The Who Thread

[punksandwich]

Can we got back and tell PT that he was wrong? It's going to take a miracle to change history.

I still believe.

And if you don't believe, he may unleash his cronies to come maul you to death.

Oh yeah, go tell that to Ringo too please,

A few selective cuts,

1. I'm the Greatest (J. Lennon)

x. Have You Seen My Baby? (R. Newman)

x. Photograph (R. Starkey/G. Harrison)

x. You're Sixteen (R. Sherman) 10.0

x. Oh, My My (V. Poncia/R. Starkey) 10.0

x. Devil Woman (V. Poncia/R. Starkey) 6.1

x. You and Me (Babe) (G.Harrison/M. Evans)

Ringo Starr - Lead Vocals, Drums & Percussion

With:

Klaus Voormann - Bass on all tracks; Backing Vocals on "Devil Woman"

George Harrison - Electric & 12 String Guitars on tracks 1, 3, 4, 10; Backing Vocals on tracks 3 & 4

John Lennon - Piano & Backing Vocals on "I'm the Greatest"

Paul McCartney - Saxophone on "Your Sixteen"; Synthesizer, Piano & Backing Vocals on "Six O'clock"

"I'm The Greatest" is one more fantastic tune, and really the closest Beatles fans would ever get to that dreamed Beatles reunion.

And, they were the GREATEST !!

[Swede]

First of all, thanks for the words Angel. As for Swede and Jahfin, true that music is art and ones perception is going to differ. But Playboy magazine had polls out for years rating instruments by category. What do you think the Grammy awards are? they are a competition so to speak. To say that you cant measure talent in any way is just absurd. Are you going to tell me that if I say some beginner that just picked up a guitar is better than Jimmy Page or Peter Townsend that is ok and it is his personal view? Bullshit. Talent can be measured. When you are comparing super groups I agree then its opinion. But dont give me this shit that there is no differance in quality in music. I play an instrument too Swede and I took music theory also. So I have more than a laymans opinion on the matter. And the Jonas brothers are not in the same league as the Beatles. They wont survive the test of time. They are only this day and ages Partridge family or heart throb for a bunch of crazed teeny bopper girlies.

I can see you point. BUT, talent for what? Technical skills? Feeling? Songwriting? Way of words? Page is great IMO, but there are people who thinks he's playing style is sloppy sometimes. Maybe he does, but in compare to what. We all hear things different. There are sloppy punk bands that together make something that sounds good, even though their individual technical skills is inferior. It's about sounds that appeal to people.

The Grammy awards is proof enough that you actually can't compete in music, in that case we would never complain over who won, would we?

[Jahfin]

First of all, thanks for the words Angel. As for Swede and Jahfin, true that music is art and ones perception is going to differ. But Playboy magazine had polls out for years rating instruments by category. What do you think the Grammy awards are? they are a competition so to speak. To say that you cant measure talent in any way is just absurd. Are you going to tell me that if I say some beginner that just picked up a guitar is better than Jimmy Page or Peter Townsend that is ok and it is his personal view? Bullshit. Talent can be measured. When you are comparing super groups I agree then its opinion. But dont give me this shit that there is no differance in quality in music. I play an instrument too Swede and I took music theory also. So I have more than a laymans opinion on the matter. And the Jonas brothers are not in the same league as the Beatles. They wont survive the test of time. They are only this day and ages Partridge family or heart throb for a bunch of crazed teeny bopper girlies.

You're reading things into this that I never said. I stand by my statement that music isn't a competition and it's up to the individual as to what they like. I could give a shit about a Playboy poll or the Grammys, they don't have a thing to do with my point. I'm referring to individuals and what they chose to listen to. The bigger point being, there's no way to determine who the best artist or instrumentalist is in any given category in music. That's why conversations such as this that pit The Who against Zeppelin (or whoever) as the "best" are completely inane and utterly pointless.

[punksandwich]

Feeling in music IS subjective. Technical expertise, performance and proficiency is OBJECTIVE.

There wouldn't be auditions for a symphony let's say, if the leader didn't have a criteria of BEST musician to chose from. Strict conductor's don't want musicians varying from the written notes. They don't want a musician to 'add' their flavor. These conductor's go by who PLAYS the notes the BEST. He is being objective.

Legit music in this sense. As many refer to it as.

