Tell me why The Who isn't lame

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

...because they always seemed lame to me. I like "Baba O'Reilly" as much as the next guy, but everything else is either bland and tepid or just pure crap. All the songs sound like jingles (i brought this up once before - sing "foooood emporium, food food food food" over "Who Are You" for some fun) and not in a good, Supergrass kinda way.

I own most of their albums and can't say I like any of them. "The Real Me" from Quadrophenia is ok i guess but I actually prefer WASP's cover of it. No shit.

― roger adultery, Thursday, 24 July 2003 11:37 (twenty-two years ago)

but bland and tepid are lame words, so yr argument falls

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 24 July 2003 11:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Young Man's Blues

― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 24 July 2003 11:42 (twenty-two years ago)

only heard live in Leeds. for a 'rock' band the lack of dynamics is unforgivable (can't go into details since i heard it a long while back).

overall it was ok but they were one of the great rock bands apparently.

haven't tried anything else.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Thursday, 24 July 2003 11:45 (twenty-two years ago)

"Who's Next" is one of the greatest rock&roll albums of ALL FUCKING TIME! "Live at Leeds" (the deluxe edition, at least) is THE ULTIMATE ROCK&ROLL LIVE ALBUM!!!!!

So there, they aren't lame.

― JP Almeida (JP Almeida), Thursday, 24 July 2003 11:47 (twenty-two years ago)

...not in a good, Supergrass kinda way.

and that is not a lame argument?!?

― t\'\'t (t\'\'t), Thursday, 24 July 2003 11:49 (twenty-two years ago)

I disagree. Motorhead's No Sleep Till Hammersmith played through one car speaker on a warped cassette destroys seeing Live at Leeds in person

― roger adultery, Thursday, 24 July 2003 11:49 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh come on man, "Alright" could sell me anything!

― roger adultery, Thursday, 24 July 2003 11:50 (twenty-two years ago)

The last time I heard The Who we were drinking in a bar in Belgium and the singles comp came on. All the songs were entertaining but never exactly great. Then Moby came on and I suddenly realised what was good about The Who.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 24 July 2003 11:52 (twenty-two years ago)

I've never loved Who's Next, which I think is one of the more boring classic rock albums. But The Who Sell Out is brilliant, as are the early singles. Leeds too.

― Jazzbo (jmcgaw), Thursday, 24 July 2003 11:52 (twenty-two years ago)

the "cut my hair" riffs on Quadrophrenia are what always do it for me.

plus, "A Quick One While He's Away", either the Live At Leeds Version, which is killer, or for the use of the "Rock & Roll Circus" version in _Rushmore_...

― Kingfish (Kingfish), Thursday, 24 July 2003 12:06 (twenty-two years ago)

The Who were rock and roll crossed with pop, in the way that the Rolling Stones were rock and roll crossed with cigarettes.

― ara, Thursday, 24 July 2003 12:53 (twenty-two years ago)

I think I always love The Who more in theory than when I'm actually listening to them. They kick ass, and have some great songs, but for some reason rarely quite hit the mark for me. So I want to defend them vigorously, but I do understand the argument.

― Al (sitcom), Thursday, 24 July 2003 12:56 (twenty-two years ago)

Listen to the drumming at the end of 5:15.
I think the Who would have been better without Roger Daltry.

― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 24 July 2003 13:33 (twenty-two years ago)

"Tattoo"!!

― Pabst Blue Rosen (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 24 July 2003 14:15 (twenty-two years ago)

I love the Who, but somehow they never sound as muscular and powerful as you feel they should be, especially when they are branded with epithets like "loudest rock band in the world." But nevertheless, they've got quite a few true classics. LIKE THAT FUCKING SQUEEZE BOX SONG, JESUS WHAT BRILLIANCE!!

Naw, seriously though, "Who's Next" is a great album and "I Can See for Miles" is awesome, especially its one-note guitar solo.

― King Kobra (King Kobra), Thursday, 24 July 2003 14:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Also, Roger, you may be shocked to know that your name is a pun on the name of the Who's lead singer. The things you learn every day!

