Re: Who/Beatles/Scooby Doo/Scrappy Doo/Georgie Duh/No Tridents

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

> Do you think that Jimmy Page could have copied Johnny Kidd and the pirates
> and not The Who? ;

Jon:

I have good reasons to think Page has "Pete-ness envy." I think they're
good, anyway.

> yep, the who are better, that's why their "bbc sessions" album debuted at
no.
> 101 and falling and the beatles "1" was no. 1 for 8 weeks on the charts.

TJ

Where is the Aaliyah album on the charts right now? I rest my case about the
charts and popularity.

> the beatles were different because they had a different sound than america
> was used to at the time.

Ever heard any Beach Boys?

> the first band that played harder rock n' roll, next to the kinks. and
let's

The Kinks, bless `em, were a bit of a one trick pony at that point. Great
singles, average albums. And they were doing love songs, despite the music,
whereas The Who were TALKING `BOUT MY GENERATION.

> by the way, i heard that the kinks released a rock opera titled "arthur"
> which came out way before "tommy" but didnt have the success "tommy" had.

No, it came out after. There are rumours that it was started first, but it's
doubtful since Pete started Tommy in `67 with Glow Girl and that riff in
Rael. It was also not a Rock Opera but a TV show soundtrack.
However, it is IMHO one of the Kinks' two best albums (the other being
Muswell Hillbillies).

> reasons the Beatles broke in America in such a massive way (and I don't
have
> reference book at for to double check dates b4 anyone leaps down my
thnroat)
> is that as a nation being exposed to them nationally vie the Ed Sullivan
> show came about after the (tragic) assisination of a certain US President

Nigel:

No, it was more due to Sean Connery's James Bond movies. All things British
became cool. Sure, the nation was in mourning, but I think it's more down to
exposure via movies and TV that did it.

> concentrating upon the "other" boy band of the time - The Beach Boys) that
> enabled a "machine" to get behind them.

Yes, BB's first single was in 1961, major label debut 1962, a good two years
before the Beatles "made it" in the US.

> Hmmm...I'm looking into my magic mirror (that sees into the near future)
and
> seeing another US national tragedy followed by a new Brit Invasion led by
> The Fucking Who!!!!

Jeff:

How can there possibly be a national tragedy? That implies there is someone
of consequence to be assassinated.

> I can dream can't I?  :-)

Don't dream it, be it.

> It is more atrocious than anything The Beatles ever recorded :-)

Haven't you ever heard You Know My Name (Look Up The Number)?

> Good question there.  I'll let you know in about two years when it all
goest
> to hell.  Funny, I didn't have severe stomach pains before.....?

Jim:

Don't sweat it...being married is better than...uh, better than...uh, better
than a kidney stone.

> Changes on the fly, my friend, changes on the fly.

I don't see any evidence of that.

> all to listen to this..." and puts on the Sgt. Pepper record.  Bam!
"We've
> got to work some of these concepts into OUR record, right?" says Kit.

This also fits with Pet Sounds. And gives them more time too, and we KNOW at
least Keith got it when it came out, and the harmonies on Mary-Ann and
Armenia and Tattoo seem more BB inspired than Beatles inspired to me.

> themes.  Musically, there is NO common theme like Tommy or Quad.  In
Tommy,
> the songs were recorded BEFORE the concept was fully developed; kind of
the

SOME of them were written before the concept (but changed, like She's A
Sensation). Not most of them, though. And I don't think you're correct about
the recording; I think by the time they were actually recording they had it
down. After all, Pete made the entire album (plus a song not used) in demos.
That HAD to be before they recorded the songs, right? And given the "sound"
of the album, it sounds to me like it was all recorded at the same
time...unlike Sell Out, which shows definite signs of being recorded at
different times.

> it.  Hell, look how the Stones used to emulate the Beatles too.

I give The Who more songwriting credit than I do Jagger/Richards.

> I like Sell Out better though; if that will keep me off the hit list.

Satanic Majesty's would have been a LOT better if they'd left off Why Don't
We Sing This Song All Together and included Child Of The Moon, We Love You
and Dandelion.

> Hey, let's throw another spanner in the works.............what about The
> Pretty Things "SF Sorrow", now then which came first.....Sgt Peppers; Sell
> Out; Pet Sounds; SF Sorrow.........this is fun :-)

SF Sorrow wasn't REALLY a Rock opera, and barely a concept album (as far as
I've ever been able to determine). It's pretty good, though.

> (I believe also that somewhere on film there's a certain PT going on about
> hearing Sgt Peppers and that it was a bizarre mono / stereo recording i.e

I think that's earlier stuff he was talking about. There's none of that on
SP mono and stereo, and in fact it's a superb mix both ways.

> Nigel and Ma-ark sitting in a tree.............    ;-)

Kevin:

Wait a minute...haven't you and Jeff been visiting each other? And Bjorn
too?

> Either way, they did it better than anyone else at the time, or since.
For
> one band to unify so many different tastes and generations is an
> accomplishment that must be appreciated and respected.

That's another way of saying they were so bland that anyone could like them.

> PJ comes to mind.

PJ "lovey-dovey" songs???

> >but for a while there he ruled.
>
> Yeah, what and who is the question though.

He ruled Neverland.


"I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I
   believe and what I believe-I believe what I believe is right."
            George "My IQ is 91" Bush


               Cheers                 ML