The possible Led Zeppelin... could they have been better?

[beatbo]

I just wish I knew what it was people liked so much about The Who...

I'm not silly enough to say that they sucked compared to Zeppelin, I just don't think I understand them or what they were trying to accomplish. Too young maybe? I'm just 23.

I think The Who was awesome live, but in my opinion their studio cuts just don't hold much water these days.

that's a choice one makes, it seems.

i find their early recordings some of the best in rock and roll at that time.

as for tommy- it's very difficult to write around a theme or a storyline, especially if it's never been done before.

tommy suffered from extremely poor production (especially compared to the shel talmy years) but i still find it relevant and the who a courageous band for even considering the undertaking. and i still play it.

'live at leeds' is such a molten ball of rock it burns my cd player whenever i play it (which is often).

the 'lifehouse' project was an immense concept, it's effects are still being felt to this day. pete towshend pretty much anticipated the internet (he called it the grid), where everyone gets their entertainment, religion, consumerables, and opinions from a government datalink. the only way to find oneself is to 'go mobile' and many people do, showing up at the lifehouse to see the who, watching the band play until they are absorbed into a magic chord of spiritual communion.

pete, trying to not only intergrate synthesizers into his writing and the band's sound but to record in the midst of new technology, pretty much had a nervous breakdown.

the result: glyn johns cut a bunch of songs, submerged the story line and the who released 'who's next'.

i still listen to this cd, as well.

i think to truly appreciate "quadrophenia" one must either be british or know a whole lot about the culture in the mid-sixties. it contains some of pete's best writing and playing and some of the band's best performances.

not only is it from a writing standpoint a true rock opera, it remains their best work. it was also the highwater mark for keith moon.

from a performance standpoint, the who were pulverising, a true punk band caught in a time warp of mid-sixties pop. i always found them mesmerizing.

i can only refer you to these works and maybe "the kids are alright" dvd. it's easily the greatest rock movie ever made.

yes, the who is not for everybody. people that write can truly appreciate the (dare i say it?) "complexity" of townshends writing and themes. a lot of other people can, too. perhaps some day you'll get around to it. appreciating the who doesn't cost me any zeppelin points at all. that's great about music-going through life checking it all out.

[Arntzen]

Entwistle needs to learn how to support the music, instead of showing how good of a bass player he is.

Oh, go to hell. TO HELL WITH YOU, SIR!

[beatbo]

QUOTE (ArmsofAtlas @ Jul 11 2008, 09:55 AM)

Entwistle needs to learn how to support the music, instead of showing how good of a bass player he is.

Oh, go to hell. TO HELL WITH YOU, SIR!

Oh....john entwistle is dead, sir! he needs to learn nothing. HE IS DEAD, SIR!

[GetTheLedOut]

I think there are a generous handful of Zeppelin songs that are pretty f'in hard to learn, not to mention the fact that Page would rearrange things to cover multiple parts, live

I'm not sayin Townshend can't play guitar, but aside from being a pioneer, his playing isn't really all that advanced. And yes, being able to play in many different tunings does make you a better guitarist. How could it not?

You sound like someone who hasn't played much guitar, or other instruments for that matter. It's really quite simple to play in other tunings, even novices can do it.

And your analysis of Townshend seems to be based on nothing. I've seen and heard what the man can do and he is quite advanced. He's not just a pioneer, he's a great guitarist in his own right.

Zep weren't necessarily doing things that nobody else could do, they were just doing a lot of things that nobody else had done. Taking their influences and stretching them farther than any band before or since.

I love Zep, to death, but this hyperbole just has to go. The "best before and since" nonsense is the worst offender. They were great for so many real reasons, there's no reason to pretend that they were the only band "taking their influences and stretching them farther". Every other group was doing that, some doing it in ways that were more extreme than Zep. What made them better than most was their tasteful way of doing it. It wasn't for this, or the usual "it was just magic" type explanation.

[ArmsofAtlas]

You sound like someone who hasn't played much guitar, or other instruments for that matter. It's really quite simple to play in other tunings, even novices can do it.

And your analysis of Townshend seems to be based on nothing. I've seen and heard what the man can do and he is quite advanced. He's not just a pioneer, he's a great guitarist in his own right.

