The Who

[ffrankwhite]

They're not a band I would place before the Stones or Zeppelin, but that's just me.

Kind of overrated, at least to my ears.

as like a face value thing i could see what you mean but they're one of those bands that

1) see/hear em/listen to em live to draw you in then maybe venture into the album output

2) a lot of their work or innovations have suffered from poor immitation and more i think in the way those immitations have been given prescedence over their work

and...i dunno man, The Stones i think they pound into the ground to be honest with you. just my opinion but they just...that blues thing, they do it SOOO much better than the Stones, for the sheer fact that The Who DID something with the blues, it wasnt just immitative like The Stones occasionally came off, they REALLY bought something new to it. a lot of it had to do with Moon and his inability (or uber-ability depending on how you look at it) to JUST keep a beat. The Who bought some new to the blues, a sort of muscle if you will, the blues was a lot of things but it was never cacophonous. and they even sort of fucked with the pace of it cuz Moonie doubled the beat up and Townshend played REALLY fucking heavy riffs and its a contrast that should REALLYYY clash and it did but in an amazing kind of...counter-point way. it seemed almost that Entwhistle and Moon were just bored by the idea of 12 bar blues but what they did by bringing their own thing to it was...make it their own? in a sense?

this is just an opinion really but The Stones to me never did that. They were great and everything and i REALLY do love their stuff but...OK, a great basis for understanding what im trying to say is i dunno if anyones much a fan of The Yardbirds but their rendition of Here Tis, listen to it and then listen to The Whos. in fact, listen to any of the London Blues scenes rendition of that song (and there are a few) then check out The Who's. its just not the same, no ones doing something of their own to it, no ones making it theirs like The Who did...or at least not as distinctly.

people REALLY discount the GREAT fucking achievements of this band, the way they were doing things that no-fucking-body else was doing. Take their first single, I Cant Explain, about as infectious as a fucking pop song can get but a pop song nevertheless right and y'know, The Stones and The Beatles were doing their thing like that too so what makes The Who's so special? well because of the lyrical direction Townshend is taking it, the entire song, its about frustration and...being inarticulate. immediately, from the word go he was going in a completely different direction to everyone else.

second single, Anyway, Anyhow, Anywhere, its like jesus fucking christ!!!! its still a LITTLE different now but can you imagine what it must have fucking sounding like, how different and fresh and energetic and powerful that must have come across as? i dunno how many people ever click on a link that you post to prove a point, especially when it entails listening to a whole fucking song being performed but:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNMB88gxCTE

look at that fucking....instrumental meltdown in the middle, its like fucking noise experimentation, for a second it looks like they're about to collapse musically, Moon looks fucking possessed i mean seriously, really, by the standards of the day, who the fuck was doing that shit, honestly? The Beatles, The Stones??? watch their old stuff life and tell me with a straight face that they were better live than The Who...im not talking about how many 8 yr olds in the crowd are sobbing im talking about them ACTUALLY performing and what they're doing. Feedback, John Lennon pioneered feedback, which is not to be ignored. Ticket To Ride wasnt it? didnt do a lot there did he?? look at Townshend and what he's doing with that shit...its something else.

Those early days, the subject matter of the song, I'm a Boy, Jesus, neither The Beatles or The Stones could pull off a song like that, not in a million years...no fucking man could, especially in the 60s. "i'm a boy but my Ma wont admit it?" you know how fucking queer that would've come across in the 60s?? and not Micks kind of girls-find-it-sexy type of queer, that shit just came off as headcase queer.

or Pictures Of Lily, about falling in love with the pictures you jerk off to? and it comes across like a bona-fide love song, its just so wonderfully perverted...

and through all of this, the whole thing was being like...syrupped up by Townshends keen sense of the melodious. he would/could/did put across a pop song as good as the best of em and he ALWAYS played with the format, always, always gave you something different, it was never JUST verse chorus verse middle 8 with The Who, something was ALWAYS thrown on top of it or in it or it was twisted a little way to give you something fresh.

The sheer balls to put a song like The Ox on your debut album (and this is something to note) which is basically a drum and bass instrumental experiment at a stage at which the beatles were doing Please Please Me followed (of which incidentally 8 out of 14 are original compositions, compared to The Who's first album which had 12 songs i think and 9 were originals not that that on its own means jackshit but, just a note) but my point was about The Ox, just listen...and think about it, on a fucking debut album for a 60s pop group for fuckssake...pretty strong stuff..

althought you could say that it was a couple of years on from The Beatles debut to The Who and in that sense, being that the 60s were such fast changing innovative times its kind of...y'know, giving The Who a little slack but still...Jesus, pretty in the fucking red on this one by Daltrey and the boys.

i've gone WAY too far into making this point already and i haven't even REALLY got warm on this one but, the point im trying to make is its definitely not a case of The Beatles owning The Who, they're on evens if you REALLY had to force a comparitive reponse from me/yourself/whoever, i think, although yeah The Beatles do take it in the end i cant deny its just...all this is just a response to how little credit The Who get. people are so sort of...ready to gloss them over just because history seems to have applied that pecking order for some strange reason (revenue perhaps?? popularity? hysteria?) The Beatles, The Stones, The Who...it just comes out that way doesnt it? as spontaeneous as a twitch.

i dont buy it though, i think The Stones fall WAY short of The Who...Zeppelin too although truth be told although i've not really done a lot more that listened to the albums with Zeppelin as opposed to The Beatles et al i know what size underwear they wore. maybe thats it, maybe that sort of fandom colors my judgement but i think i back up my opinions and all

Edited April 26, 2008 by ffrankwhite

[appetite4illusions]

I get where you're coming from Frank, and I know how passionate you are about The Who.

