I
And I’m truly sorry you find Pete “creepy.” One thing I’ve enjoyed about Pete over the years is his sense of humor, which comes through in his banter on stage and his witty responses whenever he’s interviewed. .
Yeah, the sense of humour wasn't so evident in the police interviews I bet.
Creepy guy.......
First of all... whoever said The Who were a singles band... thank you for showing me that you are an idiot.
The Who are a singles band. How dare you call someone an idiot for having a more discerning taste in music than yourself? My Generation is an album characterised by abysmal cover versions of James Brown dross ("Please Please Please" on the UK release), self-indulgent jams ("The Ox") and self-plagiarisms. (Have you compared "Out in the Streets" with "Anyway Anyhow Anywhere", their vastly superior single, recently? I suspect not. Naming yourself after a Who B-side shows you're not too picky.) A Quick One is a badly recorded, badly produced abortion featuring tinny, fey covers ("Heatwave"), laughable Daltrey compositions ("See My Way") and wankfests such as Moon's "Cobwebs and Strange". This was roughly at the same time as their superior singles "Substitute" and "Happy Jack". Point getting proven? No?
The Who Sell Out introduced that horrific rock-killing abomination, the concept album, into a heretofore fun medium. (Concepts obviously work in classical music and jazz, though, by and large.) This is where Pete lost the plot and thought he was capable of "High Art". The thing is, he couldn't even sustain the concept for a whole album. It starts off with tenth-rate psychedelia (Speedy Keen/Keane/whatever's "Armenia City In The Sky"), and then we get a couple of "Sell Out" themed songs. The single from the album, "I Can See For Miles", just about saves side one of the LP (even if it's nothing to do with the "selling out" theme). Then, on side two, the jingles abruptly disappear after a bit, and midway through, we get "Relax" (nothing to do with the theme of selling out, except that it's ironically a flower-power cash-in): another sub-psychedelic noodle. Again, this was the band who released some good singles in 1967 ("Pictures of Lily" too), making a shit album.
Ironically, The Who released a good album's worth of material in 1968, which ended up later on on the US-only Magic Bus - The Who on Tour release (except for the crap from The Who Sell Out on there, such as the creepy "I Can't Reach You", about a grey-haired narrator and the golden-haired object of his unrequited desires).
Tommy has some good songs, but the curse of the concept album is that good material is sacrificed to linking filler, and I haven't time for "Do You Think It's Alright?", "Underture" (which is The Who Sell Out's "Rael" rehashed and dragged out ad nauseam) or "Welcome", when I could be listening to a proper, cohesive and themed album release such as Coltrane's A Love Supreme. There was a good single from the album though: "Pinball Wizard". To his slight credit, Townshend had, however, at least by now realised that he could take love songs such as "She's a Sensation", reword them in the first person, and fit them vaguely into his story. Pity, though, in some ways. "She's a Sensation" would have been better than "I'm a Sensation". And maybe, even a single...
The success of Who's Next was due thankfully to the failure of the "Lifehouse" project. Nearly every song on there was single-material. It was a collection of the best of the period. One only has to compare it with the dreaded Who Came First solo LP to see this.
As for 1973's Quadrophenia, it was greatly improved in 1979 when, for the film soundtrack, a lot of the barrel-scrapings were removed and replaced, on side four, with a compilation of soul tunes from the mod days.
I can't be arsed to suffer reviews of Odds and Sods or their rarities albums, or their later material, except to say I very likely have a far wider, encyclopedic knowledge of The Who's output, and that my conclusion they are a singles band is based on considered, judicious opinion. It's the blind love of a second-division UK band who were always more popular in the States that, in my estimation, borders far more tangibly on the idiotic. Good day to you.
They are, indeed, just an "okay" band. I find that I can't stand at least few songs from each of their albums, even the most highly acclaimed ones. They were a singles band, not an albums band.