I love Zep, to death, but this hyperbole just has to go. The "best before and since" nonsense is the worst offender. They were great for so many real reasons, there's no reason to pretend that they were the only band "taking their influences and stretching them farther". Every other group was doing that, some doing it in ways that were more extreme than Zep. What made them better than most was their tasteful way of doing it. It wasn't for this, or the usual "it was just magic" type explanation.

Even novices can play in alternate tunings, but they have to learn how to do it, which makes them better at playing the guitar. To deny that the ability to play in an alternate tuning makes you a better guitarist is simply retarded.

I'm not using it as a term for comparison.

It would be like me pointing out to you that Townshend's 2 handed tapping doesnt make him a better guitarist. I'm not saying Page is better for that sole reason, but it would be something that if comparing guitarists, you would point out.

My analysis of Townshend is based on seeing and listening. Hell in the early days of the Who, he wasn't even lead guitarist or band leader, and he had quite the musical pedigree, might I add. I'm just not that impressed with his level of musicianship. I haven't seen him do anything that other rock guitarists haven't done. I know he was doing it first, so I give him a certain level of respect, I just haven't heard anything from him, where it wouldn't be a joke to compare him and Page.

IMO, the guitarist with the most techniques and styles combined with their maximum level of musicianship is what makes the better guitarist.

I admit, I am no Who aficionado, and I am a Zep fanatic, and I am only comparing what I know.

What albums should I get then? Tommy? Quadrophenia? Who's Next?

[Reggie29]

Even novices can play in alternate tunings, but they have to learn how to do it, which makes them better at playing the guitar. To deny that the ability to play in an alternate tuning makes you a better guitarist is simply retarded.

I'm not using it as a term for comparison.

It would be like me pointing out to you that Townshend's 2 handed tapping doesnt make him a better guitarist. I'm not saying Page is better for that sole reason, but it would be something that if comparing guitarists, you would point out.

My analysis of Townshend is based on seeing and listening. Hell in the early days of the Who, he wasn't even lead guitarist or band leader, and he had quite the musical pedigree, might I add. I'm just not that impressed with his level of musicianship. I haven't seen him do anything that other rock guitarists haven't done. I know he was doing it first, so I give him a certain level of respect, I just haven't heard anything from him, where it wouldn't be a joke to compare him and Page.

IMO, the guitarist with the most techniques and styles combined with their maximum level of musicianship is what makes the better guitarist.

I admit, I am no Who aficionado, and I am a Zep fanatic, and I am only comparing what I know.

What albums should I get then? Tommy? Quadrophenia? Who's Next?

Live at Leeds is a good place to start, one of my all time favourite live albums.

It's up there with HTWWW.

[GetTheLedOut]

Even novices can play in alternate tunings, but they have to learn how to do it, which makes them better at playing the guitar. To deny that the ability to play in an alternate tuning makes you a better guitarist is simply retarded.

Again, as a guitarist myself I have to disagree. It's very simple.

It would be like me pointing out to you that Townshend's 2 handed tapping doesnt make him a better guitarist. I'm not saying Page is better for that sole reason, but it would be something that if comparing guitarists, you would point out.

That alone doesn't make him a better guitarist, no. And I'm not arguing who I personally think is better; we both agree that it's Page. Townshend is a great guitarist in his own right though.

My analysis of Townshend is based on seeing and listening. Hell in the early days of the Who, he wasn't even lead guitarist or band leader, and he had quite the musical pedigree, might I add.

That has nothing to do with Townshend's skill and everything to do with the early Who (then the Detours) being the "Roger Daltrey and Company" show. Daltrey wanted to be the lead guitarist, so he was. When Daltrey changed his mind, the band changed. In those days he owned the band, mostly due to the fact he formed it and did all the driving and such.

I'm just not that impressed with his level of musicianship. I haven't seen him do anything that other rock guitarists haven't done. I know he was doing it first, so I give him a certain level of respect, I just haven't heard anything from him, where it wouldn't be a joke to compare him and Page.

IMO, the guitarist with the most techniques and styles combined with their maximum level of musicianship is what makes the better guitarist.

I think you're under evaluating Townshend significantly, and ignoring that for a good while during late Zeppelin and after, Page wasn't playing well. Page isn't quite as good as you think he is.

