smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | rob@splitsville.com |
| Subject | =?US-ASCII?B?UkU6IFJlOiBUaGUgRWFybHkgV2hvIEJ5IEEgTGFuZHNsaWRl?= |
| Date | Tue, 04 Apr 2006 09:39:07 -0400 |
[Part 1 text/plain US-ASCII (14.6 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
My initial argument was putting Tommy in the middle- therefore Live at Leeds is in the second half. One of you below indicated Leeds in part one.
>Themore seriously Pete Townshend takes himself, the
>less approachable and enjoyable his music becomes.
I don't believe that for a second. Townshend's introspection was the the key to that band not becoming a dumb heavy metal act, and Pete was one of the few writers who was brave enough to write about himself in light that was very harsh but also very truthful. This, in turn, was the basis for brilliant and sometimes horrifying music ("However Much I Booze", "Daily Records", all of his solo CD 'Empty Glass')
>Moon had a lot to do with the "Beach Boys-sounding
>stuff". When the Who found him
>he was playing in a Wembley surf band called the
>Beachcombers.
Yep, and it's well-documented that they played the Beach Boys and Jan and Dean stuff for years to humor Moon. Letting Keith have his jollies singing surf music is not indicative of any Who I've listened to.
>Humor is the most underutilized and
>underappreciated element within popular music. The
>early Who was not afraid to fart in public.
Agree completely, but the latter Who also embraced humor and weren't afraid to fart in public. Pete was, personally, a mess during By Numbers, and he still wrote 'Squeeze Box'. 'Bellboy', anybody? All of Entwistle's compositions, which were filled with dark humor.
>"Substantial" and "extended" are two of the
>least-convincing adjectives in rock'n'roll. They flunk the Trashmen Test:
>Neither term can be used to described "Surfin'
>Bird", the most perfect rock'n'roll song ever
>recorded.
We're obviously coming from different places, my son. 'Most perfect'? C'mon.
"My Generation", their fourth single,
>became their signature song. In fact, it was such a
>trenchant, perfectly-realized statement for the
>band that it became an albatross for Townshend. Not
>only did the fourth line of the first verse leave
>him with a career conundrum, the song itself
>provided a visceral experience and statement of
>purpose that defined the Who and proved very, very
>difficult for poor Towser to top.
Of course they topped it. The entire Leeds album for example. From the studio, 'Won't Get Fooled Again', several tracks on Quad (Moon's last great moment), 'Long Live Rock', etc. Lyrically this song became an albatross, not sonically.
Those killer early singles (you left out
>were indeed
>Earth-changing. So how can you turn around and wave
>them off as juvenilia inferior to the work of the
>"mature" band?
Wrong, boyo. Never waved them off and said they were juvenilia. Obviously, I think they're brilliant. Not sure where your agenda is taking you, unless I'm being confused with someone else's quote.
>Aside from that, you're almost making my argument
>for me.
Laughably, no.
>"I Can See For Miles" has all three in spades, and
>unlike their later stuff it also has a sense of
>economy, youthful panache, and lightness of spirit
>that the group lost once the Who became A Really
>Important Band and Townshend became A Spokesman For
>His Generation.
Again, don't agree. Losing youthful panache, maybe, but we all get older. And many later, great tracks have a 'sense of economy'- Behind Blue Eyes, I'm One, They Are All In Love, etc.
Who want's to hear a band that doesn't grow, evolve and improve? While I appreciate the occassional 'lightness in spirit', I don't want an entire band's catalogue to contain this or repeat itself (which they continued to have- aforementioned All In Love, Blue, Red and Grey, etc). I never wanted 10 remakes of 'A Hard Day's Night', either.
>How many songs are there that you hear two or three
>times a month for forty years straight that still
>make the hair stand up on the back of your neck
>every time? nothing they ever did
>before or sense was as stone-cold deathless in a
>purely rock'n'roll sense as "I Can See For Miles".
Well, ALL of us can find a Who song to hang out hat on like that, and of course you can easily choose pre or post-Tommy. You have 'I Can See For Miles', I have "Long Live Rock" and "Slip Kid", which both still make me want to jump around and break stuff.
>> Live at Leeds may be the greatest live document
>in history.
>That's like saying that "Carrie Anne" is the
>greatest pop song in history that has steel drums
>on it. Sure, you're probably right, but it's not as
>though there's a lot of stiff competition for the
>title.
Cute, but that doesn't diminish its greatness or influence. The power of the perfomances mesmerising, and the record became the blueprint for 70's rock, including heavy metal (whether that's a good or a bad thing is up to you.
>----- ------- Original Message ------- -----
>From: "Sager, Greg" <greg.sager@bankofamerica.com>
>To: audities@smoe.org
>Sent: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 04:17:34
>
>> Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 18:49:16 -0400
>> From: rob@splitsville.com
>> To: audities@smoe.org, audities@smoe.org,
>audities@smoe.org,
>> audities@smoe.org
>> Subject:
>>
>=?US-ASCII?B?UkU6IFJlOiBUaGUgRWFybHkgV2hvIEJ5IEEgTG
>FuZHNsaWRl?=
>> Message-ID:
><200604032249.k33MnGjE083386@mmm1912.dulles19-verio
>.com>
>>
>> I've always felt that some of the earlier stuff
>you site, ie
>> the Beach Boys-sounding stuff, while fun, was a
>bit silly and
>> not really indicative of the band.
