Re: Worst Who Songs

[WFang01@aol.com]

Ian, re:

>I think you missed the point of my post.  

No, I got it, just didn't agree with it in this case. I appreciate the
historical sense of things, but not in all cases. And, I don't think it's
necessary to know or appreciate them when "liking" something or not. For
example, a person can buy and appreciate a Mercedes for many reasons, but
don't have to know that Karl Benz built the "patent motor car" in 1885, or
the next contender was Gottlieb Daimler shortly afterwards. (Damiler & Benz
merged in 1926) 

>>Now if you want to talk about FORCING oneself into likeing music, I will 
point you to some of Roger and John's solo material.  Some of it doesn't 
even sound CLOSE to the Who.  Personally I can't stand some of it.  John's
stuff is pretty decent mostly (love Whistle Rhymes) but Roger's material
barring McVicar is very questionable. 

Well, it doesn't have to sound like The Who to me, as long as there is some
element in it that gives it "Who-like quality". Most of John's songs are well
written, displaying his irony and sense of humor. While they may be different
than his Who music, they can be described as "close cousins". Roger, since he
doesn't write his material, has a bigger problem, due to the lack of
consistancy. However, if one of the Who elements you're attracked to is
Roger's unique vocals, than if the material is decent, you don't mind what
he's singing. Besides McVicar, I think he's done a lot of great solo work,
unfortunately, spotty.

>>Or howabout going to see Roger act?  Is he that great of an actor, or is it
because "hey man he sang in my favorite band"?  Granted he's not bad in what
I'm seen, but he's no Sean Connery. 

I have to agree with you there. At least in my case, it's the sense of being
a "completist"... Others have their own reasons...

-wf