Truth be told I never gave them the due they deserved, I've heard a lot of them, but not in the context of their whole albums. Just songs here and there.

I chalk it up to the fact that they don't seem as blues influenced as the other rock bands of the time and therefore don't grab me in way that the bands I listed do. I'll have to give them greater scrutiny in the future.

[Midnight Rambler]

I like em, but theyre very pretentious. I dont think theyre in the same league as the beatles, the beatles were just better and the stones were just fukin cooler. I think even led zep sorta piss on em a little, like the who were known as this huge loud rock band, when zeppelin sounded huger and louder if ya know what i mean. I do like the who, i just dont rate em that high. My oldman saw em live in like 68 i think, he was so pissed he can barely remember, they blagged their way into the gig for free and one of his mates glassed ther fukin roady, oh wait no that was procal harlems roady.

[misch]

Who's next is probably the best rock record ever made. I'm consistently surprised how modern and fresh this songs still sound, even after 37 years!

[ChineseDemocracy2004]

I enjoy listening to The Who, in fact there was a documentry and one of their UK shows on television a few days back. I've seen Tommy a couple of times, it's still strange to me seeing Eric Clapton and Jack Nicholson in the same film as well as Entwhistle's extremely odd looking bass guitars.

I've also got Who's Next, that's a nice album; some songs are better than others imo, 'My Wife' is fantastic.

The Who had a song on Grand Theft Auto San Andreas, i forget the name but it had Townsend singing that was good too.

[Randy Lahey]

I went through a Who phase but I'm not into them any more. The Stones and The Kinks are where it's at.

[JeanGenie]

the beatles own the who and the stones in any possible way. in fact they own every band except maybe Led Zep.

anyway The Who is the prototype of a rockband. no denying that. I love Tommy.

how'd you figure?

well the beatles are a band consisting of 4 genius musicians. while the who is basicly Pete Townshends band.

he's a good guitarist but he can never cover such a wide range of musical styles as john, paul, george and ringo.

he's ever been much of a songwriter in a way Lennon was. sure it comes down to personal taste but you know? mine is superior to anyone elses.

[JAC185]

Im well drunk at the moment but i'll try to tupe these stories anyhow.......

When my dad was a wee lad he got invited to a pub in London to see a band, my dad had no money so the guy said he'd buy his next pint if he paid for a ticket........he agreed

Turned out to be The Who before they were famous

And when they were famous my dad used to do riders for bands.....Keith Moon had three massive of bottles of Southern Comfort for a show, which is enough to knock a standard drinker out in reality, and thats outside of all the energy and sweat he exerted per show

[Axlin08]

I went through a Who phase but I'm not into them any more. The Stones and The Kinks are where it's at.

I went through a Who phase too....

I let you know when I come out of it!

[kevdo242]

Best band ever.

Even better than Stones, Beatles and Pink Floyd.

NUH-UH.

Compared to the Stones, they're pretty crap aswell.

To be fair The Beatles didn't put out a lot of bad albums.

You misunderstood. I'm saying The Who are crap compared to Beatles and Stones. I never did like The Who other than a few songs.

[ffrankwhite]

how people can call The Who pretencious and not The Beatles or The Stones makes my mind boggle (maybe scratch the stones from this)

[GivenToFly]

how people can call The Who pretencious and not The Beatles or The Stones makes my mind boggle (maybe scratch the stones from this)

I guess people love the Beatles too much to call them anything bad. And the Stones' music is not something you would normally call pretentious.

[ffrankwhite]

how people can call The Who pretencious and not The Beatles or The Stones makes my mind boggle (maybe scratch the stones from this)

I guess people love the Beatles too much to call them anything bad. And the Stones' music is not something you would normally call pretentious.

thats just silly though, cant afford to be blinkered like that. i probably love the beatles more than anyone on this forum, im literally an obssessive in that department but im not...deluded either and if you can afford to call The Who pretentious then the same applies most DEFINITELY to the Beatles...i mean jesus, revolution 9 anybody? John Lennons two virgins album, you dont get much more pretentious than that!! basically leaving a tape recorder on in your house as you go about your day and calling it and album, calling it art. now dont get me wrong, i agree with Lennon, it IS art but im just talking in response to beatle fans here that cite The Who for being pretentious, its really a case of the pot and the kettle. what are the Who pretentious for, Tommy?!?! i got three words for that, Magical Mystery Tour...seriously, sit down and examine the two, i dare anybody to find me more coherence out of that than Tommy.