The Good, The Bad, & The Who

[Scott Curtis <SJCurtis@cris.com>]

Mark asked what facet of The Who people were drawn to. The powerful, driving
anthems or the sweetly melodic ballads? I for one don't need to make a
choice. The very reason The Who is my favorite band is that they could pull
off doing both types of songs so well. 

I compare Who music to a person's emotions. We can be angry, happy, sad, in
love, scorned by our lover, etc. The Who is the only band I know that covers
the whole range of emotions so perfectly. Every Who album is an ecclectic
mix of very personal songs that Pete interpreted with both the lyrics and
music ( with some JAE for good measure.)

I think the reason The Who didn't gain the popularity of the BIG THREE
(Beatles, Stones, Led Zep) is that it takes more of a commitment on the part
of the listener to fully enjoy their music. When I listen to a Who album, I
go through some or all of the emotions mentioned above. I also have to
listen to a variety of tempo's, beats, and melodies instead of pretty much
the same thing over and over.

I can't think of any song by the BIG THREE that could touch me the way a Who
song could. The Beatles "Let it Be" has all the simplistic qualities of a
Garth Brooks song. Zep's "Stairway to Heaven" while good for background
music, has lyrics that do not relate to anything important to me. The Stones
come the closest to writing songs about real human emotions, but they don't
hit me on a personal level like The Who.

So, the way I see it is that Who fan's are the most ardent music fans of
all, because they can listen to the most ecclectic group of songs ever
written and still see a common thread.

Love and Serious Posts,
SCott
Scott Curtis