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

Who's worst?



Tiger Beat, er...I mean ROLLING STONE magazine recently ran an article about 
bad albums by good bands.  For some inexplicable reason, "The Who by Numbers" 
was featured in the article.  Although I guess I should be thankful that they 
did not see this as yet another opportunity to take pot shots at FD and IH, I 
was nevertheless, somewhat surprised.  Is this, in any universe, considered 
to be a bad album???  To suggest that The Who were at the nadir of their 
career in 1975 seems a little off the mark, to say the least.  Anyway, here 
is what they had to say....
"The Who, By Numbers
Pete Townshend has always strived to be honest with the Who's fans, but the 
title of this 1975 hack job was almost too frank: No other album by the 
original Who lineup of Townshend, Keith Moon, Roger Daltrey and John 
Entwistle was ever so somnambulant. Of course, Townshend was battling a 
severe alcohol addiction at the time, while Keith Moon was busy driving Rolls 
Royces into garden ponds, but those facts alone can't excuse the numbing 
mediocrity of tracks like "Squeeze Box" and "Slip Kid." By Numbers would have 
been a weak record by most bands' standards, but the fact that the mighty 
Quadrophenia was released barely two years before makes it seem even worse."

Weak by most bands standards??? Maybe it just needs some drum machines to 
make it "better."

--Mike