smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | rob@splitsville.com |
| Subject | =?US-ASCII?B?UkU6IENhcmVlciBlcXVhdG9ycw==?= |
| Date | Mon, 03 Apr 2006 11:09:05 -0400 |
[Part 1 text/plain US-ASCII (2.4 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
If you use Tommy as a mid-point, I prefer The Who's second half output to the earlier stuff.
Of course, the early singles and albums leading up to Tommy are amazing, but what followed was ridiculously fantastic: Live At Leeds, Who's Next, and in particular, Quad. By Numbers had its moments, too (tho' the cracks in Moon were beginning to show). In this period Daltrey really found his voice (admittedly, it was Tommy that brought it out of him), and Moon and Entwhistle were their usual brilliant selves.
Townshend's writing got better, more intelligent, his musical experimentation increased (in a good way), and the band on the whole proved themselves to be fairly untouchable live. Sonically live and in the studio they were, as Pete called them, 'a war machine'.
Yes, they did limp toward the finish line when Jones replaced Moon (and Pete went through a period of gargantuan alcohol and drug abuse), but both Face Dances and It's Hard are a bit under rated, mostly due to the fact those albums weren't as good as Who's Next. There are some absolutely ace tracks on both (Another Tricky Day, Athena, I've Known No War, You, Daily Records, You Better You Bet, etc.)
>----- ------- Original Message ------- -----
>From: bholmes_fm@msn.com
>To: audities@smoe.org
>Sent: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 10:36:50
>
>I was discussing John Hiatt with an online pal and
>we were talking about how
>so many of his fans (1) think BRING THE FAMILY is
>his finest moment and (2)
>think his post-BTF music is vastly superior to his
>earlier works. My friend
>and I are firmly in the PRE camp; while we enjoy a
>lot of songs he's done
>since, the albums that came before were more
>consistent. I realized that I
>could probably say that about a lot of artists -
>Costello, Kinks, Tom Petty,
>Stewart, Neil, Zappa, Elton, REM, U2,
>Stones...hell, even the Beatles.
>
>I guess it matters where you put the dividing line,
>especially if the artist
>wasn't consistently prolific, and artists would
>have to have a decent output
>to be a candidate (lets say six or more records).
>But there aren't too many artists where I wouldn't
>side with their earlier
>days over their later - matter of fact I can't
>think of one right now. Can
>you?
>
>The closest I came was The Replacements, and that's
>if I take
>TIM/PLEASED/DON'T/SHOOK over
>STINK/SORRY/HOOTENANNY/LET.
>
>b
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.