Re: The Who and Scooby Doo too

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

> This statement is about the most ridiculous one of all that I've read.  I
> have a video that has Brian Wilson saying that The Beach Boys admired The
> Beatles and desperately wanted to be like them.

Oswaldo:

This is true, but it's also after the fact. And Paul McCartney said that
Summer Days inspired Revolver and Pet Sounds inspired Sgt. P. In the
meantime, the BB breakout predated the Beatles'.

> I don't believe that The
> Beachboys were even on the radio when The Beatles became popular in Europe
> and the in the States...'63,64.

The BB's first hit single was in 1962.

> Someone mentioned that I should be careful of what I say on here because
> people will hate me.  Why?  Everyone else states their personal opinions,
and
> more often than not, the opinions aren't based on facts.

I agree with you, and I don't hate you even when you said I said something
ridiculous (of course it wasn't and you can't be insulted by something
that's not true). However, I'm not stating opinions here unless noted. The
FACT is the BB came first with the same sound and it's also a FACT that the
Beatles were influenced by the BB.

> Heheh.  Are barrooms the real world?

Keets:

You know, I haven't really been in one in a long time.

> I've not been following this part of the discussion, but Pearl Jam's love
> song is their biggest hit.

That one doesn't count, because they didn't write it. It was on a tribute
album.

> short films.  Look at the millions they made.

Look at the millions Backstreet Boys made. Your point?

> I gather there are additional songs not included on the album that
complete
> the concept.  Supposedly it was cut, like LIFEHOUSE to make WHO'S NEXT.

I wonder why they didn't include them later.

> Oh my God...Pete even knows he isn't the best at lead guitar..Yes..he is
> great at power cords.  George Harrison is a much better "Lead" guitar
player.

Oswaldo:

I disagree with you here. Harrison was a fair lead player, but so was Pete.
Harrison (wisely) started [playing slide when the going got tough...compare
his leads from the Apple roof show and Tommy live circa 1969.

> Unbelievable!  The Who's vocals are not even in the same league as The
> Beatles.  GEEZ!

You're right...Rog is MUCH better.

> Moon played with more energy but wasn't as meter conscious as Ringo.

He had his own private meter, and Ringo isn't really much of a drummer on
his best day. He'd be the first to admit Moon was far superior.

> John and Paul had the most innovative and wild lyrics (especially John's)
of
> all starting with Revolver.

Yeah, and Pete had them starting with My Generation a year earlier.

> Also,  most new bands give credit to The Beatles, not The Who.

Yet they sound MUCH more like The Who. Funny how politically correct people
tend to be, isn't it?

> When  I saw The Beatles live in '66...it was like the second coming!

And The Who were the first coming. The Beatles at their very best couldn't
touch The Who live. This is also a FACT.

> TheBeaTles were, and still are, the most versatile band
> that R'n'R has ever known.

AEB:

Oh of course they weren't! Versatile? How about a band which changed with
every album? That wouldn't be the Beatles; look at their first five albums.
Then their next two (Rubber Soul, Revolver), the next two (Sgt. Pepper's,
MMT)...after that they were in a groove for the rest of their career.
The Who, on the other hand...MG is nothing like AQO which is nothing like SO
which bares only faint resemblance to Tommy which sound NOTHING like LAL
which is the opposite of WN and then Quad is completely unique.

> melody and harmony, then yes, The Beatles had more complexity, but The
Who's
> forte has never been, nor ever will be, melody.  "My Generation" and "The

Keets:

I'd contend that "I hope I die before I get old" means more than "Love, love
me do..." or "Please me oh yeah like I please you..." or "Oh please say to
me/I think you'll understand/Oh please say to me/I want to hold your
hand..." will EVER mean. Or, for that matter: "I can't explain/I think it's
love/Wanna say it to you/When I feel blue..." is more complex than the
Beatles early singles. AAA is a study in defiance, and I'm A Boy goes in a
place Lennon/McCartney never dared go.

> Just a comment on possible strategy.  Do you have any suggestion as to why
> the album didn't sell well?

Yeah, it wasn't promoted at all. Most people still don't know it's out. You
forget that we know Who stuff months in advance, but the general public
doesn't even look in the Who bin anymore. Most of my customers who ask me
for Who CDs don't even know about the remixed versions.

> 1970 was the next year.  They were making their shift away from Mod in
1968
> and set their image for the new decade with TOMMY.

They still made it more than 6 months earlier than that.

> Rock's still number one--and by a wide margin, too.

No, Hip-Hop sells better. Look to the charts.

  > >play..no gimmicks...just THEM...they would electrify the audience and
they
> >would still be able to do it today if Lennon was alive.

Deni:

No, even Lennon knew better than this. They couldn't do it even when they
were still together (see the footage from the Apple roof) and they knew it,
even months after they broke up ANYTHING they released would have been
doomed to be compared unfavorably to their earlier stuff. And they knew it.
That is the main reason they never reformed, and it was the smartest move
they could have made too.
If the remaining three reformed and performed, and played against the
reformed Who, The Who would STILL blow them away.


"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