I admit, I am no Who aficionado, and I am a Zep fanatic, and I am only comparing what I know.

What albums should I get then? Tommy? Quadrophenia? Who's Next?

Well the easiest album for a non-Who fan to get into is almost always Who's Next, since at a minimum they are already familiar with "Baby O'Riley", "Bargain", "Behind Blue Eyes", and "Won't Get Fooled Again". It's definitely one of the greatest albums of all time (at least in my opinion), so I guess of those albums you listed this is the first one to get.

I absolutely love Tommy and think it deserves every bit of praise it receives, however most non-Who fans really don't get into it other than a few songs ("Pinball Wizard", "I'm Free",

"Amazing Journey", "Eyesight To The Blind", and "See Me, Feel Me/Listening To You"). If you decide you like the Who, then perhaps you're ready for this, but I'd wait until after you've gotten into them.

Quadrophenia is great album, but I think it's the lesser of the Who's two rock operas. It has more 'standout' tracks though, so it might be more enjoyable for you as a novice Who listener. You'll probably like "The Real Me", "Is It In My Head?", "5:15", "Sea And Sand", "Doctor Jimmy", and "Love Reign O'er Me".

The other good album to get for someone who isn't really into the Who is Live At Leeds. I HIGHLY recommend the deluxe edition, because not only do you get great, revved up versions of their early songs, you get a great performance of Tommy.

Again, I think you're best starting place is Who's Next. After that, it's whatever you want to take on. Here's how I rank their Moon era studio albums; they aren't necessarily ranked in order of accessibility.

1. Who's Next

2. Tommy

3. The Who Sell Out

4. The Who By Numbers

5. Quadrophenia

6. My Generation (the debut album, the US version is called "The Who Sings My Generation", which has almost the same tracklisting)

7. A Quick One

8. Who Are You

Hope this helps.

[beatbo]

Live at Leeds is a good place to start, one of my all time favourite live albums.

It's up there with HTWWW.

i'm with reggie-live at leeds.

i personally would prefer not to force feed any band to anyone. it gives that person the wrong perspective going in.

i hit on the who during my british invasion phase, which immediately followed my beatle phase. as someone who worships led zeppelin like no other band, i can only pass the dutchie to another ledhed and say "try this...some good shit."

cheers

[yahyoubetcha]

Just my two cents about what makes a good guitar player. It's not the tapping technique or the tunings, or how fast you can play a lick, or if you can play behind your head, or any of those things. It's what you create and imagine. My example might be David Gilmour. Anybody can play what he plays but no one else can create what he creates. Do you know what I mean? Same with Beck, Page, Townsend, all the greats. It comes from the heart, not the fingers.

[ArmsofAtlas]

Just my two cents about what makes a good guitar player. It's not the tapping technique or the tunings, or how fast you can play a lick, or if you can play behind your head, or any of those things. It's what you create and imagine. My example might be David Gilmour. Anybody can play what he plays but no one else can create what he creates. Do you know what I mean? Same with Beck, Page, Townsend, all the greats. It comes from the heart, not the fingers.

I get what you are saying, but that doesn't hold much water.

You could have the greatest musical imagination in the world and write the greatest songs, but if are fumbling around on your guitar, then you're not a great guitar player. It comes from the heart and fingers.

To GetthLedOut: I never said it was hard to play in alternate tunings, but YES, it makes you a better guitar player. It gives a guitarist many more possibilities. It's no different than learning a new picking method or scale, imo.

Your actual guitar playing may not improve, but you have more tools to apply to the guitar, and it can also help in understanding a little more on the technical side of things.

Would you hire a carpenter that knows how to use just a hammer, or would you hire one that can use any tool he picks up?

[GetTheLedOut]

I get what you are saying, but that doesn't hold much water.

You could have the greatest musical imagination in the world and write the greatest songs, but if are fumbling around on your guitar, then you're not a great guitar player. It comes from the heart and fingers.

To GetthLedOut: I never said it was hard to play in alternate tunings, but YES, it makes you a better guitar player. It gives a guitarist many more possibilities. It's no different than learning a new picking method or scale, imo.

