RE: Who/Beatles/and more

["Nigel Morton" <nigel@adastey.demon.co.uk>]

ML, who ever you are, when you're next in town you'll get a beer or three as
we slug out who is right, loved your remarks, observations etc, etc!

NM


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-thewho@igtc.com [mailto:owner-thewho@igtc.com]On Behalf Of
Mark R. Leaman
Sent: 06 September 2001 14:50
To: TheWho@igtc.com
Subject: Re: Who/Beatles/and more


> To say the Beatles never recorded a proper hard rock song does ignore
> "Helter Skelter" which still resonates as well as anything the 'Oo or Led
> Zep managed.

Nigel:

Inspired (according to McCartney) by I Can See For Miles, the "Pop" song he
considered the heaviest song recorded to (that) date.
Next.

> was 15.  It's all SUBJECTIVE...there's no way ANYONE on this list can look
> at it objectively because everyone here is biased towards The Who anyway.

Drew:

That's not true. I look at all Rock music objectively. It's not MY fault The
Who are far and away the best Rock band...*I* had nothing to do with
that...I'm just a humble reporter of the truth...OK, so I'm not THAT
humble...so sue me...

> a while.  Mrs House remarked that it was quite ahead of it's time in '69.

Jeff:

You should inform the lovely Ms. House the movie came out in 1975.

> towards George Bush in these multiple posts stemming from Bjorn's comment

Drew:

For the record, I'm an independent not a Democrat.

> (someone from ultra-socialistic Europe and a LOT of
> liberals on the list

Who fans tend to be more intelligent and more intelligent people tend to be
liberal. You see, it all follows.

> through...BUT SO WERE THE BEATLES!  John and Paul were in bands by 1956,

Yeah, but you don't think anyone in London at that time could be bothered by
any band in bleeding LIVERPOOL, do you? Nope. Not a chance. They were
unaware of the Beatles when the members of The Who began performing.

> ANd don't even get me started on what would happen if I mentioned I was a
> HUGE Led Zeppelin fan too!

Now you're just asking for it. But they were the best Who copy band in
history...I'll give them that...

> Cajun records. I have a disco collection that can make my friends jealous!

Bjorn:

A Disco collection that makes someone jealous...that's an impossibility.

> Elvis Presley was for rock music. And I don't like Elvis' music either!

("CHOKE!")

> Pete or Paul were to read this list, they'd be laughing.

Pete, yes, Paul, no. Paul's an arrogant little SOB who thought Coming Up and
Say Say Say and Listen What The Man Said were good songs.

> The Beatles were more *important* to society than any other band before or
> after.

Kevin:

OK...what does today's Rock (not Pop) sound more like, The Who or the
Beatles? How about that of the `90's? And so on, and so forth. The Who were
more influential than any other band (so far), and that makes them more
important. Even the Beatles admitted they were influenced by The Who.
Sure, the Beatles were more popular. So is Michael Jackson, Garth Brooks,
all lightweights.

> them.  Elvis was important too, and I don't like him either.

What's the deal with all this Elvis bashing all of a sudden??? JEEZ!

> 3rd LP.  (The title eludes me at the moment, its with most of my vinyl

Rich:

All Things Must Pass. His best album.

> unquestionable fact- The Who pioneered the hard rock sound that still
> predominates today.

Kevin Mc:

Exactly! The proof is in the influence.

> All interesting points especially when someone attempts to catch me out by
> referring (semi-correctly) to Yardbirds / Animals as "blues" bands.

Nigel:

No question about that...after all, 90% of what The Animals recorded was old
Blues songs, and Clapton...well, need I even say it? Beck too, although he
was heavier...after The Who by that time, however. Beck copied Pete's
feedback thing, too.

> However, if you review carefully, earlier set list from The Who I believe
> that you'd find "the blues" played as much an important part in their
> generic history

This is true, however by the time they were recording (entering their
influencial rather than their influnced phase), they were over that and took
MUCH more from R&B. And, for the record, they are the only major band who
came from R&B rather than Blues, and that too makes them unique.

> ska / reggae and what they did was distill it all down into a sound that
> was, and still is, pretty fucking unique.

Well, we end up at the same place anyway.

> time, December 1968, The Stones were regarded as the Greatest Rock n' Roll
> band on the planet.

Rock N Roll not Rock. A difference which can't be ignored.

> also appreciate (with the wisdom of age) that towards the end of their
> actual recording career The Who were stumbling around, somewhat.

But who wasn't at that point? The Stones were pretty much shit in the 80's
and The Kinks did actully do some worthy stuff, but faded out by the end of
the decade. Comparatively, I think Pete made the right decision to break up
the band in 1982.


"It's so much easier to quit on somebody than to remediate."
          George "my IQ is 91" Bush


               Cheers                 ML