It's sad that Pearl Jam is so "in awe" so to speak of The Who all the time. They really are leagues better than The Who. They played better than The Who themselves at Rock Honors.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
this is VERY backwards. they're actually average musicians with great songs.
proof: stage antics of keith moon destroying drums. pete destroying his guitar. pete doing the whole "windmill" routine. AND pete was playing with feedback way before anybody else because, technically, he wasn't that great of a guitar player.
petes more of a songwriter than a guitar virtuoso. he was the first person (or the who was the first band if you want to put it that way) to successfully incorporate the synthesizer into rock and roll music.
No I like it my way better. I think Pearl Jam are average musicians with great songs, whereas the Who are great musicians with average songs.
"Why stand when you can sit?" - Winston Churchill
"Why sit when you can dance?" - Me
No I like it my way better. I think Pearl Jam are average musicians with great songs, whereas the Who are great musicians with average songs.
well i'm just telling you that the history of the band, and words straight out of petes mouth contradict what you say.
and we aren't talking about pearl jam so i don't know why that was even brought up.
Camden 7-5-2003, Camden 7-6-2003, Hershey 7-12-2003, Camden 5-27-2006, Camden 5-28-2006, Lollapalooza 8-5-2007, Camden 6-19-2008, Camden 6-20-2008, New York 6-24-2008, New York 6-25-2008, Mansfield 6-28-2008, Mansfield 6-30-2008
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
I listened to it a few more times. Yup, its basically a pretty average album. Loads of filler, and two of the songs sound exactly the same with the trumpets. There are about 5 or 6 good songs. I understand its a concept album, or opera....so I guess repetitiveness makes sense, (putting the keys from LROM in about 2 other songs). but its just not that special. Ill try Tommy this time, my dad said that is a much better album.
BTW: Pearl Jam made LROM and The Real Me sound substantially better than the originals.
And there is the difference, you just downloaded it and heard it for the first time, some like me have had 25+ years to listen to it. It would be like some 12 year old kid today saying he "downloaded" Pearl Jam Ten or No Code and there are some good songs on it, but overall all it's not that special. Oh man I'm sure you would go nuts and defend Pearl Jam till your dying breath and the post on here would last for about 5 years.
Everyone here realizes that without The Who there would be no Pearl Jam, right?
I don't think anyone is disputing that. You can recognise a band's importance and influence without having to like them.
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
well i'm just telling you that the history of the band, and words straight out of petes mouth contradict what you say.
and we aren't talking about pearl jam so i don't know why that was even brought up.
Pete isn't all that great of a guitarist, but Keith Moon & John were hella good at what they did.
Keith Moon went to take jazz drumming lessons & the teacher said, "I can't teach you anything".
"Why stand when you can sit?" - Winston Churchill
"Why sit when you can dance?" - Me
I reckon....the one and only reason they get so many fuckin plaudits around here is because Eddie Vedder loves them so much.
Aint that the truth ? You all know it is.
They're his favourite band, not ours....
How can you make a blanket statement like that? We're individuals.
9/98, 9/00 - DC, 4/03 - Pitt., 7/03 - Bristow, 10/04 - Reading, 10/05 - Philly, 5/06 - DC, 6/06 - Pitt., 6/08 - Va Beach, 6/08 - DC, 5/10 - Bristow, 10/13 B'more
8/08 - Ed solo in DC, 6/09 Ed in B'more,
10/10 - Brad in B'more
And there is the difference, you just downloaded it and heard it for the first time, some like me have had 25+ years to listen to it. It would be like some 12 year old kid today saying he "downloaded" Pearl Jam Ten or No Code and there are some good songs on it, but overall all it's not that special. Oh man I'm sure you would go nuts and defend Pearl Jam till your dying breath and the post on here would last for about 5 years.
True. But I usually start liking music pretty easily. After a few listens of riot act when I first heard it 2 years ago I liked it. And this was when I first started getting into PJ. I started out on RIOT ACT (besides knowing ten, vs, vitalogy) and still liked it. And I stand by my opinion that Pearl Jam plays those songs better than the who.
Have you ever actually seen Pete Townshend play? He's an amazing songwriter to be sure, but he didn't need to hide behind anything- the man is plenty talented.
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
Everyone here realizes that without The Who there would be no Pearl Jam, right?
I'm not sure about that.... They'd probably just be obsessed about a different band. The only thing we know for sure is that without Pearl Jam, there would be no Pearl Jam.