Your actual guitar playing may not improve, but you have more tools to apply to the guitar, and it can also help in understanding a little more on the technical side of things.

Would you hire a carpenter that knows how to use just a hammer, or would you hire one that can use any tool he picks up?

The possibilities aren't as endless as you seem to think.

And while we're at it, you seem to think Page is the only one who plays in different tunings, which is an appalling falsehood.

[ArmsofAtlas]

The possibilities aren't as endless as you seem to think.

And while we're at it, you seem to think Page is the only one who plays in different tunings, which is an appalling falsehood.

Now you are puttin words in to my mouth.

The possibilities are endless. I could pick up my guitar every day for the rest of my life and tune it a different way

When did I imply that Page was the only guitarist that used alternate tunings? Never!!! I just pointed out that it was something that Page used quite a bit and Townshend did very little of.

Your brain may be acting up, or maybe you're just stupid. You are seeing words that weren't typed and you don't think that learning a skill in a particular craft makes you better at said craft.

[beatbo]

QUOTE (zepskier @ Jul 15 2008, 07:30 PM)

I think this project came about because the Who were going through some hard times and John Entwistle and Keith Moon were getting ready to start a new band with the clever name Led Zeppelin

beatbo i always thought that the personnel were assembled to make the new jeff beck record....

They got together and played on a jeff beck record, but keith was the one who wanted to start the band because he was fed up with the who, but the idea was dismissed because they couldn't find the right lead singer

uh, thank you. guess i better breakdown and buy "hammer of the gods" so i can keep up....

[beatbo]

i say this. (and it pains me to say)

roger daltrey doesn't have a voice anymore.

i've never been dissappointed when seeing the who and i watched the "honors" thing on vh1 last night. townshend was outasite (as usual) but roger made me watch through slitted fingers.

i never want to see a band do that. i'd rather keep the memories i have.

pete townshend plays with the fire and vigor of a man half his age-STILL.

he's got chops for days.

power chords, percussive flamenco, liquid leads, fingerpicking-he has it all.

seeing roger broke my heart. he's too cool a man to have to try and meet his audiences expectations with what little instrument he has left.

i'd rather see him in a movie and go see pete solo....

[LedNoodle]

okay, forget the comparision of townshend and page. Both of them are better than I will ever be.

The whole thing with Page, Beck, Entwistle, and Moon...

First off, it DID start with a Jeff Beck song: "Beck's Bolero" (1967 i think) which was mostly written by Page. On it was JPJ on Bass, Page on twelve-string rythm, Beck on lead, Moon on drums, and Nicky Hopkins on piano.

as for the new lineup being better? It would have been different is all. I also think with Plant absent, they would have never ventured into folk as much.

[GetTheLedOut]

Now you are puttin words in to my mouth.

The possibilities are endless. I could pick up my guitar every day for the rest of my life and tune it a different way

If that were true there would be far more variation in music.

When did I imply that Page was the only guitarist that used alternate tunings? Never!!! I just pointed out that it was something that Page used quite a bit and Townshend did very little of.

You most certainly did imply exactly that. And given that you've already said you haven't heard much of the Who, I'm afraid your analysis is worthless. Townshend has used other tunings, which by your wonky standards makes him a better guitarist.

[docron]

i'm with reggie-live at leeds.

i personally would prefer not to force feed any band to anyone. it gives that person the wrong perspective going in.

i hit on the who during my british invasion phase, which immediately followed my beatle phase. as someone who worships led zeppelin like no other band, i can only pass the dutchie to another ledhed and say "try this...some good shit."

cheers

Well said... I actually just started my "Discover The Who" kick... I recently started noticing all of my favorite bands/culture/and everything else all come from Europe. Thus started my quest to discover what it is about The Who that people like so much.

My first album of theres was Tommy, which I've had for years but never really listened to/didn't really enjoy all that much... the whole opera thing... not my bag... Anyways, I've recently acquired the following, but have hardly had time to listen to much of anything of them.

I've got Quadrophenia, Tommy, A Quick One, Who's Next, The Who By Numbers, The Who Sell Out, and "The Who Sings My Generation", which is the crappy American version of the record if I understand correctly... But no LIVE AT LEEDS.... which it appears I must get per the remarks of people on this post.

