The Who: The Most Superlatively Mediocre Band in the History of the World or Dud?

Oh, I guess you're right. My bad.

Yeah, "talentless hacks". JOhn Entwistle and Keith Moon - two human beings who remade the blueprint for modern electrically-powered small band internal combustion dynamics - those two guys, were "talentless hacks". You still haven't told us what great fucking creative, inventive musicians light your candy-ass on fire.

You don't know how to listen to music and I GUARANTEE you Skottie, you don't play an instrument. I GUARAN-fuckin'-TEE it.

And I listen exclusively to early New Kids on the Block and Kylie Minogue.

I agree Daltrey can be a toad at times, though.

Songs? "Substitute", "I Can't Explain", "I Can See For Miles", "Bargain", "Won't Get Fooled Again"? Um, they could right songs well enough.

The Who completely and utterly rock. They are 3 guys who really kick ass and one guy who's an only occasionally sufferable singer. There are so many moments when Pete's singing where you start thinking...power trio?

But really. Let's all relax and go watch The Kids Are Allright or just fastforward to the performance of A Quick One and let's watch that over and over again and discuss what it means to totally kick ass, even if you're singing a weird song filled with perversion.

And really, Joel, you too? The Who Sell Out is one of the best records of the 60s, with only 1 song I don't like. And Tommy's great if you don't listen to the lyrics. Or think about the story. You cannot front on The Who Sell Out!

x-post oh shit Dan, does this mean we won't play music?

Dan, they always seemed like a singles band to me, but I'll give The Who Sell Out a chance.

I Just Love Sonny and Cher
I Just Love Three Dog Night's Greatest Hits

Although, I love Three Dog Night too! (not so much S&C though but it's all good).

Anyway I just really loathe gratuitous would-be provocative threads ("Superlatively-Mediocre or Dud?"; "talentless hacks"?). I mean, come on: you were looking for an argument, or you wouldn't have bothered. You didn't exactly offer an opening post that deserved to be met with anything beyond similarly combatitive language. I wasn't taking the whole argument that seriously!

The Who Sell Out stands on it's own, it only has one single, I Can See For Miles. The rest is some of the best pop Pete wrote, or anyone actually, silly songs about hand-jobs and tattoos and love, all with these fake ads inbetween totally brilliant fun. Get the MCA CD which has an extra load of songs including the absolutely brutal rocker Jaguar.

or I'll burn if for you with CDrs I bought selling your headphones.

wait, did I just say that?

The late 60s-early 70s don't get a whole lot better than that, and I haven't even mentioned 'Tommy'.

Townshend does have hell to pay for pretty much everything he's done since All The Best Cowboys... whether or not it has a "The Who" name affixed to it - the distinction being whether Daltrey sings on it I suppose. On occasion there was a glimpse of the Way Things Were, but very rarely and impossible now without Entwistle. There's a telling scene in The Kids Are Alright when an interviewer asks him if he was still the "desperate young man" of the 60s and he answers back with "I'm a desperate old fart" - desperate yes, and still obsessed with making Big Statements that just seem more and more embarrassing. I wish he'd take a cue from Ray Davies and just become a semi-retired Elder Statesman, but I don't believe he can allow himself to do that. It's sad because I'm convinced that he's determined to smash the "legacy" (sorry) of The Who to pieces like so many Rickenbachers. Heck, I'd be happy with a retread of It's Hard, but instead it's endless rehashes of Tommy, etc. I cringed when he continued without Entwistle and now I just don't want to hear anything.

Nevertheless, The Who is one of the few bands to rightfully earn a Force Of Nature description. NOTHING surpasses Live At Leeds, not even No Sleep 'TIll Hammersmith. "Sparks" at Woodstock is still awe-inspiring even now and I love the sheer "fuck you" of that destruction that wrings the necks of all the dopey hippies in the audience. Most folks would sell their soul to write a song as good as a Townshend b-side from back then and no band has equalled The Who's string of singles from 1965 to 1968.

Tommy is unbearable to listen to now, and I only listen to bits and pieces of the Stadium Rock years. The dreadful songs ("Long Live Rock", "Squeeze Box", etc.) are the classic rock radio hits and I think that's fueling a lot of the hate. Still for every one of those there's some terrific forgotten songs in there - "Naked Eye", "Sea And Sand", "Blue Red And Grey", "Bargain", "Dreaming From The Waist", etc. I don't dislike Daltrey, but his singing in the 70s is so cliched especially compared with Townshend's wonderfully weedy voice on "Goin' Mobile" or "The Punk And The Godfather".

