Fun Stuff > BAND

the Who

<< < (3/6) > >>

RedLion:
Interesting point. R&B rock..sort of how Led Zeppelin is blues rock and The Doors could be largely classified as jazz rock (save for their last album.)

look out! Ninjas!:
I think consensus will be with their straight albums (My Generation, Who's Next) first, then the concept-y ones (Tommy, Quadrophenia).
On a side note, the rock operas just don't work at all if you listen to them like you would a modern album (being listening to the singles a lot and the filler not much in multiple sittings while something else takes most of your focus). You need to sit down and listen to the thing straight, taking it in. Oh, and pause it halfway through, take the CD out, blow on it, and put it back in where it finished. For authenticity's sake.

Zingoleb:
I love the Who. But it bothers me when Pete Townshend is hailed as an amazing guitarist, as a guitar hero - he was not! He was a basic guitarist who released great songs however simple. My favourite song (one of them, at least) is "I Can See For Miles" but the guitar solo is...one note. Played a lot. Does that really take so much skill?

The other thing that pisses me off is that Townshend and Daltrey are still together as "The Who" despite the fact that the two best players in the Who are now dead.

StaedlerMars:
An amazing guitarist doesn't mean being able to play immensely complicated solo's. It means being able to play simple things and make them sound good.

Also, what Townshend and Daltrey do with their band is up to them. If they still want to play songs that Pete wrote, while still being able to make new music its their choice. Many bands' line ups have changed over time.

Also, I've seen them, and they were fairly good.

Orbert:
Pete's gift is choosing exactly the right notes and chords for the situation, not blazing fast chops.  The one-note solo in "I Can See For Miles" is pretty simple, yes, but it's the way he plays that one note that sells it.  There are syncopation and dynamics, and I'm pretty sure he knew exactly what he was doing.  It seems to me that the idea was to see if he could play a one-note solo and play the hell out of it.  Considering that this was 40 years ago, it's not bad.  And again, the point is that it's what is right for the song.

Still, don't sell Pete short on chops.  Listen closely to some of his acoustic solos during otherwise electric tunes.  "Who Are You" for example.  The bridge between "Overture" and "It's a Boy" for another.  Those are some smoking solos.

I pretty much agree with you about Roger and Pete calling themselves The Who, when half of what defined The Who is dead.  Yes, it's up to them what they want to do with the name, and to many, The Who is about Pete and Roger.  But without John's aggressive bass and Keith's thunderous drums, it really doesn't sound anything like what you associate with The Who. 

I think Led Zeppelin did it right.  When John Bonham died, Robert Plant said that Led Zeppelin was over.  They might find another drummer, subsets of them might still play together (and indeed Robert and Jimmy have done a lot), but they would not call it Led Zeppelin, because Led Zeppelin was those four guys, and one of them is gone.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page