• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Musings on The Who (Superbowl, etc)

#21
You know, something else occurred to me. After the 2004 "wardrobe malfunction" with Timberlake and Janet Jackson (ugh to both) the NFL folks decided to have "Safe" acts that were non-controversial. So the next year they got McCartney, the year after that The Rolling Stones and the year after that Prince.

Like The Who, all of these acts were ANYTHING BUT SAFE in their youth, they were edgy, dangerous, and considered bad influences. Now they're considered grown up and safe...What is the world coming to???? :crying: (Answer- we all grew up, for the most part...and got old)

I left out Tom Petty and Springsteen as they have never really been controversial and "dangerous" but the other four acts were at one time.....
 
#23
I am fortunate to have seen The Who in concert in November, 1977 - less than a year before Keith died. It was an experience I'll never forget.

The venue was the Pontiac Silverdome in Pontiac, Michigan. 101,000 fans in attendance - and the concert was completely sold out, the Dome stuffed to the rafters with people - a small ocean of humanity, responding with visible ripples and waves of energy to every note that poured out of that monster PA system.

The band was in full athletic form, Townsend leaping high into the air, hitting his trademark windmill strums; Moon punishing the drum kit like a maniac. To my ears, Entwistle was responsible for nearly 50% of the total output of the band all by himself, his full-range tone filling up all the frequency holes, his high-energy rhythmic fills propelling the band ever forward - a most impressive display of expert "bassmanship". To me, he was always the best pure musician in that band.

That was the version of The Who I'll always remember... :cool:

MM
 
#24
MysticMichael said:
To my ears, Entwistle was responsible for nearly 50% of the total output of the band all by himself, his full-range tone filling up all the frequency holes, his high-energy rhythmic fills propelling the band ever forward - a most impressive display of expert "bassmanship". To me, he was always the best pure musician in that band.
Click to expand...

Agreed. No disrespect to Pino but I think it says something that they have added a 2nd guitarist and a keyboardist and still don't make as much "sound" as they used to make as just a power trio + singer.
 
#25
pringlw said:
I know there's another thread where folks offer thoughts on The Who's performance at the Superbowl. I jumped in on that thread, but thought that I wanted to go a little broader than the parameters of that particular thread.

I'll start by saying that I'm 41 years old - which basically means that The Who (in their prime at least) were before my time (roughly in the same way that Nirvana is "before the time" of a current 20 year old). I'm old enough to appreciate what they were, but young enough to have missed it when it was happening.

But I was always clear on what The Who were. The Who in their prime were lanky, irreverent kids who were given a microphone, and used that microphone to belt out their view of the world. Their songs reek of teenage angst, anger & young energy.

image_1111.gif


I know many believe that they were the seed from which the Punk Rock movement grew. I'm sure that there are people here that can better answer the degree to which this is true, but no matter what your opinion on this, the point is that their best music is a timeless rant about viewing the world through young eyes.

quadrophenia.jpg


And of course they kicked a$$. Whether it was Townshends flying windmills which inevitably ended in slashed up fingers from his hand flying against his strings, or Keith Moon's frantic playing and kit destruction (while the Ox patiently held it all together). These guys brought an attitude not just to their lyrics, but to their performances.

0m4wds28cm0pmcps.gif


That's why its so hard to watch the remnants of the band perform today. Today, they are an aging, wealthy part of the broad establishment. It's so far removed from what they were all about that frankly its hard to watch.

Their music - classic timeless rock anthems which view the world through youthful eyes - have been performed by old men so many times that I fear the world has forgotten that they were written by young men. The world will never see a 70 year old Kurt Cobain sing "Smells Like Teen Spirit" - but the feeling of "wrongness" about that image is how I feel when I see PT & RD call themselves The Who today and perform "My Generation". This is especially true given that Keith Moon & The Ox are no longer with us.

My point is not to come down on the band. Really my point is that it's a shame that people in their teens and twenties will probably never be able to listen to these old Who songs and realize that they are speaking to them.

The Who is dead. Long live The Who.
Click to expand...