[Charles_Obscure]

Well said... I actually just started my "Discover The Who" kick... I recently started noticing all of my favorite bands/culture/and everything else all come from Europe. Thus started my quest to discover what it is about The Who that people like so much.

My first album of theres was Tommy, which I've had for years but never really listened to/didn't really enjoy all that much... the whole opera thing... not my bag... Anyways, I've recently acquired the following, but have hardly had time to listen to much of anything of them.

I've got Quadrophenia, Tommy, A Quick One, Who's Next, The Who By Numbers, The Who Sell Out, and "The Who Sings My Generation", which is the crappy American version of the record if I understand correctly... But no LIVE AT LEEDS.... which it appears I must get per the remarks of people on this post.

for the Live at Leeds... try getting the Deluxe Edition.

[beatbo]

Well said... I actually just started my "Discover The Who" kick... I recently started noticing all of my favorite bands/culture/and everything else all come from Europe. Thus started my quest to discover what it is about The Who that people like so much.

My first album of theres was Tommy, which I've had for years but never really listened to/didn't really enjoy all that much... the whole opera thing... not my bag... Anyways, I've recently acquired the following, but have hardly had time to listen to much of anything of them.

I've got Quadrophenia, Tommy, A Quick One, Who's Next, The Who By Numbers, The Who Sell Out, and "The Who Sings My Generation", which is the crappy American version of the record if I understand correctly... But no LIVE AT LEEDS.... which it appears I must get per the remarks of people on this post.

y'know, 'tommy' has some great music. 'overture' and 'sparks' stand out. there is a track called 'sally simpson' that pete wrote based on a concert the who did with the doors at the singer bowl in'68, so there is some jim morrison in the character of 'tommy'. 'pinball wizard' of course, which to me is the hardest rocking acoustic guitar ever recorded (sorry, tenacious d). my fave is probably 'acid queen'-i highly recommend this track. even the opening of the opera and the establishment of some of the key musical signatures one will find lines in it that are mindblowing:

"....i have no reason to be over-optimistic,

but somehow when you smile

i can brave bad weather..."

from '1921'

hope you enjoy the who...

beat

[Charles_Obscure]

y'know, 'tommy' has some great music. 'overture' and 'sparks' stand out. there is a track called 'sally simpson' that pete wrote based on a concert the who did with the doors at the singer bowl in'68, so there is some jim morrison in the character of 'tommy'. 'pinball wizard' of course, which to me is the hardest rocking acoustic guitar ever recorded (sorry, tenacious d). my fave is probably 'acid queen'-i highly recommend this track. even the opening of the opera and the establishment of some of the key musical signatures one will find lines in it that are mindblowing:

"....i have no reason to be over-optimistic,

but somehow when you smile

i can brave bad weather..."

from '1921'

hope you enjoy the who...

beat

great post, man!

Fiddle About is a creepy short song! Good, still.

you've forgot 'Amazing Journey', 'I'm Free' and 'We're Not Gonna Take It'...

What about The Who Sell Out? IMHO, it's one of the best album ever recorded.

[GetTheLedOut]

great post, man!

Fiddle About is a creepy short song! Good, still.

you've forgot 'Amazing Journey', 'I'm Free' and 'We're Not Gonna Take It'...

What about The Who Sell Out? IMHO, it's one of the best album ever recorded.

It's an all-time great album. Some argue their best.

[Gegenschein]

Just my two cents about what makes a good guitar player. It's not the tapping technique or the tunings, or how fast you can play a lick, or if you can play behind your head, or any of those things. It's what you create and imagine. My example might be David Gilmour. Anybody can play what he plays but no one else can create what he creates. Do you know what I mean? Same with Beck, Page, Townsend, all the greats. It comes from the heart, not the fingers.

Well said. IMO what makes a truly great guitarist is the ability to create their own sound and style.

Two examples are David Gilmour and Brian May. We saw Roger Waters on a tour a few years ago, I don't remember who the guitarist was (not that it mattered) - anyway the guy honestly did his homework and got Gilmour's sound down but not the style... he was playing too many notes! Gilmour can play just one note and hang on it forever but make it meaningful.

[Del Zeppnile]

I just wish I knew what it was people liked so much about The Who...