Townshend comes in with that "I sit looking 'round / I look at my face in the mirror ..." part, and it's like ooooohhhh, thats nice.

That and the instrumental passage that follows it with crisp drumming, synthesizer/acoustic and amazing bass notes..one of my favourite sections.

"Dreaming From The Waist"

I listened to this six times in a row yesterday and now I'm listening to it again. Did they remix it for the remaster because the bass on the original vinyl is criminally low?

Ah...wrong. I posted this because I still think they're supremely mediocre. If it should have been on ILM, well, I apologize. It's not trolling because you disagree with the sentiment.

I really don't think you can compare them to the Beatles, I wasn't even thinking about that. Maybe they're better live performers, well, sure.

The Stones are a better comparison, except that for song writing, the Who don't hold a candle (in the wind) to M&K. The Stones have also produced a lot of crap, but interspersed are classics at least until the 90s.

The Kinks are a better comparison still. A number of great songs, still played 35 years later. But second tier. Not horrible, but it' a list of singles they're remembered for.

Also cf Faces/Rod's first 3 or so solo albums. Not as hard charging, but similar era and much more durable.

That's just my opinion. Believe it or not, Elvis, I was interested in hearing why people thought the Who is so good.

Still no one will comment on the recently released dreck. Maybe it's not fair to call it a Who song with the truncated line up.

Heh..spot on except I see it as coming to terms with life and death. The lyrics with their specific references to adolescent and young adult trauma don't hit me in the same way they did. It's more the tension/release (frustration/exhilaration) in the music itself that still moves me. It's a life and death thing (and the fact that two of them are now dead I find incredibly poignant).

I particularly love early RS/Faces. The above and the references to the Rolling Stones make me think it's the rhythmically clumsy quality of the Who that's now out of fashion. There's not much 'groove' to them. Moon in particular was a terrible drummer when required to play a tidy, simple beat. But I still love that sprawling, messy, rampaging style they had. I can imagine it might sound alien to a lot of younger people though.

fuck you

so there are some people that like them. i don't.

i can't tell you how many people have told me to listen to the who (mind you, i never once heard any of these same people actually playing any who) and so i'd have a listen and not be impressed. so i always thought that i just didn't get it.

about a year ago i found that my local library had a copy of "the who sell out" so i loaned it. i found nothing of interest save for, i can see for miles (which of course i was already familiar with). well then about six months later i gave the album another chance. still nothing. and so my disinterest grew.

but there was always the use of a quick one in "Rushmore". one morning i woke up and happened upon the rolling stones rock and roll circus just as the who were playing a quick one. i was completely blown away and thought, wow, i finally get it.

i promptly went out and bought "A Quick One (happy jack)" with the extra tracks and all. man, what a disappointment. there must be a different version of "a quick one" used in "rushmore" because this track just doesn't have the same manic energy.

my roommate was all excited when i brought the cd home, he told me how great "boris the spider" is and another friend said, "i love that album, but i haven't listened to it in like ten years." my roommate has never asked about the album since, i never play it and if a who song ever comes on the radio or something, i'd much rather turn the station than turn it up.

so yes, i've tried the who, and no, i don't like them.

But you wonder about why you cause such consternation, then again repeat that you're confused that people care this much about the who, essentially condescending our tastes. You don't like the Who, fine, but please respect the fact that yes, it is possible for other people, even people who are as extremely knowledgeable and critical about music as myself, as well as some of the other prior posters, to hold them in highest regard.

and anybody that's ever told me they like the band (prior to today on this thread) has never actually played any who in my presence (and it's not b/c they think i'm some kind of who hater). so i am sorry to have upset those that like and actually enjoy listening to the who, have fun, you guys are great. phew.

also, we must not forget the brilliance of the Tommy flick(or the take on it given by last week's ep of "Home Movies")...

i don't even know what to say to this, apart from maybe "what the fuck?"

but i still like them more than the stones. i can't really explain that, except that things like the way keith moon's drums seem to be everywhere at once in the early singles and the guitar solo in "anyway, anyhow, anywhere" mean more to me than almost anything else in rock.

Moon in particular was a terrible drummer when required to play a tidy, simple beat. But I still love that sprawling, messy, rampaging style they had. I can imagine it might sound alien to a lot of younger people though.

-- David (huntsma...), April 9th, 2004. (David)

-----------------------------

That's not much of a ground for criticism though; it's like complaining that a French restaurant doesn't have Chinese food. It's just not what they do.
-- stockholm cindy (disco_frie...), April 9th, 2004. (Jody Beth Rosen)

Different rock bands have different approaches to form. This is just prima facie stuff, isn't it? Complaining about Moon's drumming is like complaining about John French's drumming in the Magic Band, or Leigh Stephens guitar soloing on the first Blue Cheer record. I don't see how any right-thinking person could disparage any of 'em. Why listen to rock music at all if not for love of different instrumental voices?