For RocknRoll, often it's not the technical precision a leader is looking for in prospective auditioners, but FEELING. That becomes subjective. If you could ask Frank Zappa though, he'd say he wanted the BEST for his band, and he got them. You HAD to play it right or you didn't pass the muster.

And with that, I'm being very subjective in my objectivity.

Talent can be measured.

Edited January 14, 2009 by punksandwich

[Jahfin]

It's painfully obvious you're entirely missing my point. How does one go about determining technical ability? Even if there was a way (which there isn't) would it mean that a certain artist is unequivocally the "best"?

Edited January 14, 2009 by Jahfin

[beatbo]

when it comes to music, there is but one test for the best: the test of time.

i learned this lesson from poetry. i was in a writing composition class in college and i was a bit older than the rest of the students. our instructor was a locally published poet of some reknown (who didn't realize that i was, as well).

she passed out two poems: one new poem on the blazing love of lesbians, well written, expressive, difficult to completely understand, a poem that showed tons of technique but was not inclusive of it's audience.

the other poem: "how do i love thee? let me count the ways" by elizabeth barrett browning. according to my instructor, she pointed out all the flaws of the browning poem, the sloppiness of depending on a rhyme scheme to "overemphasize" her point. she extolled the new wave poem, with it's technical ecstasy that needed no rhyme, a poem that used punctuation to a point that rivalled the way a violin used a note.

i called "bullshit".

huh? she said, looking pissed

"yeah". bullshit. your new poem is nice and shiny. it will affect probably 50 people of the hundreds that read it unless it is selectively run in a gay publication, where most of it's intended audience can read and identify with it. this new poem is meant to exclude people. it's using it's technique to show that only certain people can understand what the author is going through. i predict it will have the shelf life of a loaf of bread."

"but the browning poem is a masterpiece. the sloppy rhyme scheme is precisely why it has been popular for over 100 years-it includes everybody. and, btw, it's not sloppy. the poem is so well-written, it is being discussed in class today, and being spat on by someone who thinks that they have acheived some merit for themselves, enough to judge. but the true test will be: in 100 more years, which poem will be discussed in a classroom?"

the classroom went wild with yelling and arguements, but i know i'm right.

i didn't get a good grade from that instructor, but who cares?

i would think this will apply to music as well.

in 100 years, who?

i hope this post isn't too long...

"How do I love thee? Let me count the ways..."

by Elizabeth Barrett Browning (1806-1861)

How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.

I love thee to the depth and breadth and height

My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight

For the ends of Being and ideal Grace.

I love thee to the level of everyday's

Most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.

I love thee freely, as men strive for Right;

I love thee purely, as they turn from Praise.

I love thee with a passion put to use

In my old griefs, and with my childhood's faith.

I love thee with a love I seemed to lose

With my lost saints, --- I love thee with the breath,

Smiles, tears, of all my life! --- and, if God choose,

I shall but love thee better after death.

Edited January 14, 2009 by beatbo

[Jahfin]

when it comes to music, there is but one test for the best: the test of time.

Good point and nice post but I still don't think the "test of time" determines if a certain artist is "best", at least the way Yukon chooses to define it. If Nirvana records are still being played regularly centuries from now do you think he would agree they are "best"? I think not because he will continue to base his criteria of what is "best" on technical ability alone and everyone knows Cobain was far from a technically proficient guitar player.

By the way, I have nothing whatsover against Nirvana or Kurt Cobain, I'm merely using them as an example for those that base what is "best" on one's technical ability.

[punksandwich]

It's painfully obvious you're entirely missing my point. How does one go about determining technical ability? Even if there was a way (which there isn't) would it mean that a certain artist is unequivocally the "best"?

Some people are tone deaf, rhythmetrically challenged and can't make a distinction of talent. Others can.

If you can play the notes correctly as written in a composition, and IN TUNE, that can show technical ability over someone who doesn't.

I'm talking about precison performance here, not musical creativity.

Some are discriminate enough to make a distinction.

[Jahfin]

Some people are tone deaf, rhythmetrically challenged and can't make a distinction of talent. Others can.

If you can play the notes correctly as written in a composition, and IN TUNE, that can show technical ability over someone who doesn't.

I'm talking about precison performance here, not musical creativity.

Some are discriminate enough to make a distinction.

So, even if one were able to determine an artists' ability on a certain instrument, does that make them the "best"?

