Tuesday, December 03, 2002

The Who v. The Beatles--My response If you're interested in this thread, you should really read this post by Doug Hennessee on Pipeline before you check my response out. The first volley was his. The fact is that Doug does a marvelous job of answering the question "Was The Who a good band?" Any fool would answer this question in the affirmative. But if the question is "Was The Who better than The Beatles?", then the Pipeline is clogged, my friends. Let me address a few of Doug's larger points first: "The Who Invented Rock Opera and the Concept Album." Uh....no they didn't. Well, maybe the Rock Opera, but surely Sergeant Pepper has to be considered a Concept Album--the Beatles invented new personas for themselves, and the entire album was premised on the "concert as The Lonely Hearts Club Band" concept. Even if not a Concept album in precisely the same way, to ignore Sgt. Pepper as a forefather of that album seems silly. I wouldn't be trumpeting the Rock Opera too much. Tommy's great and all, but the fact that they invented something that sucked from then on out isn't a reason to brag. Say "They did a good rock opera", but to say "they paved the way for Bohemian Rhapsody" isn't impressive. And what about Yellow Submarine? And what about "A Hard Day's Night", the most successful blending of movie and album in history? "The Who Popularized Loops". OK, that's great. The Who were, in fact, quite innovative. No argument here. We'll just talk about innovation right here and now. Was The Who more innovative than the Beatles? Come on, now. There are many considerations here. First, The Who's innovation all worked pretty tightly within the constraints of conventional notions of rock n' roll, heavy guitars, bass, drums, etc. They did it extremely well, and they really kicked ass at times. But their loops and other innovations still fell within those constraints. The Beatles, though, obliterated the lines between rock and other genres completely, using orchestral string sections a long while before Metallica considered it, introducing instruments like the sitar to Western audiences, creating entirely synthesized music, etc.. At times, it was annoying--listen to "Revolution Number Nine" more than once, I dare you--but they did things that no one had considered at all. Second, and this speaks to the second issue Doug raises concerning live music--the fact that the Beatles were unable to perform live is a testimonial to their innovation. They did too much outside the conventional scope of rock and roll to be able to perform live. Consider that. More on innovation throughout. "The Who Was an Actual Live Band." I can't dispute that the Beatles couldn't compare to the Who as a live band. I'll only argue that this isn't a very good measure--The Beatles can't compare to Kiss, either, or Journey, or Mariah Carey when you're talking about playing live. But I'm going to go out on a limb and say Doug won't claim that that the lack of live performances mean Kiss, Journey, and Mariah are better than the Beatles. After all, the very reason why the Beatles couldn't perform live is the reason they are more innovative than the Who. There were other issues, too--annoyingly overzealous fans, death threats, drugs. But this one, on the tally sheet, is one for The Who, though that doesn't matter. "The Who Was Funny." A picture can answer this argument Humor is NOT a good measure for a great band. The Beatles humor is often goofy--Maxwell's Silver Hammer, Bungalow Bill, etc. But they were terrific satirists. Doug, in part, makes the argument for me, saying that you've heard all the Beatles jokes and songs too many times. You know why you've heard them more than The Who's jokes? Guess. "The Who Was Scary." Scary musicians? What about this? GWAR The Beatles aren't scary? Revolution Number Nine, mentioned above, is freaky, man. Personally, I was always terrified by the "Paul is Dead" stories, and found the notion that there were secret messages if you played the records backwards to be positively frightening. Beyond that, the level of scariness in both cases is largely attributable to drug use pushing in various directions, and the Beatles were certainly the first band to really incorporate drugs into their music--another mark in their favor, especially if we're talking influence and innovation. "The Who Was a Team." True, and it's true that the Beatles disintegrated. But in spite of, and perhaps because of their disintegration they made great albums like Abbey Road and the White Album. And they weren't always such a bad team--Revolver and Rubber Soul pretty well demonstrate that. And the disparate nature of the personalities in the Beatles actually helps my argument, because it proves that they weren't just A Great Band, but moved well beyond that, completely transcending the formula and becoming not only the Beatles but also John, Paul, George, and Ringo. They were bigger and higher than Jesus, and the Who never was. The Beatles' solo careers were flatly better than The Who. Ringo excluded. But we're talking about the band as a whole, so I'll save that unless Doug presses the point. In conclusion If we're talking simply about what kind of music you prefer, this whole discussion is silly, because it's a matter of preference. I like and admire the Who, but I prefer the Beatles. But if you're talking greatness, impact, importance, these sorts of things, it's not a contest. My arguments come down to this: --The Beatles crossed more lines, broke more ground, and set more standards. Without the Beatles, who knows where music would have been, including the Who. The Beatles impacted the Who, I guarantee. The Who did not impact the Beatles substantially, if at all. --The Beatles created fantastic music in tons of genres. The early stuff, especially compared to its contemporaries, is extraordinary. And the later stuff just blows everybody away. What have the Who ever done that compares in quality to "Eleanor Rigby", or "A Day in the Life", or "Norwegian Wood", or "While My Guitar Gently Weeps?" They haven't done anything as delicate as "Michelle" or "Julia", and the Beatles have moved with aplomb into the Who's genre with rockers like "Helter Skelter." --The Who was more limited than the Beatles, which isn't to say that they were limited--far from it. But the Beatles were nearly limitless in their exploration of sound and music. People who prefer the Who to the Beatles look like this. 11:05:17 PM    Let's hear it. []