>
>
>Sorry, Rob, but my mileage varies considerably. I
>think that the early stuff was *very* indicative of
>the band, precisely because silliness was one of
>the prime elements of their music back then. The
>more seriously Pete Townshend takes himself, the
>less approachable and enjoyable his music becomes.
>Silliness was a key ingredient to their magic; as
>aggressive, macho, loud, and confrontational as
>they presented themselves, no band with a healthy
>Keith Moon in it could ever lose its playfulness --
>and the early years were the years of Moon's prime.
>
>
>Moon had a lot to do with the "Beach Boys-sounding
>stuff", too, as he always considered himself to be
>the Wilson brother who had been separated at birth
>and carted off to England. When the Who found him
>he was playing in a Wembley surf band called the
>Beachcombers.
>
>Humor is the most underutilized and
>underappreciated element within popular music. Too
>much rock consists of the self-styled profound
>trying desperately to hold in their flatulence. The
>early Who was not afraid to fart in public.
>
>
>>
>> In many ways they were still finding their voice
>and sound
>> (surf music, James Brown covers, etc), or at
>least
>> intentionally messing around with different
>styles.
>
>
>That's precisely what makes their early music so
>vital. They were explorers, not careerists. I'd
>much rather hear a band tinker around with
>different styles and fall on their faces a few
>times than hear them mine an oft-tapped vein that
>meets the specifications of their fan base. And the
>Who had such innate talent that even their early
>failures were interesting. There was never a band
>less suited to play James Brown than the Who, but
>their goofy attempts still carry a considerable
>charm.
>
>
>
> It wasn't
>> until Tommy and after that they really found
>their voice and
>> sound in a substantial, extended way, many
>Earth-changing
>> singles excepted, of course, like My G, Anyway,
>A, A, Kids,
>> etc. (Those who are familiar in my mentions of
>The Who know
>> that I tout as often as I can that pre-Tommy Who
>invented
>> both punk and power pop.)
>
>
>"Substantial" and "extended" are two of the
>least-convincing adjectives in rock'n'roll, as far
>as I'm concerned. They flunk the Trashmen Test:
>Neither term can be used to described "Surfin'
>Bird", the most perfect rock'n'roll song ever
>recorded.
>
>I think that the Who found their voice and sound
>almost immediately upon becoming a recording
>outfit; "My Generation", their fourth single,
>became their signature song. In fact, it was such a
>trenchant, perfectly-realized statement for the
>band that it became an albatross for Townshend. Not
>only did the fourth line of the first verse leave
>him with a career conundrum, the song itself (and
>the instrument-smashing that accompanied it)
>provided a visceral experience and statement of
>purpose that defined the Who and proved very, very
>difficult for poor Towser to top. And, sonically,
>it was like a 3:18 Who sampler: Drums that sounded
>like the contents of Fibber McGee's closet,
>clanging power chords, dive-bombing bass runs,
>goofy half-assed backing harmonies, guitar
>feedback, and the punk sneer of Roger Daltrey's
>vocals. They not only found their voice and sound
>in that song (you could argue as well that they
>found it in "I Can't Explain" or the vastly
>inferior "Anyway, Anyhow, An!
> ywhere"), it contains their voice and sound like
>no other song that ever followed it.
>
>Aside from that, you're almost making my argument
>for me. Those killer early singles (you left out
>two insanely powerful slabs of r'n'r brio in
>"Substitute" and "I Can See For Miles" and the
>call-to-arms masterpiece "I Can't Explain", as well
>as such other spiffy singles as "Pictures Of Lily",
>"Call Me Lightning", "Magic Bus", etc.) were indeed
>Earth-changing. So how can you turn around and wave
>them off as juvenilia inferior to the work of the
>"mature" band?
>
>(And *Tommy* was much more of this period than of
>the succeeding period. The best song on *Tommy*,
>"Pinball Wizard", follows almost in a straight line
>in both sound and spirit from "I Can't Explain" to
>"My Generation" to "Substitute" to "I Can See For
>Miles". It sounds very much of a piece with the
>earlier singles, and sounds very little like "Won't
>Get Fooled Again", "Baba O'Riley", and all of the
>stuff that came afterwards. That Martian friend of
>yours would have no trouble picking up on the fact
>that the song about the deaf, dumb, and blind kid
>who played pinball was by the same band that sang
>about the kid who was dressed up like a girl by his
>mother and sisters; the child-tormented Manx
>imbecile; and the boy whose onanistic fetish
>centered upon a poster of a long-dead actress.)
