Re: What's that lyric, anyway

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

> Mark:  Your statement about waiting three years and being disappointed by
> Who By Numbers echoed my own feelings exactly.

Alan:

Although I was in fact disappointed by WBN, despite seeing the band live
for the first time just one month after it was released, I was actually
talking about WAY...the three years being `75-`78. O&S was released in `74,
so even though it wasn't a NEW album...at least it was something, and
something good at that. After WBN we got nada until WAY.

> & Tommy.  Now if the release of a lesser album somehow magically caused a
> better, preceding album to vanish off the face of the earth, then, YEAH,
I
> would have been extremely disappointed :-).

I was extremely disappointed by WAY because it was the continuation of a
trend...WBN was weaker than QUAD, and then the three years...I mean, I
could IMAGINE what Pete was coming up with since it took only two years for
QUAD & TOMMY!!! Instead, what we was even weaker. It has always sounded
half-hearted and forced to me. There's little joy in the making of the
music, it seemed.
If a band gets to a certain level, I expect them to at least equal it (or
better it)...and at least from SO to QUAD, each Who album was at least as
good as if not better than the last!
Don't get me wrong...I love them both. And if it was, say, Zeppelin...I
would have to say they're both among their best work ever. And comparing
them to the other music of the era, they were still better than 90% of what
was out there. But we're talking about The Who here. 
In retrospect, both albums have become "better" for me mainly because it
was just about all of the Who I was going to get from then on.
However, I've never been of the "Who can do no wrong" school and I'll point
it out when I see it.

> Mark L. Leaman wrote in response to a previous post inquiring whether he
had
> listened to the lyrics of Who Are You.  Mark's response was words to the
> effect that "Yes, since the day it was released."

Kevin:

Actually, Keets asked me if I'd listened to the music behind the lyrics. So
while I DO appreciate nearly EVERYONE ON THE LIST pointing out that I got
two lines of a song a bit wrong....I do get a lot of customers interrupting
me (I don't feel bad that I'm busy!) as I write so sometimes I'm in a bit
of a hurry, `cause you know they come first and all that...I've gotten the
message loud and clear now! Jeez! I now know how Clinton feels: one little
mistake!
My point remains: Townshend could have done better. I'll agree with you
that WAY rocks and with Howard that even the non-rocking songs can be
great, but this still doesn't change my opinion that New Song and WAY in
general is among the weakest of their work. I expect more of The Who than a
good "rocking" or "soft" song. They can rock and still make you think. They
can be soft and stimulate your mind.
Or at least, they used to...

I'd rate the albums as follows (best to worst):
QUAD/LAL/WN/TOMMY/SO/MG/WBN/IH/WAY/FD/AQO

I'd also call the first 5 "classic" Rock albums (which is not the same as
Classic Rock albums), which is another way of saying that for ANY Rock fan
who claims to be serious, they are essential.

The soundtracks and collections I've not included, but if I did I'd place
them between WBN & IH. WHO'S LAST I left out completely, because THAT is
something I WISH I could forget...it would be in last place, if included.