Edited January 14, 2009 by Jahfin

[punksandwich]

So, even if one were able to determine an artists' ability on a certain instrument, does that make them the "best"?

Sure it can, ask any reknown composer/conductor that discriminates and is able.

[beatbo]

So, even if one were able to determine an artists' ability on a certain instrument, does that make them the "best"?

not only that, but is the best musician-technically the best overall-especially when it comes to rock and roll?

pete townshend is not the best musician,(even in rock) but he's a great musical performer and inspired songwriter.

jimmy page is not the most technically proficient guitar player but one of the most expressive. he knows when something he played is wrong or off but will leave it the recording when it expresses the emotion he wants to convey...

how else could ringo starr be the drummer /percussionist for a world-beating band like the beatles?

(because he was the best at what they needed)

the criteria?

critically acclaimed "best"? essays and articles that overanalyze to a small cult share of the audience?

audience acclaimed "best"? music sales?

edit to add: i like how the word "anal" is inside the word "overanalyze"....

Edited January 14, 2009 by beatbo

[BIGDAN]

I know opinions differ, and all that, but this is absolute nonsense - they certainly ARE in the top league, no question about it. For a long while The Who were generally recognized as an impossible act to follow live, and for more than a decade they managed to release albums that are still generally agreed to be among the best in the history of rock music.

Hi OttoMasson,

From time to time we need to take a reality check, now is the time.

I saw Led Zeppelin both times at Knebworth in 1979, why, because Led Zeppelin were in town that day.

I saw The Who in Charlton London in 1974, why, because Led Zeppelin were not in town that day.

The Who may have been a tough act to follow, but Led Zeppelin were impossible to follow, they never needed a warm up act, there was never enough time, save a Festival where you have all day.

Now compare these.

Jimmy Page, excelent virtuoso, arpeggios, solos, chord sequences, sound engineer and producer, and thats just in the studio. Live performances are legendry, use of many gimmicks but playing was his main aim, he could take you on a journey every time he performed, he plays from his heart. 10/10

Pete Townsend, chords, chords and more chords, minimal use of good solos, windmilling arms and then smashes up his guitar (sacrilege). 5/10

Robert Plant, excelent vocal range, his scream is primeval, exceleny use of the English language in his lyrics, songs on many subjects, love of Tolkein and Lore, achieved the status of Rock God, stunning good looks, golden hair to die for, great charm, very witty. 10/10

Roger Daltry, good vocal range, voice is strained much of the time, very basic lyrics, achieved the status of Rock God, good looks, good hair. 8/10

JPJ, can play anything with strings or keys, musical virtuiso as good as Page, theatrical, excelent rapport with drummer. 10/10

John Entwistle, excelent bassist. 9/10

John Bonham, loud hard hitting drummer, percusionist, very very long solos, most sampled and copied drummer ever, kept impeccable time, lunatic but not mad, now plays Thunder for Gods orchestra. 10/10

Keith Moon, loud hard hitting drummer, unimaginative solos, kept good time, lunatic and mad, now plays Thunder for Gods orchestra. 8/10

The Who, loudest Rock Band for a time, excelent live shows, sold over 100,000,000 albums, big influence on next generation of bands, could kick ass. 8/10

Led Zeppelin, played a wide range of music, legendary live shows, sold over 200,000,000 albums, played to biggest audiance for sole band without support act-76,000 Silverdome Pontiac, enormous influence on next generation of bands, all band members have a unique symbol of their own, they have more legendry songs than any other band, could kick anyones ass. 10/10

Just my honest opinion you understand, I await your disaproval.

Regards, Danny

Eddited to add 1979 for 1989, thanks yukon.

Edited January 14, 2009 by BIGDAN

[BIGDAN]

I assume you saw Led Zeppelin in 1979? You said 1989 but that is impossible because they did not exist in 1989. Bonso died on Sept 25th 1980. But I didnt think there was a 79 tour?

Hi Yukon

Thanks for pointing out my mistake, in 1979 they played two warm ups in Denmark and two Knebworth shows.

Regards, Danny

[Swede]

Just my honest opinion you understand, I await your disaproval.

Regards, Danny

Hey Danny, I respect your opinion. But that is all it is, your opinion. As I been trying to say. Otherwise Led Zeppelin would be everybody's favourite band.