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
you're schizophrenic? whom are we talking to currently?
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
They are, indeed, just an "okay" band. I find that I can't stand at least few songs from each of their albums, even the most highly acclaimed ones. They were a singles band, not an albums band.
.
This is such an ignorant statement I don't even know where to begin.
The Who are a singles band. How dare you call someone an idiot for having a more discerning taste in music than yourself? My Generation is an album characterised by abysmal cover versions of James Brown dross ("Please Please Please" on the UK release), self-indulgent jams ("The Ox") and self-plagiarisms. (Have you compared "Out in the Streets" with "Anyway Anyhow Anywhere", their vastly superior single, recently? I suspect not. Naming yourself after a Who B-side shows you're not too picky.) A Quick One is a badly recorded, badly produced abortion featuring tinny, fey covers ("Heatwave"), laughable Daltrey compositions ("See My Way") and wankfests such as Moon's "Cobwebs and Strange". This was roughly at the same time as their superior singles "Substitute" and "Happy Jack". Point getting proven? No?
The Who Sell Out introduced that horrific rock-killing abomination, the concept album, into a heretofore fun medium. (Concepts obviously work in classical music and jazz, though, by and large.) This is where Pete lost the plot and thought he was capable of "High Art". The thing is, he couldn't even sustain the concept for a whole album. It starts off with tenth-rate psychedelia (Speedy Keen/Keane/whatever's "Armenia City In The Sky"), and then we get a couple of "Sell Out" themed songs. The single from the album, "I Can See For Miles", just about saves side one of the LP (even if it's nothing to do with the "selling out" theme). Then, on side two, the jingles abruptly disappear after a bit, and midway through, we get "Relax" (nothing to do with the theme of selling out, except that it's ironically a flower-power cash-in): another sub-psychedelic noodle. Again, this was the band who released some good singles in 1967 ("Pictures of Lily" too), making a shit album.
Ironically, The Who released a good album's worth of material in 1968, which ended up later on on the US-only Magic Bus - The Who on Tour release (except for the crap from The Who Sell Out on there, such as the creepy "I Can't Reach You", about a grey-haired narrator and the golden-haired object of his unrequited desires).
Tommy has some good songs, but the curse of the concept album is that good material is sacrificed to linking filler, and I haven't time for "Do You Think It's Alright?", "Underture" (which is The Who Sell Out's "Rael" rehashed and dragged out ad nauseam) or "Welcome", when I could be listening to a proper, cohesive and themed album release such as Coltrane's A Love Supreme. There was a good single from the album though: "Pinball Wizard". To his slight credit, Townshend had, however, at least by now realised that he could take love songs such as "She's a Sensation", reword them in the first person, and fit them vaguely into his story. Pity, though, in some ways. "She's a Sensation" would have been better than "I'm a Sensation". And maybe, even a single...
The success of Who's Next was due thankfully to the failure of the "Lifehouse" project. Nearly every song on there was single-material. It was a collection of the best of the period. One only has to compare it with the dreaded Who Came First solo LP to see this.
As for 1973's Quadrophenia, it was greatly improved in 1979 when, for the film soundtrack, a lot of the barrel-scrapings were removed and replaced, on side four, with a compilation of soul tunes from the mod days.
I can't be arsed to suffer reviews of Odds and Sods or their rarities albums, or their later material, except to say I very likely have a far wider, encyclopedic knowledge of The Who's output, and that my conclusion they are a singles band is based on considered, judicious opinion. It's the blind love of a second-division UK band who were always more popular in the States that, in my estimation, borders far more tangibly on the idiotic. Good day to you.
"Know thyself."
A "singles band"... meaning they concentrated on singles, didn't make cohesive albums, only wanted a radio hit... didn't care about plots, stories, etc.
Or an "album band"... a band that made albums that flowed, sometimes had a story, theme... sometimes were conceptual.
You decide which they were.
And just because some of The Who's albums had some really good songs that made really good singles on it... does not make them a singles band.
A singles band would write all love songs that were exactly 3 minutes in length with catchy pop melodies and basic backing tracks.