― King Kobra (King Kobra), Thursday, 24 July 2003 14:35 (twenty-two years ago)

"my generation"

― reo fordecor, Thursday, 24 July 2003 18:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah...it seems to me Daltrey is kind of lame, and always was, but the rest of the band's complete brilliance in their prime (which more or less mirrors the Stones', for time-frame) forgives that. "Sell Out" is an incredible album, one of the best of the late 60s, and Townsend's songwriting at that time might kick the ass of everyone short of Bob Dylan. (Example: the great "Glow Girl," in which an Immaculate Conception seems to take place in the mind of a woman rifling through her purse as the plane she's on plummets towards the earth.) Besides which, the sheer, pummeling wonderfulness of the band on many earlier tracks--"My Generation," "Anyway, Anyhow, Anywhere," the climax of "Pictures of Lily"--is its own argument.

I don't much like "Who's Next," or anything from "Tommy" onwards for that matter, but before that...great.

― M Specktor (M Specktor), Thursday, 24 July 2003 19:50 (twenty-two years ago)

I agree with the statement that they aren't quite as muscular as branded. Especially the live album that so many fawn over. I saw them last year and they were good and all, but they've always seemed to be missing something, whereas I never felt that way about the Stones. Dare I say it, another guitarist in the band to just rip power chords would have done wonders.

― Mark M, Friday, 25 July 2003 02:37 (twenty-two years ago)

How come mark s always shows up in Who threads? I think he secretly loves them.

― Mark (MarkR), Friday, 25 July 2003 02:40 (twenty-two years ago)

the who are weird becuz they exist parallel to the development of hard-rock but never settled fully within it. you can't compare them to a zep or a cream or an etc. coz their vision of R&B splintered away in a different, art-house direction which is actually conceptually much more akin to motown.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Friday, 25 July 2003 02:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Because Keith Moon looked great in tight pants in 1965.

― Mike Taylor (mjt), Friday, 25 July 2003 02:52 (twenty-two years ago)

i wonder if they're still gunna do that Keith Moon biopic. They'd spoken of using Jason Schwartzman to play the part...

― Kingfish (Kingfish), Friday, 25 July 2003 19:58 (twenty-two years ago)

bah mark pitchfork has rumbled my horrible secret = i am roger daltrey :(

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 25 July 2003 19:59 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.thewho.net/fang/images/98ACC-RD.jpg

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 25 July 2003 20:04 (twenty-two years ago)

wait, that's a not a very good answer to the question

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 25 July 2003 20:05 (twenty-two years ago)

i want a blue & black velvet robe, too

― Kingfish (Kingfish), Friday, 25 July 2003 20:23 (twenty-two years ago)

i like how they add "Victorian Market Place" to it.

― Kingfish (Kingfish), Friday, 25 July 2003 20:24 (twenty-two years ago)

This thread is sad. Roger, you have good, wide-ranging taste; you honestly can't hear how John Entwistle invented rock bass playing? how Keith Moon reinvented rock drumming? how Pete Townshend pioneered the use of feedback and punishing volume? how Live at Leeds invents heavy metal, as ferocious a document of live band combustion and group dynamics as exists? None of those things catch your ear or strike you as of any importance?

― Mr. Diamond (diamond), Friday, 25 July 2003 20:29 (twenty-two years ago)

also, most punks i know, who HATE overblown concept albums, love & identify with Quadrophenia.

― Kingfish (Kingfish), Saturday, 26 July 2003 01:06 (twenty-two years ago)

yes but that's bcz they're frauds not bcz quadrophenia is any good

― mark s (mark s), Saturday, 26 July 2003 09:34 (twenty-two years ago)

otm more than anything ever right there mark

― chaki (chaki), Saturday, 26 July 2003 11:01 (twenty-two years ago)

well then. they'll certainly be surprised to find that out.

