Re: re-The Who digest #301 (long)

[John Hughes <john@pureneasy.fsnet.co.uk>]

Derick, re

> > Jon in LA writes that in his opinion The Who should have packed it 
> > in in 1978. Not gone on without Keith etc........Trouble is, in 
> > 1978, The Who were one of the biggest bands in the world. 

I hate to cause dissension in the ranks, mate, but I believe you're
wrong. The Who by 1978 were still a well known and big name band, but
they weren't one of the biggest bands in the world.

A lot depends on how you define "bigness" in relation to a band,
clearly. And we should also include a geographical element to that
definition, too, as how a band are viewed, or were viewed in America is
likely to be grossly different to how they are viewed in other parts. My
definition of big could easily be different to yours. 

Probably is:-)

To support my side of the coin, at the time you mention, 1978, Who Are
You the single did fairly well in the States and the US. The album did
fairly well, too. I confess for any Canadian listers, I have no idea at
all how the Who were received in Canada, or how their catalogue of
material sold there. So apologies for not mentioning Canada more often.

WBN, the previous album had received critical excoriation, and even its
commercially successful single Squeeze box had its fair share of scorn.

Quad, likely to one of the most successful and popular Who albums for
fans, was 5 years old, a difficult subject to grasp if you were not
British; I know, many list friends believe they grasp the whole message
and ideas of the albums, but I beg to offer the fact that you are the
ones who will take the time to listen to the lyrics, and make an effort
to understand the album. 

Who's Next and Tommy sold on the basis of the perceived idea of the
albums as "rock classics" much like maybe Zepp 4, or Dark side of the
moon. Live at Leeds? A connosseur's album by then, rather than a casual
purchase. As for O&S, WSO, AQO and My Gen, I doubt they sold in more
than dribs and drabs at that time.

I would put forward a guess that by 1978, the Who's commercial well
being was at a very low ebb indeed. Van Halen, Zepp, Stones, Floyd, to
name but 4 were almost certainly commercially and critically bigger
bands than the Who in 1978.

Another element of "bigness" I would offer is touring and playing live,
keeping yourself in front of your audience and keeping yourself sharp.

No doubt about it, the Who were a non event in the live gigs front. Had
been since 1976. A big minus there. And for any band, outside the core
of devoted fans, failure to keep yourself in front of your fans is often
(though not always) the beginning of the end.

Outside of Britain, parts of Europe and America, were the Who ever a
"big" band? They never toured Japan, a crucially important market in
rock terms; South America was a closed continent, and indeed large
tracts of America were not exactly good "markets" for the Who.

Nearer to home, after some shows in the mid '60's, they never toured in
Ireland; only two shows in Wales between 1971 and 1976; a few shows in
Scotland, and probably over 50% of the Who's UK shows from January 1972
to June 1976  were in London; hardly a sign that in their own country
they were a hugely successful draw, is it?

What the Who had in 1978 was a considerable degree of critical respect,
a (yes, large) hard core of older fans, and the admiration of a number
of leading figures in the nascent punk movement, especially in Britain.
I don't need to tell you how often members of the Sex Pistols drifted
into and out of Pete's life at the time.

Crucially, also, IMO, Pete had effectively written the Who off as a band
by then. Without that driving inward force, no band can maintain a
position high in the esteem of paying audience, deep fans and critics.

Yes, I have no doubt that in parts of America, the Who were indeed one
of the biggest bands; several of their anthems were a constant feature
on US rock radio at the time, but in their home country, up to the
release of Who are you as a single, I can tell you if we heard the Who
here on the radio, it would only have been one of Squeeze box, WGFA,
BBE, Baba, My Gen or 5.15.

That's another area that defines "bigness", too, how often they are
played or seen on tv/radio. In the UK, they had disappeared off tv in
1971/2 and effectively as said off UK radio too.

While I will always count the Who in all incarnations - pre or post
Keith/Kenny/Simon/Zak, solo or otherwise, the band of musicians who I
look for more than any other, I cannot accept your comments that they
were one of the biggest bands in the world in 1978. Parts of America
yes, but America is not the world.

> > It was a hard decision but they made the best one to carry on. It 
> > may have been for business reasons or money but the remaining three 
> > members were entitled to do so and IMHO justified after such a long 
> > career and one that they had all worked so hard to build thru sheer 
> > hard work.

You shame me. I think your words are so exactly right. I still think
that it would have been better to disband after Keith's death, because
for once, one individual was too big an element to be replaced. But yes,
their decision to carry on was theirs by right to do, and despite my
feelings, their continued existence brought two more albums with some
damn good stuff on.

> > Of course the ensuing problems withthe next couple albums, Pete's 
> > hearing loss, 

You missed out Pete's self induced drug problems....

> > and 'that 1989 tour'

I liked it! I liked hearing the Who songs done that way, I liked the
inclusion of some of Pete's solo stuff, and I liked Simon Phillips too. 

>  > Roger's lack of faith in Kenney,etc

I saw a couple of shows in 1979, and let me tell you, at Bingley Hall in
Stafford in particular, Kenney and the boys rocked. I saw no lack of
faith in Kenney that night.

> > some high points,The Quadrophenia film being one,and the single YBYB 
> > giving The Who a #2 hit in the UK and a lot of popularity worldwide. 

Hmmm, again, could I be a grouch and say almost certainly we mean
America here? 

> > However after all this,look at the renewed excitement of the 2000 
> > tour, as The Who proved once again just how good they are! 

I know, and I was lucky enough to get to several shows. 

> > And the recent MSG show just adds to the evidence. And you wanted 
> > these guys to pack it in?

Shows that sometimes what we think of at one time being the right thing
might not, in 20 years time, with the benefit of hindsight, be the right
thing.

But, let's just imagine.... freed from the shackles of the "Who", Pete
produces Empty Glass a year earlier, and his career takes a different
slant; he could well have avoided the drug problems, and what was
frankly a disappointing solo career in terms of public perception, NOT
our perception, could well have turned into a much more successful one.

Roger? Well, Roger might well have continued as he did, but with more
success in the acting field, fronting "Daltrey's all stars", recreating
the songs of the Who; and John Entwistle? He'd probably have been
gigging for 20 years, accumulating the credit he justly receives today
as best "rock" (if not generally in music) bassist ever.

But of course none of this might have happened... they might have stayed
together, produced two albums which were critical and public stinkers,
faltered through a tour when Pete was so high on drugs he could barely
play a solo on some nights, when frustrated by what he perceived as the
constraints of a "dinosaur" band, he ruthlessly kept his best songs from
his friends of 15 years and issued them in solo albums, broke up the
band, causing them (or him) to repay a million dollars to Warners for
the failure to honour their contract, fell into a deep, creative sleep
for 12 years, releasing two patchy albums, cynically touring in a 25
years anniversary tour to earn money, and then, almost miraculously, 
coinciding with a relapse into drinking, he released quite the best solo
work he'd done for years, regained a successful - critically - solo
career, a chance inclusion in a charity concert enable him to touch base
with his friends, to present one of his most cherished works on stage,
to tour that show for 18 months, to regain a zest for live performance,
beginning the process of finding the dinosaur wasn't quite such a
burden, culminating in the release of the work that had dogged him for
30 years, and expressing that zest for live work in a tour that was a
revelation, and a blazing appearance in a charity concert.

Maybe that's what we wanted to happen;-)

Cheers,

John