"The Beatles are flippin lousy"

studiotwosession · Post by **studiotwosession** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 2:19 pm

No doubt the Who were out of control on the road. Then again their managers were notorious, I believe, for hard partying as well. That, and if your management doesn't have a realistic grasp on details like travel time, lodging, etc., etc., it can make it difficult to bridge an itinerary with reality. I'm sure also they had to scramble to find new instruments to destroy every show. It's pretty amazing to think of what the road was like in the mid 60s, long before the rock star treatment, these English bands travelling massive distances in unknown lands...the same lands that Buddy Holly died trying to traverse not many years earlier. That could be tough even when you're not in a different city every day. If the Who and Kinks gigged like the Beatles in their early days, often playing two and sometimes three gigs, sometimes in different locations, all on the same day, that would make it even harder. Kinda weird how Epstein was so together in business and passed away so early by his own hands.

j_alfred · Post by **j_alfred** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 9:35 pm

To borrow a line from Tom Waits:

I come on this forum, man, and it's like there's history hanging in the windows by the pound.

Seriously, as a "budding" historian of American culture in the twentieth century(that just means I do history for money), I would have loved to have witnessed some of these epic events. I am particularly interested in rock history and its slow and (sometimes) grudging split with the old-timey, country blues of Son House and Robert Johnston. Bring on the learnin'!

westtexasrickenbacker · Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:55 am

The Who was third-rate compared to the Beatles, or even the 'Stones', for that matter.

Commercially, they could not hold a candle to them. Most of their songs couldn't compete melodically. Their stage presence was ridiculously offensive and Roger can't sing as well as J or P. I think Paul's bass work is much better, within the context of a song, than the Ox, too!

For all the hoopla of the Moon and Entwistle rhythym section, I've tried to listen objectively as a bass player trying to learn from a master, and they still mostly bore me.
Even the lead guitar work is something I don't understand what the fuss is about. Loud doesn't equate to great.

Pete Townsend had to verbally be a snit. That was the only way he could compete.

congerz83 · Post by **congerz83** » Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:21 am

hmmmm..... Isn't Pete Townshend a pedophile. I could give a #$%@ what he thinks. Then or now.

winston · Post by **winston** » Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:43 am

As you cannot judge the Wright Bros flying machine by todays aircraft standards you cannot judge the Who's act by todays musical standards.

They were a "big sensation" without a doubt. It seems, we had just finished listening to a round of Freddie and the Dreamers, Cilla Black, The Hollies, Herman's Hermits, the odd Stones song and a few Beatle songs (in a class of their own IMO) on BBC radio and then all of a sudden along came the Who. However, it was not their recordings that did it for them it was their wild stage act and the fact that their obnoxious anti-establishment behaviour was widely discussed in the media.

They were both insane and exciting. I know I saw them live very early in their career.

They made the Rolling Stones look like choirboys.

karl_teten · Post by **karl_teten** » Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:09 pm

Justin, search out the book THE LAND WHERE THE BLUES BEGAN by Alan Lomax. Blues or country blues split into rhythm and blues and later rock and roll when the Great Depression era Mississippi Delta bluesmen all moved north to Memphis and later Chicago and went electric.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385312857/104-9545447-1811140?v=glance&n=283155

studiotwosession · Post by **studiotwosession** » Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:52 pm

Comparing the Beatles and the Who is inane, and Townshend was too smart then to know that that was not what he was really doing.

He was clearly positioning a relatively unknown band, the Who, against the most popular band in the world then and now. And from a promotional point of view, just like the Who's auto-destructive act, it was a brilliant move. And it took serious balls to do it. (Clearly Pete wasn't interested in copying the Beatles like the Stones did, with album covers that look like Pepper's, or putting sitars on tracks, or sitting at their feet when they recorded All You Need Is Love.)

The Who was then, and continued to be, among the smartest, most stylish, innovative and dynamic bands ever, not to mention they were among a handful of bands at that time that had a sense of humor to rival the Beatles.

Brian's right about them compared to the Stones. As Roger has said, when you listen to the Stones you hear Chuck Berry. But when you listen to the Who you just hear the Who.

Moon revolutionized rock drumming the same way Ringo had a few years earlier (perhaps that's why they were close friends and Ringo's kid is the Who's drummer now.)