Anyway, Justin OTM. I've had that guitar break on "Anyway Anyhow Anywhere" buzzing in my brain all day.

Hey! (Cause objectivity sure ain't around!)

if you liked Oasis, you'd win the trifecta.

Oh, that'd be me then. I have about...*checks*...six, seven Who discs covering pretty much the early years minus Tommy. Haven't listened to them in a dog's age, though, and it probably has to do with the disaffection towards them I feel thanks to their Classic Rock Enshrinement as noted by Elvis Telecom above. Actually in terms of how often I've listened and what I really enjoy about them, the ranking is easily Cocteaus, Oasis, Who.

TS: vintage Who songs played by Keith Moon vs. vintage Who songs played by Kenny Jones.

Yeah, they rock.

i don't even know what to say to this, apart from maybe "what the fuck?"

Well, the James Brown drummers, that's drumming, in my opine. John French is an amazing drummer and it's structural, it's locked down, in...Ziggy Modeliste is a drummer. Keith Moon is fun to watch and it's fine for the Who, but that's not what rhythm sections are supposed to do. Yeah, I know, we're supposed to be tolerant...and I am, but it'd be one thing if people just went, "oh, the Who and their drummer, that's interesting, kind of stupid, but what the hell, they had some good tunes," which it was and they did, but when people start talking about it as if it were some big advance in rock music or human interaction, then I just have to laugh...they just come across as total amateurs, and I got to draw the line somewhere, even given the fact I'm a rock and roll savage and all that shit. The Who may have listened to all the right stuff and I know that rock isn't supposed to groove all the time, but I just find it enervating, pretentious, completely un-sexy, and a general waste of time. Apart from the perhaps 45 minutes of true genius they did produce--I admit that and enjoy it, but that's as far as I go with it.

i mean, i can't really knock them, but as someone else said on this thread, life is too short

in the non-who category: "like a hurricane"

it's like some really cool relative who has a habit of talking too loud

the who are truly pish.

Sure the who haven't done anything worth a pinch of shit in about 33 years, but for a few years there the who were perfect.

so what?

"My Generation" is a motherfucking blisterning LP, comments on all the good stuff above seconded but don't forget the brilliance of Rael in opening the beat overload -> oceanic equation -- everything on Sell Out seconded, actually, and also on the expanded Leeds and other period boots which in general opened rock overdrive up as a permissable idea, the open chords, etc. this was completely NEW at the time. And the dynamism of some of the riffs still, not least in Baba and jesus Daltry tearing into Young Man Blues (did anyone else who did the blues treat them with less respect and more reverence?), but also more who originals like can't explain, PLENTY of tommy, PLENTY of quad, and yes all of who's next.

Is there a prettier song than behind blue eyes? Only, maybe, Pictures of Lily or Mary Anne with the Shaky Hand.

many.

i like their first lp best by far.

Not to mention which -- The Who's appearance on the Smothers Brothers was probably the most rock moment ever televised!

Erm... you DO know that they were lip synching on the Smothers Brothers show, right?

hmmmmm. the only good songs off tommy i can think of: pinball wizard, we're not gonna take it, cousin kevin, and (if i'm feeling generous) fiddle about. out of a 24-track album, that's pretty bad.

The Who is the worst band of all--including Hanson. Absolutely 0 talent.

Sterling on the money!

I pretty much dislike the great majority of what the Who did post-late 60's. "Who's next" was sooo blah to my ears. "Going mobile" is the most embarassing part of it. There are sparse good parts. But the 60's early stuff is what I really care about. Nobody ahs mentioned the BBC Sessions CD that came out in the 90's- it is the most fun thing I have heard by them- people who doubt the Who and think they have no groove or whatever, you need to get that CD- this is the stuff that shows why punks respected them!

As far as today's bands, I'd have to say Coldplay is the most "eh" band out there. Competent songs, competently played, all the emotional urgency of getting up for another beer or waiting for a train to work.

But sometimes this is the most important thing in the world. Yet even Coldplay would make that boring.

I think their glory days were the mid-to-late-Sixties, right up to Tommy. Tommy is awesome, but when they got into the "bloated hard rock band that jams on My Generation for 10 minutes" i kind of turned them off. So nowadays i can see how people could look at their 70s output and say 'ugh'. But as a Speed-driven mod pop band, i think they were second to none.

btw "So Sad About Us" is one of the greatest pop songs ever.