"Won't Get Fooled Again" comes in at 8 minutes and 33 seconds with two synthesizer solos, two guitar solos, and a drum solo. Sound EXACTLY like a very typical "single"... that or it's an album song by an album band that happens to get played on the radio because people like it.
Baba O'Riley - 5 mins 09 secs
Who Are You- 6 mins 18 secs
These are VERY typical singles... and should I even mention that two of these songs were written as part of a concept for a rock opera (Lifehouse).
Singles are songs that stand by themselves, not part of a story... Pete did not write that way.
And you are absolutely correct in saying that Tommy has filler songs in it... but why are they in there? Because Pete thought it more important to tell the story of the album than for them to be popular singles.
Quadrophenia... how many popular "singles" did it have on it? Exactly. The point was the story, not a popular single. The album was successful and it is often a favorite of avid Who fans.
You say they are a second division UK band...
I say they were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in their first year of eligibility, and that they have sold over 100 millions albums... I'm not the only one who considers them a little above "second rate"...
Oh yeah and I loved this quote: "It's the blind love of a second-division UK band who were always more popular in the States that, in my estimation, borders far more tangibly on the idiotic."
Thank you for calling Eddie Vedder an idiot.
All the rusted signs, we ignore throughout our lives, choosing the shiny ones instead...
And he who forgets, will be destined to remember...
aah but drummers are easily replaced. just ask pearl jam .
i am quite a fan of moon the loon.
yea what is pj on there 5th drummer i think. the who are nothing without moony and never will be.
i dont see kiss or aerosmith or pink floyd or led zep still making good music and selling out arena's. love em or hate em the who a huge part of rock history. no one heard of mod/prog rock till they came along or used synthesizer or keyboards
PLAY THE GORGE IN 08 YOU PUSSIES
On the dry and dusty road
The nights we spent apart alone
I need to get back home
To cool cool rain
LONG LIVE THE WHO! BE DEAD OR ALIVE
i'll ride the wave where it take me, i'll hold the pain release meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
yea what is pj on there 5th drummer i think. the who are nothing without moony and never will be.
i dont see kiss or aerosmith or pink floyd or led zep still making good music and selling out arena's. love em or hate em the who a huge part of rock history. no one heard of mod/prog rock till they came along or used synthesizer or keyboards
no one??
anyhoo some could say the who were influenced early by the kinks.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
anyhoo some could say the who were influenced early by the kinks.
yes no one at that time was making music with keyboards at least in rock except the doors. it was all straight ahead rock or hippie music. yes they could and the kinks are a great band
PLAY THE GORGE IN 08 YOU PUSSIES
On the dry and dusty road
The nights we spent apart alone
I need to get back home
To cool cool rain
LONG LIVE THE WHO! BE DEAD OR ALIVE
i'll ride the wave where it take me, i'll hold the pain release meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
A "singles band"... meaning they concentrated on singles, didn't make cohesive albums, only wanted a radio hit... didn't care about plots, stories, etc.
Or an "album band"... a band that made albums that flowed, sometimes had a story, theme... sometimes were conceptual.
You decide which they were.
Er, no. You misunderstand the point. They were a singles band because their singles were good. Their albums didn't flow.
"Won't Get Fooled Again" comes in at 8 minutes and 33 seconds with two synthesizer solos, two guitar solos, and a drum solo. Sound EXACTLY like a very typical "single"... that or it's an album song by an album band that happens to get played on the radio because people like it.
Baba O'Riley - 5 mins 09 secs
Who Are You- 6 mins 18 secs
These are VERY typical singles... and should I even mention that two of these songs were written as part of a concept for a rock opera (Lifehouse).
There had been precedents for long singles before Won't Get Fooled Again. In fact, the single version was trimmed right down to cut out the spurious stuff. I know, as I've had an original 1971 Decca import for years. (They weren't exclusively on Track.) As for Lifehouse, I referenced it my post. I had the misfortune of hearing the 1999 BBC Radio Three broadcast of the the reworked Lifehouse. I'm glad the project failed.
And you are absolutely correct in saying that Tommy has filler songs in it... but why are they in there? Because Pete thought it more important to tell the story of the album than for them to be popular singles.