I'm not silly enough to say that they sucked compared to Zeppelin, I just don't think I understand them or what they were trying to accomplish. Too young maybe? I'm just 23.

I think The Who was awesome live, but in my opinion their studio cuts just don't hold much water these days.

Well I think you pretty much said it, your just 23 -- not that your age alone should be a block to appreciating The Who. But I would disagree with you on their studio work. Who's Next, Tommy and Quadraphenia are all monumental studio albums. I'd even say that some of those are "perfect albums" in my opinion. So much depth of musical style and production. Most people would say that Townshend is a genius in that regard.

Too me The Who has always has so much raw energy and passion. Way more than the Stones (they were only about attitude but no really great energy). I've have always thought of The Who as a band that appealed more to young men, especially those testoterone filled teenage boys. A tough band that could EXPLODE with energy like no other. The original Punk band.

For me, I didn't see any rock bands like The Who until later years when bands like The Clash, The Ramones and the Sex Pistols came on the scene. Hell, Townshend pretty much made the 'power chord' a rock and roll staple. While he's not a typical guitar god like Hendrix, Plant and Clapton; I think he makes playing way more interesting and musical than all of those guys. And think about it; when the 20 minute guitar solo finally faded out of fashion in rock and roll, it was the bands who played more in the style of the Who that continued to carry the banner.

I would hope for your sake that you take the time to get deeper into the Who's music and discover for yourself what I am talking about.

[eagle87]

Well I think you pretty much said it, your just 23 -- not that your age alone should be a block to appreciating The Who. But I would disagree with you on their studio work. Who's Next, Tommy and Quadraphenia are all monumental studio albums. I'd even say that some of those are "perfect albums" in my opinion. So much depth of musical style and production. Most people would say that Townshend is a genius in that regard.

Too me The Who has always has so much raw energy and passion. Way more than the Stones (they were only about attitude but no really great energy). I've have always thought of The Who as a band that appealed more to young men, especially those testoterone filled teenage boys. A tough band that could EXPLODE with energy like no other. The original Punk band.

For me, I didn't see any rock bands like The Who until later years when bands like The Clash, The Ramones and the Sex Pistols came on the scene. Hell, Townshend pretty much made the 'power chord' a rock and roll staple. While he's not a typical guitar god like Hendrix, Plant and Clapton; I think he makes playing way more interesting and musical than all of those guys. And think about it; when the 20 minute guitar solo finally faded out of fashion in rock and roll, it was the bands who played more in the style of the Who that continued to carry the banner.

I would hope for your sake that you take the time to get deeper into the Who's music and discover for yourself what I am talking about.

While he's not a typical guitar god like Hendrix, Page and Clapton

Although I disagree with the whole "more interesting and musical..." thing... Although I think I see your point...

I like Won't Get Fooled Again (from Who's Next), and anothers songs like Pinball Wizard. And you're right when you say that you need to get deeper for understand The Who music.

A tough band that could EXPLODE with energy like no other. The original Punk band.

Never saw it that way... For me the band who played real punk (not the sh*t from this times) were The Ramones... (Im 20)...

But now im thinking about that...

[GetTheLedOut]

Well I think you pretty much said it, your just 23 -- not that your age alone should be a block to appreciating The Who. But I would disagree with you on their studio work. Who's Next, Tommy and Quadraphenia are all monumental studio albums. I'd even say that some of those are "perfect albums" in my opinion. So much depth of musical style and production. Most people would say that Townshend is a genius in that regard.

I'm younger than the person in question, and I have understand and loved the Who's music for several years now. I reached a full understanding of what they were about before my 18th birthday. However, I don't think age matters. You can be any age and understand or not understand the Who. While some of their work hits instantly, a good portion of it takes time to sink in, but once it does it very well may be the best music around.

Too me The Who has always has so much raw energy and passion. Way more than the Stones (they were only about attitude but no really great energy). I've have always thought of The Who as a band that appealed more to young men, especially those testoterone filled teenage boys. A tough band that could EXPLODE with energy like no other. The original Punk band.

The early Who is certainly geared more to the youth, although by the 70s the music becomes far more mature and more easily accessible to all ages. And I see you agree with what I've been saying for some time (as I'm sure others have before me), the Who were "the original Punk band".