What's with The Who?

mikel

Platinum Member
Re: What's with the who?

put on Live At Leeds....and if you don't hear one of the most amazing explosive rock bands in the history of recorded music ....then you and I have a completely different perspective on the evolution of rock & roll and what bands contributed to it

Absolutely!! Live at Leeds is the only album I ever wore out. Literally played it until the vinyl turned grey and the grooves disappeared. It wasn't the wild drumming or the basslines or even the power chords...I heard the sound of a real "band', stronger as a unit than any one individual.
That's a musical lesson that has served me well all my professional life.
For me? THAT'S what's with the Who. As stated earlier, listen to Quadraphenia top to bottom and reflect on the fact that every note was played by a member of the band, every lyric delivered, sans autotune....it may not be your cup of tea, but it sure ain't lightweight pop fluff.
Top man, my thoughts in one. Its not about the individual musicians, Its about the noise the "Band" makes. The four components, only when put together, made a wonderful racket.
 

Obiwandrumobe

Junior Member
As many here probably read somewhere, Keith thought in terms of sonic "painting". Hence the use of cymbal washes, oddly placed entrances and other self-created techniques he utilized to support/explain/emphasize/animate the songs. Viewing him in terms of traditional technique somewhat obscures his essence. And in terms of technique, I have never, ever seen or heard another drummer sound like he did. Some say he was "simple", repeatedly running around the toms with via single stroke runs. However, see if you can derive a similar conglomeration of rhythmic, melodic and harmonic expression that energizes and enlivens the music as Keith did.
 

larryace

"Uncle Larry"
Can Keith's influences be heard in his playing? Not real versed on his influences. To me he doesn't sound like anyone who came before him.
 

opentune

Platinum Member
And in terms of technique, I have never, ever seen or heard another drummer sound like he did. Some say he was "simple", repeatedly running around the toms with via single stroke runs. However, see if you can derive a similar conglomeration of rhythmic, melodic and harmonic expression that energizes and enlivens the music as Keith did.
Afte r reading this thread yesterday I watched this vid, concert footage of the actual Live at Leeds show, with some good close-ups of his playing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sanAHVITCDY

Its really something to watch, but yes, I cannot even imagine trying to emulate it. How he alternates wash riding between his left and right side cymbals, yet still keeping time. What you said was correct, not only does he paint a sound, but looks like a painter too.

Think if you showed up to an audition and started playing along to a band like this. Nobody would have a clue what you were up to, and you'd likely not get in the band. But he was perfect for this band, and Pete and company must have seen it right away - the whole piss off, in your face, unconventional approach to instruments.
 

Dr_Watso

Platinum Member
Since we are on the subject, I never really saw Moon's drumming as either all that unorthodox nor all that "crazy". I thought he just played to the music, like we're all supposed to do. Maybe he didn't worry so much about the "rules" as the classically trained of us are so concerned with, but that's similar to a lot of other self-taught drummers.
 

Bull

Gold Member
The Who's catalogue is the story of every boy who ever grew up and every man who will ever grow old. If you don't like The Who, I probably can't relate to you on any level.
 

tamadrm

Platinum Member
The Who's catalogue is the story of every boy who ever grew up and every man who will ever grow old. If you don't like The Who, I probably can't relate to you on any level.
+10000^ This.Bull ,do you mind if I steal this? That it a perfect summary,of their effect on me.From when I first heard "Substitute" in the 60's ,till "Real Good Looking Boy",and everything in between

.If I'm feeling crappy,even as much as I love the Beatles,...I'll play " Won't Get Fooled Again",full volume,and,then,all's right with the world.Thanks for that.:)

Steve B
 

Pachikara-Tharakan

Silver Member
Afte r reading this thread yesterday I watched this vid, concert footage of the actual Live at Leeds show, with some good close-ups of his playing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sanAHVITCDY

Its really something to watch, but yes, I cannot even imagine trying to emulate it. How he alternates wash riding between his left and right side cymbals, yet still keeping time. What you said was correct, not only does he paint a sound, but looks like a painter too.

Think if you showed up to an audition and started playing along to a band like this. Nobody would have a clue what you were up to, and you'd likely not get in the band. But he was perfect for this band, and Pete and company must have seen it right away - the [/B]whole piss off, in your face, unconventional approach to instruments.


absolutely no band Guitarists or bassists seem to tolerate that kind of approach towards drums except Pete and John.....which is lacking in today's music....except one is auditioned for a who cover band.
 