See above. This is why they WERE a singles band: ie, a band that should have concentrated on making singles.
Quadrophenia... how many popular "singles" did it have on it? Exactly. The point was the story, not a popular single. The album was successful and it is often a favorite of avid Who fans.
None. That might be why it's shit, apart from the soul singles added to side four of the 1979 reissue.
I say they were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in their first year of eligibility, and that they have sold over 100 millions albums... I'm not the only one who considers them a little above "second rate"...
Oh yeah and I loved this quote: "It's the blind love of a second-division UK band who were always more popular in the States that, in my estimation, borders far more tangibly on the idiotic."
Thank you for calling Eddie Vedder an idiot.
I called the blind love idiotic, not the lover. That's the beauty of debate. I argue against certain ideas, not the people with the ideas.
By the way, I was a walking Who encyclopedia back in the early eighties. They were my favourite band. Then I reached the age of twelve, and grew up.
By the way, I was a walking Who encyclopedia back in the early eighties. They were my favourite band. Then I reached the age of twelve, and grew up.
Ok... if we are arguing over a matter of definition of a "singles band"... then OK. You can say they are a "singles band"... I'll consider them an album band... and everyone can be happy
And I would beg to differ that there albums didn't "flow"... they told complete stories... that's flow if you ask me. But to each his own.
Oh yeah, and Eddie and I (separately) will continue to listen to and love The Who... even though both of us are quite past the age of 12.
All the rusted signs, we ignore throughout our lives, choosing the shiny ones instead...
And he who forgets, will be destined to remember...
Comments
& The Who isn't The Who without Keith Moon.
"Why sit when you can dance?" - Me
Yeah, the sense of humour wasn't so evident in the police interviews I bet.
Creepy guy.......
aah but drummers are easily replaced. just ask pearl jam .
i am quite a fan of moon the loon.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I think that John Entwistle is harder to replace than Keith Moon.......although they are both one of a kind.
The bottom line is that The Who and Zeppelin were two of the best "3 piece" bands around. Forget the singers......just think musicianship.
7-6-2006 Las Vegas. 7-20-2006 Portland. 7-22-2006 Gorge. 9-21-2009 Seattle. 9-22-2009 Seattle. 9-26-2009 Ridgefield. 9-25-2011 Vancouver.
11-29-2013 Portland. 10-16-2014 Detroit. 8-8-2018 Seattle. 8-10-2018 Seattle. 8-13-2018 Missoula. 5-10-2024 Portland. 5-30-2024 Seattle.
The Who are a singles band. How dare you call someone an idiot for having a more discerning taste in music than yourself? My Generation is an album characterised by abysmal cover versions of James Brown dross ("Please Please Please" on the UK release), self-indulgent jams ("The Ox") and self-plagiarisms. (Have you compared "Out in the Streets" with "Anyway Anyhow Anywhere", their vastly superior single, recently? I suspect not. Naming yourself after a Who B-side shows you're not too picky.) A Quick One is a badly recorded, badly produced abortion featuring tinny, fey covers ("Heatwave"), laughable Daltrey compositions ("See My Way") and wankfests such as Moon's "Cobwebs and Strange". This was roughly at the same time as their superior singles "Substitute" and "Happy Jack". Point getting proven? No?
The Who Sell Out introduced that horrific rock-killing abomination, the concept album, into a heretofore fun medium. (Concepts obviously work in classical music and jazz, though, by and large.) This is where Pete lost the plot and thought he was capable of "High Art". The thing is, he couldn't even sustain the concept for a whole album. It starts off with tenth-rate psychedelia (Speedy Keen/Keane/whatever's "Armenia City In The Sky"), and then we get a couple of "Sell Out" themed songs. The single from the album, "I Can See For Miles", just about saves side one of the LP (even if it's nothing to do with the "selling out" theme). Then, on side two, the jingles abruptly disappear after a bit, and midway through, we get "Relax" (nothing to do with the theme of selling out, except that it's ironically a flower-power cash-in): another sub-psychedelic noodle. Again, this was the band who released some good singles in 1967 ("Pictures of Lily" too), making a shit album.
