WN vs QUAD + Stones & Beatles

[mleaman@sccoast.net (Mark Leaman)]

>I'm letting the IH/WAY argument drop because this is much more
> interesting.  
>You're the first person I've come across who thinks Keith is a better 
>drummer on Quad.  I happen to be a drummer myself, and I find Keith's 
>performance on Quad ordinary and plain in comparison.  Where are the 
>accented cymbal crashes, the attempts (and generally succeeding) of using 
>quintuplets without going off the beat?  What Moon did on Quad sounds like
>a drummer who could've done the same thing with one hand tied behind his
>back for the WN sessions.  BTW "chilly perfection" best suits Quad.  That
album 
>has always sounded cold and dark (the album cover doesn't help) to me, 
>strong contrast to a brighter sounding WN.  To a majority of people WN is 
>the end all to be all of Who albums, Quad is the sentimental fav among the 
>die hards.

Ian:

I'll be the first to admit that I'm NOT a drummer, so my opinion comes as a
layman (which is how my last name is pronounced, so that's just as it should
be). Subjectively, I love the drums on QUAD, no matter the skill level
shown. If it's not as complex, that doesn't show (at least, to me). The
drumming certainly fits the music.
This is the first I've heard anyone call QUAD perfect. I mean, it's the
perfect Who album (in the sense that it's a watershed for the performance
and songwriting) and my pick for greatest Rock album of all time (in that it
literally defines Rock music)...but The Who were never perfect, and their
flaws are what have made them unique and lovable. Like Townshend's vocal on
Baba: "Don't cry...", which has the slight flaw at the end. Or the lack of
cymbal crash once out of four on the end of WGFA (can you tell that I've got
WN on at the moment?).

>As for your Let It Bleed comments I agree.  It's certainly not my favorite 
>Stones album, and comes off very choppy.  But if Paul Evans (he wrote the 
>quote) thinks that way, let him.  An assured record in my mind has to be 
>something along the lines of the Beatles Revolver.  But since you see the 
>sky as purple while I see it as pink I'm sure it's another difference of 
>opinion.

I don't know if our disagreement is that intense, because we agree on much
(actually). But...(you knew it was coming, didn't you?) I do count LIB as
one of my favorite Stones albums...much better than the mush they were
putting out in the mid `60s (except for a few songs on each album). For me,
their first great album was BEGGAR'S BANQUET and each one after to GOAT'S
HEAD SOUP. If I had to pick their best, it would be THROUGH THE PAST, DARKLY
(which may be cheating since it's a "best of") or EXILE.
SATANIC MAJESTY'S could have been a great album, if not for Why Don't We
Sing This Song All Together (or whatever; I don't have it here at the
store)...which would have been OK for three minutes but the "long" version
later in the album just sucks out all reasoning and life.
REVOLVER, perhaps my favorite Beatles album (tied with SPLHCB & ABBEY ROAD),
also seems to me to be disjointed...at least, the style of music changes
with each song. A good thing, in that case. It works and makes the album
interesting. It was intentional, unlike LIB where the producer (Miller?)
just threw on what was around.
Maybe I just like disjointed. On the other hand, TOMMY and QUAD are two of
my favorites...
So I'm not sure what you mean by "assured." Perhaps you could enlighten me.


                   Cheers                   ML

"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."  L. Long