― Kingfish (Kingfish), Saturday, 26 July 2003 13:44 (twenty-two years ago)

all real punks are secretly frauds it's an IRON LAW

― mark s (mark s), Saturday, 26 July 2003 14:26 (twenty-two years ago)

who's next is terrible (chuck eddy's review is almost totally on the money, except he likes "goin' mobile" and i don't), their post-1970 stuff is mostly pretty feeble - slightly noisier singer-songwriter shit - tommy is a filler-clogged bore (tho as with sgt pepper the actual album is more mellow and likable than its reputation would have it), and actually there aren't really ANY who albums i love except sell out. so why do i love them?

they had the best run of singles of any band in the mid-60s apart from the stones and (arguably) the beatles. their first five 45s - "can't explain," "anyway, anyhow, anywhere," "my generation," "the kids are alright," "substitute" - sum up everything rock'n'roll means to me. there's a queasy, nervous intensity to the early who that i don't hear in any other band of the day, a feeling that totally mirrors the screwed-up, staring-at-the-floor, self-intoxicated, self-nauseated attitude of adolescence. when i was 16 i loved them, briefly, more than any other band, and there are times when i wish i still did.

what's new and original about the first who records isn't in the lyrics - although townshend always wrote well about this particular subject, it was nothing eddie cochran hadn't done before - it's something in the sound, the pricky uncertainty of the way the guitar stabs in and out, the braying self-consciousness of daltrey's voice, the ceaseless stampede of moon's drums - always coming in at an unexpected time - and entwistle's bass, the firm, steady center of each record.

their failure was written right into their early success: "my generation" was a self-conscious attempt to make a big important statement, and only daltrey's stutter makes it believable. with their next 45, "i'm a boy," you could already hear pompousness and self-pity, the first step toward the sing-songy angst of tommy and the dull metallic crunch of who's next. but even then you could hear a strong echo of their early greatness - why else would anyone have bought those albums? even when their records got flabby, the who were still able to reproduce that inimitably menacing, unstable-yet-consistent sound in concert.

so yeah, that's why the who aren't lame, roger.

― Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Saturday, 26 July 2003 14:49 (twenty-two years ago)

now I'm gonna have to relisten to live in leeds.

I really don't know how live at leeds invented heavy metal because hendrix and black sabbath also did apparently (what to believe etc etc).

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Saturday, 26 July 2003 14:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Quadrophenia's OK, cuz it INFLUENCED RUSH! (mark s to thread involuntarily!)

― dave q, Saturday, 26 July 2003 14:59 (twenty-two years ago)

there's a queasy, nervous intensity to the early who that i don't hear in any other band of the day, a feeling that totally mirrors the screwed-up, staring-at-the-floor, self-intoxicated, self-nauseated attitude of adolescence.

That's pretty good, justyn.

― N. (nickdastoor), Saturday, 26 July 2003 15:03 (twenty-two years ago)

because they are MAXIMUM R&B!!

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Saturday, 26 July 2003 15:59 (twenty-two years ago)

They're lame more often than they're not, but actually appreciating Husker Du helped me appreciate the Who (and the Jam) a bit more. I dig most of the early singles and stuff. Tommy is where it all went to pot. I don't like "Baba O'Riley" as much as the next guy.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Saturday, 26 July 2003 16:06 (twenty-two years ago)

Listen to the drumming at the end of 5:15.
I think the Who would have been better without Roger Daltry.
-- dave225 (adspac...), July 24th, 2003 3:33 AM. (Dave225) (later) (link)

Wow, this is EXACTLY what I was going to say, seriously. Since Dave said it first I'll also add that although the ox was a great player, a songwriter he was not. The Who have always annoyed the fuck out of me but I've developed a grudging respect for Townshend.

― teeny (teeny), Saturday, 26 July 2003 22:09 (twenty-two years ago)

scissor kicks and windmills.

― Chris Radford (Chris Radford), Sunday, 27 July 2003 06:46 (twenty-two years ago)

hmm, i never much minded roger daltrey. so i don't quite get the hate for him that some have.

that said, i'll take the stones and the kinks over the who any day. wouldn't go so far as to call the who lame, but they're lame compared to the stones and the kinks IMHO.

― Tad (llamasfur), Sunday, 27 July 2003 06:48 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.