Ironically, The Who released a good album's worth of material in 1968, which ended up later on on the US-only Magic Bus - The Who on Tour release (except for the crap from The Who Sell Out on there, such as the creepy "I Can't Reach You", about a grey-haired narrator and the golden-haired object of his unrequited desires).
Tommy has some good songs, but the curse of the concept album is that good material is sacrificed to linking filler, and I haven't time for "Do You Think It's Alright?", "Underture" (which is The Who Sell Out's "Rael" rehashed and dragged out ad nauseam) or "Welcome", when I could be listening to a proper, cohesive and themed album release such as Coltrane's A Love Supreme. There was a good single from the album though: "Pinball Wizard". To his slight credit, Townshend had, however, at least by now realised that he could take love songs such as "She's a Sensation", reword them in the first person, and fit them vaguely into his story. Pity, though, in some ways. "She's a Sensation" would have been better than "I'm a Sensation". And maybe, even a single...
The success of Who's Next was due thankfully to the failure of the "Lifehouse" project. Nearly every song on there was single-material. It was a collection of the best of the period. One only has to compare it with the dreaded Who Came First solo LP to see this.
As for 1973's Quadrophenia, it was greatly improved in 1979 when, for the film soundtrack, a lot of the barrel-scrapings were removed and replaced, on side four, with a compilation of soul tunes from the mod days.
I can't be arsed to suffer reviews of Odds and Sods or their rarities albums, or their later material, except to say I very likely have a far wider, encyclopedic knowledge of The Who's output, and that my conclusion they are a singles band is based on considered, judicious opinion. It's the blind love of a second-division UK band who were always more popular in the States that, in my estimation, borders far more tangibly on the idiotic. Good day to you.
"Know thyself."
It's sad that Pearl Jam is so "in awe" so to speak of The Who all the time. They really are leagues better than The Who. They played better than The Who themselves at Rock Honors.
-Reagan
No I like it my way better. I think Pearl Jam are average musicians with great songs, whereas the Who are great musicians with average songs.
"Why sit when you can dance?" - Me
and we aren't talking about pearl jam so i don't know why that was even brought up.
And there is the difference, you just downloaded it and heard it for the first time, some like me have had 25+ years to listen to it. It would be like some 12 year old kid today saying he "downloaded" Pearl Jam Ten or No Code and there are some good songs on it, but overall all it's not that special. Oh man I'm sure you would go nuts and defend Pearl Jam till your dying breath and the post on here would last for about 5 years.
4/5,6/9/2003, 9/1/05, 12/7/2005, 7/15,16,18/2006, 8/5/2007
6/24,25/08,6/27/08,6/28/08,6/30/08
9/21,22/2009, 10/4/2009
5/6,7,9/2010, 9/3/2011 9/4/2011, 11/15/2013,
11/16/2013, 12/8/2013, 10/5/2014, 10/12/2014,
4/23, 5/10, 5/12, 8/20, 8/22 2016,
8/8, 8/10, 8/18, 8/20 2018, 5/12, 5/13, 9/20 2022
Pete isn't all that great of a guitarist, but Keith Moon & John were hella good at what they did.
Keith Moon went to take jazz drumming lessons & the teacher said, "I can't teach you anything".
"Why sit when you can dance?" - Me
How can you make a blanket statement like that? We're individuals.
8/08 - Ed solo in DC, 6/09 Ed in B'more,
10/10 - Brad in B'more
True. But I usually start liking music pretty easily. After a few listens of riot act when I first heard it 2 years ago I liked it. And this was when I first started getting into PJ. I started out on RIOT ACT (besides knowing ten, vs, vitalogy) and still liked it. And I stand by my opinion that Pearl Jam plays those songs better than the who.
8/7/08, 6/9/09
Does anyone have this or another acoustic version similiar in mp3? That was amazing!
I'm not!!
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
you're schizophrenic? whom are we talking to currently?
I'm not sure about that.... They'd probably just be obsessed about a different band. The only thing we know for sure is that without Pearl Jam, there would be no Pearl Jam.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
First I've heard of it.
This is such an ignorant statement I don't even know where to begin.