What do you mean you were too young or before your time?
I am 43 and I saw them @ JFK Philadelphia in '75 wit my da.
I believe that was the loudest concert ever according to Guinness Book @ 125 decibles. My da was 28 at the time I was 8 but I refused to take no for an answer and he took me instead of mom cause she knew I was a fan. Music was and is my soul. I had my first acoustic guitar at 7 and my first bass that was mine (an EB0 copy) at 8 so I knew what I wanted to do:) I was a Beatle Who Rolling Stone & Animal fan why because the british invasion was my da's & mom's heyday so I was riding on those coat-tails. By no means were you too young my friend. I have seen em many times and they are old guys now but for what it's worth they can still do a little ROCKIN. :bassist:
 
#26
deaf pea said:
I gotta' agree with you guys . . . and as you can see in my profile, I'm gonna' be 65 this July 29th! And I'M active, performing live (or rehearsing) with our group just about every weekend . . . I truly want to "Rock 'n Roll 'til I die!"
Click to expand...

I'm right there with you, dp. I'll wager that the guys who are saying that the Who should hang up their spurs are young guys who can't imagine what it will be like when they enter their golden years. When they start hearing the young Turks telling them that they are too old to rock, they'll feel a bit differently.

I enjoyed their performance very much, although not nearly as much as I enjoyed the game. I've been a Saints fan since the beginning of the franchise, and it's been a long hard road. Geaux Saints and HOO DAT!!!
 
#27
jaywa said:
...I think it says something that they have added a 2nd guitarist and a keyboardist and still don't make as much "sound" as they used to make as just a power trio + singer.
Click to expand...
I was part of a band (San Francisco's "Allmen Joy") that opened for The Who in San Jose, I think it was 1968 . . . they WERE loud (with the puny PA's that were common then), but not nearly as loud as they were when I saw them (with extra musicians and singers) at the LA Coliseum in the mid-80's . . .

that "2nd guitarist and a keyboardist" were added a LONG time ago . . . :cool: . . .
 
#28
jimc said:
This caused me to wonder why artists such as these continue to perform, even when well past their prime. It can't be they need the money that much can it? Paul McCartney is richer than the Vatican and still performs.
Click to expand...
And McCartney still sounds damn good. Too bad every other older rocker can't age that well!
Some do need the money, and some just need the ego strokes.
jimc said:
Maybe they still get the buzz from playing in front of an audience, after all it's all they've ever done. I'm 55 now and playing better than I ever have, I'm not thinking of hanging up my bass just yet.
Click to expand...
You just answered your own question.
jimc said:
As long as there's an audience that wants to see it I say let grandpa keep rocking :bassist:
Click to expand...
The Who has shown us three possible paths. You can rock out and die young, that's what Moon did. You can rock out, survive to "old-guy" status, and die in the saddle. That's what Entwistle did. Or you can rock out, make it to old-guy status, and keep on going the best you can. That's what Pete and Roger are doing.
A fourth possibility: rock out to a certain point, then retire, park your butt in your rocking chair, and wait to die. Seems none of them were/are interested in that.

The Who was the first big-time rock band I saw live, way back in the late 60s. I hope they go on as long as they want to. Anyone who doesn't like their current sound can avoid their shows. Come to think of it, that was always the case.
 
#29
genstormbringer said:
What do you mean you were too young or before your time?
I am 43 and I saw them @ JFK Philadelphia in '75 wit my da.
I believe that was the loudest concert ever according to Guinness Book @ 125 decibles. My da was 28 at the time I was 8 but I refused to take no for an answer and he took me instead of mom cause she knew I was a fan. :
Click to expand...

Well I'm not saying that I missed them entirely. I mean, I was alive and I certainly knew about them as a young kid. But you know, I was 5 when Quadraphenia was released.
 
#30
Yeah, Pete and Roger looked pretty old and puffy, but heck, they sounded pretty good, I think, all things considered. I've made a point of seeing all the acts I missed growing up and have to say, they've generally still got it. In the last 5 years, as examples, I've seen Roger Waters, David Bowie, the Stones, Steve Winwood and, of course, Grateful Dead folks (Phil turns 70 in March). See 'em while you can - they still got it (mostly), and still have a good deal of charm. After all, some classical musicians have played well into old age (e.g., Isaac Stern), so why not rockers (once they clean out).

The one thing I hope to see some day is a solo acoustic tour by Pete Townsend. His Secret Policeman's Ball stuff was fantastic - different but, to me, in some respects better than the originals (e.g., his version of "Drowned).
 
#31
Utimately I agree with DeeMan, some have aged quite well and are great performers-Steve Winwood is a great example, as are Clapton and Jeff Beck. Another couple of guys who have aged well is Hot Tuna. They still tour all over the place and sound fantastic- Jack Casady is still a monster on bass and Jorma can play as well as ever, can still sing just fine and is still a creative force, writing new stuff- he was up for a Grammy this year for a new song, his latest CD is great. I hope they play forever....they are both closing in on 70, too!! I think Jorma, like Phil Lesh, is 69. I saw him do an acoustic show last summer at a synagogue in NY and he was superb. I saw HT in the fall and they rock. They have a young drummer (they need one) and now GE Smith is touring in the band with them....

