it's a fair
> statement to say "they are important to rock history" (or however I put
it).

I never said they weren't important, just "not AS important." Not nearly as.

> Perhaps, but we're all losing.

Naw. I can't remember ever getting two digests in one day before.


"The suicide bombings have increased. There's too many of them."
          George "my IQ is 91" Bush


               Cheers                 ML