Entwhistle was like they said, nothing less than the Hendrix of bass, plus he sang decent harmony.

And as far as Townshend goes, unlike Lennon or McCartney, he didn't have a partner his equal in writing (much less a Harrison who could also come up with a good tune now and then, or the best producer in the biz) to fall back on. He wrote all of Tommy (as long and arguable more consistant than the White Album) himself. And did it again on another double album four years later.

And for my money, his solo stuff absolutely kicks the tar out of the majority of Lennon's, Macca's and Harrison's solo catalogs.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Thu Aug 10, 2006 5:42 pm

Townshend was stitched up for pedophilia--there were pictures on his hard drive. He claimed they were part of a research project. He was acquitted in a court of law.

So outright tarring him with an ill-informed opinion, then shutting off his entire life's work as a result, is, frankly, a bit over the top, IMO. He's got an original viewpoint and was a product of his class and times who had guts and stamina. Were the Who "great"? Who cares? (indeed...)

They were a perfect snapshot of a moment and place in time that lasts to this day, and to me at least, that snapshot is still fresh, uncreased and remains in sharp focus.

The first time I visited Brighton (a few years back), I wandered the pier and walked along the South Coast sand, and I could still hear faint echoes.

glass_onion · Post by **glass_onion** » Thu Aug 10, 2006 8:19 pm

zak is in oasis now, i saw the who with zak and man was he good.

studiotwosession · Post by **studiotwosession** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 2:09 am

Definitely a product of his times and vocation. And to have survived it was an accomplishment. It is rather chilling during the Making of Who's Next/Lifehouse DVD where Pete talks about being afraid that Keith was going to turn into a junkie.

wayang · Post by **wayang** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 4:36 am

Thanks, Brian, Glenn and Paul, for keeping things real around here...your observations are right on the money, IMO. I can remember being blown away by Who's Next when it came out...and it's still one of my favorite albums from that era. If it wasn't for The Who, Rock-n-Roll might have remained a Little-Lord-Fauntleroy, matching-suit, bowing-and-scraping-after-every-tune exercise full of songs about hand-holding...something I'm sure the Gods of the Record Industry would have preferred, to say nothing of the political powers of the time.

And now comes this absurd notion of "Won't Get Fooled Again" being some sort of right-wing anthem...sorry, Coulter, Hannity et al, you don't get to just rewrite history and appropriate whatever you want. Let's all do our best to remember exactly what kind of power structure was operating with impunity in 1968 when Townsend wrote that tune...and how, if anything, we're under more pressure to 'get fooled again' now than at any time since...and it ain't 'librals' trying to do the fooling.

"Fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice...uh...you can't get fooled again...", as some fool recently remarked. It's more than enough to make you wanna smash a guitar...

wayang · Post by **wayang** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 4:50 am

I realized, after re-reading my happy little screed, that I made a grammatical error: I should have written "If it WEREN'T for The Who..."

On deeper reflection, though, I think it sounds more 'Rock-n-Roll' the way I wrote it.

I mean: can you imagine Jack Bruce singing: "If it weren't for bad luck..."?

congerz83 · Post by **congerz83** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:14 am

I have much respect for Pete's talent and body of work. But every interview I've ever heard of Pete he sounds like and over opinionated jerk. Again, love The Who, not Pete. His shameless disrespect for The Beatles was very offensive to me. Mabey I'm off base but didn't the Beatles pave the way for bands like the Who. At least in the american market.

Scastles · Post by **Scastles** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:44 am

While I agree with you Dane, Won't Get Fooled Again was written in '70 or '71. The album was released in '71. Regardless, the same powers were still working then, with the same impunity.

studiotwosession · Post by **studiotwosession** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 7:10 am

Hmmm...since Tommy came out in '69, it's possible Won't Get Fooled was written that year, or even earlier. Though it's not probable, it is possible.

A lot of times guys have songs here or there for a year or two, sometimes even longer, before they're tracked and released.

McCartney had When I'm 64 and parts of Michelle before they were even signed.

Pete may have been kind of pompous in interviews. But there were worse (Zappa, for one.) And let's face it, he was sought out because he was a better interview than Alice Cooper, and most of the rest of rock's figures.

And when he said he wanted to quit releasing Who albums before they become the horrible beast that was latter day Zeppelin, he was telling the truth and doing us a favor at the same time.