A "singles band"... meaning they concentrated on singles, didn't make cohesive albums, only wanted a radio hit... didn't care about plots, stories, etc.
Or an "album band"... a band that made albums that flowed, sometimes had a story, theme... sometimes were conceptual.
You decide which they were.
And just because some of The Who's albums had some really good songs that made really good singles on it... does not make them a singles band.
A singles band would write all love songs that were exactly 3 minutes in length with catchy pop melodies and basic backing tracks.
"Won't Get Fooled Again" comes in at 8 minutes and 33 seconds with two synthesizer solos, two guitar solos, and a drum solo. Sound EXACTLY like a very typical "single"... that or it's an album song by an album band that happens to get played on the radio because people like it.
Baba O'Riley - 5 mins 09 secs
Who Are You- 6 mins 18 secs
These are VERY typical singles... and should I even mention that two of these songs were written as part of a concept for a rock opera (Lifehouse).
Singles are songs that stand by themselves, not part of a story... Pete did not write that way.
And you are absolutely correct in saying that Tommy has filler songs in it... but why are they in there? Because Pete thought it more important to tell the story of the album than for them to be popular singles.
Quadrophenia... how many popular "singles" did it have on it? Exactly. The point was the story, not a popular single. The album was successful and it is often a favorite of avid Who fans.
You say they are a second division UK band...
I say they were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in their first year of eligibility, and that they have sold over 100 millions albums... I'm not the only one who considers them a little above "second rate"...
Oh yeah and I loved this quote: "It's the blind love of a second-division UK band who were always more popular in the States that, in my estimation, borders far more tangibly on the idiotic."
Thank you for calling Eddie Vedder an idiot.
And he who forgets, will be destined to remember...
i dont see kiss or aerosmith or pink floyd or led zep still making good music and selling out arena's. love em or hate em the who a huge part of rock history. no one heard of mod/prog rock till they came along or used synthesizer or keyboards
On the dry and dusty road
The nights we spent apart alone
I need to get back home
To cool cool rain
LONG LIVE THE WHO! BE DEAD OR ALIVE
i'll ride the wave where it take me, i'll hold the pain release meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
no one??
anyhoo some could say the who were influenced early by the kinks.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
On the dry and dusty road
The nights we spent apart alone
I need to get back home
To cool cool rain
LONG LIVE THE WHO! BE DEAD OR ALIVE
i'll ride the wave where it take me, i'll hold the pain release meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Me too, by a long shot....but I do like a lot of Who stuff too.
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
Er, no. You misunderstand the point. They were a singles band because their singles were good. Their albums didn't flow.
You're not getting the point, are you? A singles band is a band whose strength lies with its singles, rather than its albums.
Why just all love songs? Why basic backing tracks? What is this nonsense?
There had been precedents for long singles before Won't Get Fooled Again. In fact, the single version was trimmed right down to cut out the spurious stuff. I know, as I've had an original 1971 Decca import for years. (They weren't exclusively on Track.) As for Lifehouse, I referenced it my post. I had the misfortune of hearing the 1999 BBC Radio Three broadcast of the the reworked Lifehouse. I'm glad the project failed.
"Extra, extra, read all about it/Pinball wizard in a miracle cure!/Extra, extra, read all about it!/Extra!" That's a complete song, there.
See above. This is why they WERE a singles band: ie, a band that should have concentrated on making singles.
None. That might be why it's shit, apart from the soul singles added to side four of the 1979 reissue.
They were always more popular in the States.
I called the blind love idiotic, not the lover. That's the beauty of debate. I argue against certain ideas, not the people with the ideas.
By the way, I was a walking Who encyclopedia back in the early eighties. They were my favourite band. Then I reached the age of twelve, and grew up.
Ok... if we are arguing over a matter of definition of a "singles band"... then OK. You can say they are a "singles band"... I'll consider them an album band... and everyone can be happy
And I would beg to differ that there albums didn't "flow"... they told complete stories... that's flow if you ask me. But to each his own.
Oh yeah, and Eddie and I (separately) will continue to listen to and love The Who... even though both of us are quite past the age of 12.
And he who forgets, will be destined to remember...