>
>
>>
>> However, if you were to meet a Martian and he
>asked what the
>> big deal about The Who was, I don't think you'd
>play him (it)
>> 'I Don't Mind', 'Please Please Please', 'Bucket-
>T', 'Kids',
>> 'The Good's Gone' (those aren't bad places to
>start, mind)-
>> the best representation of The Who is 'Won't Get
>Fooled
>> Again', 'Baba', Leeds version of 'Summertime
>Blues', 'The
>> Real Me', '5:15', 'Slip Kid' and the like.
>
>
>The fact that oldies rock stations are much more
>obsessed with the later Who than the earlier Who
>means nothing to me. After all, the latter-day Who
>ruled the airwaves in the United States; the
>earlier Who was mostly learned about in hindsight
>in this country, except for "I Can See For Miles".
>Which, incidentally, is *the* best representation
>of the Who, bar none. Heck, there may not be more
>than a tiny handful of songs recorded since 1950
>which can match "I Can See For Miles" as the best
>representation of rock'n'roll, period. After a
>zillion listens now, whenever I hear the opening to
>"Stairway To Heaven" or "Free Bird" I reach for the
>off button on the radio. But even after a zillion
>listens, whenever I hear the opening to "I Can See
>For Miles" I reach for the volume knob to turn it
>up.
>
>How many songs are there that you hear two or three
>times a month for forty years straight that still
>make the hair stand up on the back of your neck
>every time? I hold a lot of affection for many
>post-*Tommy* Who songs, but nothing they ever did
>before or sense was as stone-cold deathless in a
>purely rock'n'roll sense as "I Can See For Miles".
>
>Any Martian who shows up on my doorstep will
>probably hear "I Can See For Miles" somewhere in
>between "Louie, Louie", "September Gurls",
>"Surrender", and "Hey Ya".
>
>>
>> Townshend and the band were looking for power,
>volume and
>> agression, and while it's always been part of
>their nature as
>> a band, in this regard I don't think anyone can
>touch their
>> output 1969 on.
>
>
>"I Can See For Miles" has all three in spades, and
>unlike their later stuff it also has a sense of
>economy, youthful panache, and lightness of spirit
>that the group lost once the Who became A Really
>Important Band and Townshend became A Spokesman For
>His Generation.
>
>
>> Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 22:29:17 -0400
>> From: "Holmes Online" <bholmes_fm@msn.com>
>> To: <audities@smoe.org>
>> Subject: Re: The Early Who By A Landslide
>> Message-ID:
><BAY106-DAV19DFA9919E78D50F0DAF59E3CA0@phx.gbl>
>>
>> If this is correct...
>>
>> 1965 The Who Sings My Generation MCA
>> 1966 A Quick One (Happy Jack) Reaction
>> 1967 The Who Sell Out MCA
>> 1968 Magic Bus MCA
>> 1969 Tommy MCA
>> 1970 Live at Leeds MCA
>>
>> 1971 Who's Next MCA
>> 1973 Quadrophenia MCA
>> 1975 The Who by Numbers MCA
>> 1978 Who Are You MCA
>> 1981 Face Dances MCA
>> 1982 It's Hard MCA
>>
>> ..then I stand by my "early Who" vote. Even more
>so of I
>> split it by time
>> or if I discount Live At Leeds for being a live
>album.
>>
>> Who's Next is just effin awesome. And there are
>certainly
>> moments on Who Are
>> You and Quadrophenia (I'm not in the camp that
>reveres
>> Quadrophenia). But
>> Sell Out is brilliant,
>
>
>Their best album, as far as I'm concerned, and one
>of the best albums *anyone* ever recorded -- both
>as a collection of songs and as a concept.
>
>
> Tommy still packs a punch and the
>> early stuff on
>> those first few records are among the best rock
>(and dare I
>> say powerpop)
>> singles ever recorded.
>
>
>Dare it, Bill. Heck, Townshend invented the term
>"power pop" to describe the Who of the "Pictures Of
>Lily" pop-art period in a *Hit Parader* interview
>... so who better to wear the mantle?
>
>Anyone who's read my posts on Audities over the
>past few years knows that one of my persistent
>hobbyhorses is the irritating fact that the term
>"power pop" is often used to describe music that's
>long on "pop" but skimps on "power". Well, nobody
>ever accused the Who of reining in the crunch
>factor when they were recording three-minute pop
>singles.
>
>> Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 18:51:13 -0400
>> From: rob@splitsville.com
>> To: audities@smoe.org, audities@smoe.org,
>audities@smoe.org
>> Subject:
>=?US-ASCII?B?UkU6IFJlOiBDYXJlZXIgZXF1YXRvcnM=?=
>> Message-ID:
><200604032251.k33MpDr6084053@mmm1912.dulles19-verio
>.com>
>>
>> Live at Leeds may be the greatest live document
>in history.
>
>That's like saying that "Carrie Anne" is the
>greatest pop song in history that has steel drums
>on it. Sure, you're probably right, but it's not as
>though there's a lot of stiff competition for the
>title.
>
>
>Gregory Sager
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.