Sure, you can measure technical skills, but that is just a part of what music is about. Music is suppose to create sounds and melodies that is suppose to appeal your mind. Some think the sound of a pedal steel is the most beautiful sound an instrument can create while others think it sounds awful, no matter how great the player is.

Of course, I can tell if a guitarist has technical skills and plays perfectly. But if I don't like the sound of his guitar, amp, distortion and his technique, it won't appeal to me. If it ain't perfect to me, then I can't call what I hear the worlds greatest music. And it's all my subjective opinion.

[JethroTull]

Could somebody please provide a year by year analysis of The Who vs. Led Zeppelin. Start from The Who's inception in 1964, comparing guitar, bass, drums, keyboard (synth, piano and organ), singing, lyrics, song writing. Next would be LP vs. LP on a year to year basis. Let's figure it OUT.

[beatbo]

Could somebody please provide a year by year analysis of The Who vs. Led Zeppelin. Start from The Who's inception in 1964, comparing guitar, bass, drums, keyboard (synth, piano and organ), singing, lyrics, song writing. Next would be LP vs. LP on a year to year basis. Let's figure it OUT.

why don't you do it?

and what would it prove?

i'm not trying to turn up your hearing aid but i think it has been firmly established that the word "best", when applied to music, is purely subjective.

some people, like myself, have tried to point out that even if you took a different tack and tried to prove the who was better based on some insignificant criteria like album sales, etc the who whould probably still lose...

that said, i concede to you that you (and some others)think the who is the greatest band ever.

here is your minature stuffed carnival prize, back away from the table, kid.....

AND I STILL LOVE THE WHO!

[Jahfin]

Well we all at least agree that the test of time is a very important factor in judging if you will, a musiciian or band or singer, etc. The test of time is very hard to pass. Very few have been able to accomplish it. Led Zeppeliin, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Dylan, Cash, Sinatra, Elvis, Beethoven, and on and on have been able to do it. That says that they must be a bit special dont you agree?

Whether an artist is "special" or not isn't the question at hand, it's the assumption that "X" artist is "the best". There is NO way to prove that. It's only a matter of opinion. I have favorites but have never once proclaimed that any one artist, song, album, etc. is "best".

[punksandwich]

The voices of many carry the voice of one

Lots more people here have opinions of talent objectivity, not subjectivity alone, and with your proclamations of "there is NO best", the choir is unshaken. The power of many, supercedes that of one. Sorry.

By the way, your text is very easy to read. Are you doing a write-up with color #000000 as your enabling HTML code so your posts stand out?

I assume it's not because of macular degeneration.

[Jahfin]

Lots more people here have opinions of talent objectivity, not subjectivity alone, and with your proclamations of "there is NO best", the choir is unshaken. The power of many, supercedes that of one. Sorry.

No need to apologize but I stand by my statement, there is no one best artist, group. song, etc.. Besides, there is no way to determine that.

[dazedcat]

It's all relative. No one is going to change their minds as to which band was better. What's the point of endless arguments like this?

[Chicago]

The show I was at followed the tragedy in Cincinnati in 1979. Townsend was getting blasted onstage, regardless, it turned out to be a great concert. Extremely loud and truly riveting.

I did some recent gigs where we played Substitute, Shaking All Over, Pinball Wizard and part of Amazing Journey. Those songs are fun as hell to batter out on guitar.

[JethroTull]

Long Live The Who.

Edited January 16, 2009 by JethroTull

[Jahfin]

It's all relative. No one is going to change their minds as to which band was better. What's the point of endless arguments like this?

Exactly my point, even if there was a way to prove that a certain artist is best it's absolutely futile. If I already have a favorite (a term I prefer over "best") it's not going to change my opinion one way or the other.

[dazedcat]

Exactly my point, even if there was a way to prove that a certain artist is best it's absolutely futile. If I already have a favorite (a term I prefer over "best") it's not going to change my opinion one way or the other.

I know, it's total futility. I've read enough of the comparisons to pretty much put me over the edge, but out of respect to the board members and the band itself (Zeppelin pays for these boards).......I kept my mouth shut

Both were legendary......any other comparisons are pointless.

Regards;

[SabbathWhoPurpleZeppelin]

I love The Who!!! especially their more 'hard rock' period (Live at Leeds particularly)

First gig I went to my ears are still ringing. I probably get flamed due to being on a zeppelin forum but I strongly believe The Who are the greatest Live band of all time *doges flying objects thrown by angry zeppelin fans*