Pocket-full-of-gold

Platinum Member
I disagree, Ringo was popular before the Beatles,
In a 10 block by 10 block section of Liverpool, maybe. Anything more is a stretch.

furthermore Ringo had one of the more successful acts after the break up.
As much as I love me some Thomas The Tank Engine, I think you're really stretching now.

Still, he did land himself a Bond girl. He certainly out did both Macca and Lennon on that front.
 

SquadLeader

Gold Member
How popular could he have been? He was a teenager with what, a couple years of scattered experience?



He stumbled into a really good gig. Right time, right place.

Good drummer? Heck yeah!
He was 22 and he was sought out due to his reputation.

I really dislike the idea that Ringo Starr was somehow 'lucky'. It really naffs me off that people think that. He was better than lucky
 

SquadLeader

Gold Member
In a 10 block by 10 block section of Liverpool, maybe. Anything more is a stretch.



As much as I love me some Thomas The Tank Engine, I think you're really stretching now.

Still, he did land himself a Bond girl. He certainly out did both Macca and Lennon on that front.
I think the Hurricanes were one of the leading bands from the region and had already toured Germany a number of times when he was snapped up.

I could be wrong...studied him as part of my O level in music....25 years ago and can't access Wikipedia here at work :)
 

Les Ismore

Platinum Member
What's with the WHO?

R U serious?

You're missing a big part of RR history if you're asking that question, meaning you need to know what came b/f the WHO and what came after.

The WHO laid the bed rock for british rock (and hard rock in general), not the Stones, not the Beatles.

You'll have to look at early live vids. NO band of the time, or b/f played as heavy/hard as the WHO, anyone who saw them live early will tell you the same. There were no candy asses in that band, men playing rock n roll.
 

Pocket-full-of-gold

Platinum Member
......and had already toured Germany a number of times when he was snapped up.
So had "The Beatles" line up of Lennon, McCartney, Stu Sutcliffe and Pete Best.

I'm certainly not looking to under sell him. More so, I'm just not as convinced with the argument surrounding his popularity as presented by the OP.
 

SquadLeader

Gold Member
So had "The Beatles" line up of Lennon, McCartney, Stu Sutcliffe and Pete Best.

.
Agreed...no question of that.

I think Rory Storm and the Hurricanes were really popular mate...far more popular in Liverpool than the Beatles were up until Starr left. And I don't believe it's any coincidence that popularity in the Beatles rose significantly after he joined them.

Like you, I'm not trying to understate, or over-state Ringo....just throwing it out there as I understand it to be.
 

tamadrm

Platinum Member
It did,and it didn't.Ringo himself has said,the first few gigs with the Beatles,especially at the Cavern,people were shouting.."where's Pete".

I think his playing ,personality and professionalism,won the crowd over,more than Pete did.

I also agree,this "luck into the band" stuff is far off the mark.John,Paul and George,went after Ringo,especially after he sat in with them a few times.Not the other way around.

Did they all get a little,lucky,and make the right moves at the right time,at the right time in history? How about all 4 being in the same place,at the right time.?

Ringo just lucky.,......not really.His skills as a drummer,and personality is what got him the job.

Sorry for the hijack,now back to out regularly scheduled program.:)

Steve B
 

DancingMadlyBackwards

Senior Member
The notion that nobody sounded like moon before he came along or after is about the biggest testament to his greatness that there could be. Also a very lofty compliment...and with all his enigmatic glory, he was accepted and revered. Don't get much better than that I would say.

Maybe it would be inappropriate to play like that in today's landscape....and I certainly see the aural painting and "mayhem" there in live clips....but when I listen to the albums, I just hear a lot of sweet drumming and that neat tactile sound of his toms.
 

A-customs

Silver Member
Behind Blue Eyes ,,, One of the greatest songs ever written. It stands the test of time, as many of their songs do. The Who have left an indelible mark on Rock history that I am truly grateful for. Moony's contribution is hugely appreciated . But I wouldn't want to be like him.
It's not them as technicians of music, it's them as pioneers!
Moons playing on this track to me,is his finest moment sheer brilliance!!
 
Top