I still love Pete and Roger, but I am not sure I'd see the current Who lineup in a big stadium-I passed on it last year. An acoustic show in a smaller venue, that's another story.

Did you all see these clips of their mini-acoustic set during the pregame press conference?

 
#33
pringlw

You hit it spot on. I feel the same way about alot of the bands from back then. and the times ,as they were back then are so completly different then today. that was a unique time in the country and in music . -through the eyes of youth -at a time when the youth was changing the world. cool post
 
#35
+1 to edmidlife - Hot Tuna is awesome. I completely forgot about them (even though I've seen them probably 10 times or so in the past 5 years). In some ways, they're better than before I'll bet, because they exude this incredible bond and joy of playing together (which they've done for the past 45 years). Plus, you can catch 'em in very small venues and really see them shine. I didn't realize they were touring with a drummer now. GE Smith toured with them about 4 years or so ago - very good, though Barry Mitterhoff does just fine. GE also teaches at Jorma's camp (at least he used to).
 
#36
jimc said:
This caused me to wonder why artists such as these continue to perform, even when well past their prime. It can't be they need the money that much can it? Paul McCartney is richer than the Vatican and still performs.

Maybe they still get the buzz from playing in front of an audience, after all it's all they've ever done. I'm 55 now and playing better than I ever have, I'm not thinking of hanging up my bass just yet.

As long as there's an audience that wants to see it I say let grandpa keep rocking :bassist:
Click to expand...

i think it has to do with the drive to succeed. it is similar to some of these businessmen who lead corporations. a lot of these guys are wealthy beyond reason and yet they show up to work everyday, often long past the time when regular people retire. i think that whatever has driven them to succeed isn't something that can be turned off easily. the same thing for some athletes except for the fact that their performance is more demanding physically, and their success is more easily identified and compared.

FWIW: i was never a fan of the who and think that i prefer pete townshend's solo material to the who with two notable exceptions: quadrophenia and tommy. i think both of those works are brilliant.

i was disappointed that they did a medley instead of a couple of good songs and thought that roger daltry, who was never the best singer, sounded pretty bad.

it would have been better to have seen another, younger band get a break rather than some old dinosaurs try to make me believe that they still have it. ( it didn't fool me, they're done )
 
#37
Dee-man said:
+1 to edmidlife - Hot Tuna is awesome. I completely forgot about them (even though I've seen them probably 10 times or so in the past 5 years). In some ways, they're better than before I'll bet, because they exude this incredible bond and joy of playing together (which they've done for the past 45 years). Plus, you can catch 'em in very small venues and really see them shine. I didn't realize they were touring with a drummer now. GE Smith toured with them about 4 years or so ago - very good, though Barry Mitterhoff does just fine. GE also teaches at Jorma's camp (at least he used to).
Click to expand...

They're like the others this thread is about. Still great (for some) but different. They have to be-40 plus years is a long time. Jack says he doesn't play the way he used to and doesn't want to. I saw them many times in the "Bad old days" in NYC and elsewhere....and many times recently, too. Different. Still amazing.

They play with both Barry and GE (sometimes) when they play electric, with a drummer, and just with Barry when they play acoustic sets. GE still teaches, as does Barry. When I was at the camp in 2008 Barry was there teaching the same weekend. Nice fellow. They just finished a tour with David Bromberg, another old timer who's aged very well. Any configuration you see them they're great, as you know. The other alumni of the Jefferson Airplane have not aged as gracefully.....

I loved "Who Came First", by the way, and "White City"....Pete's stuff. But their recent new stuff just doesn't do it for me...and I miss John terribly.
 
#38
As I have stated before, I am/was a huge Who fan. But to my mind, they retired at this show:

or should have.
Before you start bashing, I am approaching 50 years of age and yes, I do think that I can still rock out, but I am not and have not been in a band that epitomized youth angst. I find it ironic that they are still playing that card at this point in their lives/career. I base this partially on the songs they chose to play at the show.
I 2nd a revival of the Townsend solo work. It far exceeds anything The Who have done since Pete released Empty Glass... and as far as Pino is concerned, well, I think he is in a no win situation here... outside of the pay check of course.
Fishheadjoe
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back