Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Some bands were just better live and could never really be captured as well on tape. The Who were a good example, and another one which comes to mind was Buffalo Springfield. Great live! And in their case as well, bad production for the most part. Their managers acted as producers on their first release and they didn't have a clue.

Right on Stan

Produced by wannabees. Spell check that one.

Jeepers it caught it. I thought Peter said spell check worked for both American and English

That's funny...that spelling is perfect.

It did not catch my misspelling of "breast" as "breat" in a previous post. You'll have to read the post to get the context, though...

I agree with Ray, The Who, as a hitmaking singles band, was overrated.

Out here (L.A.) as a kid I remember My Generation and I Can See For Miles being played on the Boss 30 stations, right next to Sinatra and the Beatles. Those are fairly early and cool singles. I saw them around '70, at Angel Stadium with that "Ride Captain Ride" band and I think one more, more famous, band.

Jerry, I saw them at the arena next to the Coloseum, where the old Lakers used to play, right after Keith died and Kenny Jones took over. We got down closer to the stage toward Entwistle and after about 15 minutes -- had to leave. Not move back to our seats -- leave. It was insanely loud! Our ears hurt for days!!

What, me loud?

... and now he's somewhat deaf. Permanent hearing damage anyways. (cool photo)

I once had a similar experience with "Los Lobos" at a relatively small club. I pushed to the front before the show only to be physically blown back when they started. WAY too loud.

A few posts back someone said the Who's early records weren't recorded well. Everyone's entitleD to their opinion, but to my ears things like HAPPY JACK, I CAN SEE FOR MILES and MAGIC BUS are excellently recorded, though not representative of their live sound at all. The vocals were crisp and out front, the drums were clean yet punchy.
Seems like the acoustic guitars dominated the recordings (except maybe on MILES).
I've spent years trying to recreate the layered acoustic sound, but as in many circumstances, the sound Pete got was/is IN HIS HANDS. Now early Rolling Stones records-the sound really sucks!

I'd like to weigh in on the Pete vs. Roger vocal quality issue...Pete's solo albums and the demos of Who tunes he sang on have certain endearing qualities, but a better voice than Roger??? Not in my book...

Just try to picture Pete screaming that note at the end of Won't Get Fooled Again...uh, no thanks...

Prefer Townshend singing...he can't duplicate the screaming, but that's fine by me. "Behind Blue Eyes" the demo I much prefer to the bombastic Who version...but then again, bombast was what defined the Who. Hmmm, maybe I'm not a Who fan. Fine by me.

There are a couple of Townshend vocals that aren't bad, but overall I like the vitality of Roger's voice better. I don't think "The Kids Are Alright" (one of my personal favorites) would have been nearly as powerful by Pete. He has a more "introspective" quality that I don't think would have carried the song.

In fairness, I've never heard a Pete version, though.

Agreed..."introspective" is an accurate description, which I prefer, and I can't argue with you over the vitality of Roger's voice.

I've heard Pete do TKAA live and it worked beautifully. His voice is perfect on some songs (Imminence Front comes to mind). It works nicely when he and Roger sing together too (Baba O'Riley).
In the end though, it's his guitar style and songwriting which, when paired with Roger's voice (and the mighty beast of a rhythm section), puts the Who over the top.

Noel: I agree, you have touched upon the salient factors that made the Who renowned performers.

I wonder whether this may be a case of "live by the sword die by the sword" in terms of their overall success as a group.

Notwithstanding their compositional talents, I have often wondered if their forcefulness with regard to performance and tonality kept them off the main stream charts.

The charts are certainly not the last word on playing or performing excellence, nor would we really want them to be. Getting back to the origin of this thread, however, I still find it curious that their success on the charts did not measure up to their talents?