Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Big Al

ANOTHER Who live album?!?!?

32 posts in this topic

Was at Target last night and saw this. No, it's not the much anticipated '72 show or the '76 show at Swansea. No, it's yet another live album from yet another reunion gig, with yet more guests. The scary thing is people may actually buy this crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

c84915ws3m0.jpg

circa 1982-83, somewhere in there - so their first "farewell tour" was over 20 years ago. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting to compare this thread to the news of a new Bird/Diz concert discovery... :g

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, come on, that's not fair. The Bird & Diz is from the prime period. A fairer comparison would be the recent 2-CD deluxe reissue of "Who's Next" with an entire disc devoted to the Young Vic Theatre concert from April 26, 1971. Also, more studio material than had previously been available is included from the March 1971 NYC sessions (with guests Leslie West and Al Kooper).

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made the mistake of going to their "farewell tour" in '82 because my buddy was a who fan and claimed I'd never hear about them again. I want my money back, dammit! Also, that was the loudest concert I ever attended. My ears were ringing for two days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have bootlegs of the 82 tour and it was tight. Espically the new material. what the hell. you guys are crazy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um... good god... but I kinda agree with Aric on this one... ;)

And nobody who listens to jazz should ever criticize another artist/band for releasing "too many" live albums. :huh: You don't think there are plenty of live albums/bootlegs of less-than-prime Miles out there? :blink:

Edited by RDK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Aric here too, I think the 'oo can release as many CDs as they want. In fact, they made all their shows from the last tour available directly from their website.

The 3 CD set available now in stores is from the charity show from 2001, which has been available on DVD for a couple of years.

It WOULD be great to have a few more 70's era shows available in good sound. :tup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And nobody who listens to jazz should ever criticize another artist/band for releasing "too many" live albums. :huh: You don't think there are plenty of live albums/bootlegs of less-than-prime Miles out there? :blink:

Point taken, but:

1. The Who definitely ain't jazz, and

2. Miles in his less-than-prime was at least still releasing new music (sometimes simultaneously). The last Who album of new material was more than 20 years ago! And it's not like there's different stuff on this album, as opposed to previous Who live albums. It's the same damn stuff, just like last time, just like the previous time, etc etc ad nauseaum.

However, I will concede that I did not realize this was for a charity benefit, and as such, the Who are to be commended for that. Also was not aware that this was a three disc set (I thought it was two). In that case, given the selling price of less than $20, then I recant most of my original vitriol.

Now, anyone wanna gripe about KISS Alive IV? ;):g

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, come on, that's not fair. The Bird & Diz is from the prime period. A fairer comparison would be the recent 2-CD deluxe reissue of "Who's Next" with an entire disc devoted to the Young Vic Theatre concert from April 26, 1971. Also, more studio material than had previously been available is included from the March 1971 NYC sessions (with guests Leslie West and Al Kooper).

Mike

Actually, my point was comparing the relative importance of Bird and Diz to the Who, but now I'll have a bunch of angry Who fanatics jumping on my case. Can we just pretend I didn't post anything in the first place? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, I'll actually jump to your aid on this one. The Who were sloppy, whiny little brats who made some good music up through 1972. After that, all we were left with was a posturing lead singer, a banal guitarist, an incredibly sloppy drummer and a better than average bass player. Sounds like 95% of the bar bands I've ever seen. But these guys write songs about wanting to die before they get old, jerking off and magic busses, and they become superstars. Please. The Stones should have stopped after Exile on Main Street, Black Sabbath should have stopped after Volume 4, and The Who should have stopped after Who's Next. Instead, we have a band that can't play their own songs without help, and who's most vital element (previously mentioned sloppy drummer and decent bass player) is pushing up daisies whilst pining for the fjords.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Black Sabbath should have stopped after Volume 4

But Sabbath Bloody Sabbath and Sabotage are two of the greatest hard rock albums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and The Who should have stopped after Who's Next.

No Quadrophenia? :o Blasphemy! :rmad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quadrophenia is SOOOOO overated!!! 2 albums, only 3 or 4 good songs. Nelly runs a better percentage than that..."it's getting hot in herre..."

Greg -- both Sabbath Bloody Sabbath and Sabotage had clunkers on them. This cannot be said for Volume 4 and the previous albums. I guess I could amend that one though. Gotta be able to hear N.I.B. after all...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Quadrophenia" overrated? Are you nuts?! It may be the finest Who album of them all. That's like saying "Mingus Ah Um" is overrated because only a couple of the tunes became jazz standards. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Quadrophenia" overrated? Are you nuts?! It may be the finest Who album of them all. That's like saying "Mingus Ah Um" is overrated because only a couple of the tunes became jazz standards. :blink:

If Quadrophenia is the finest Who album of them all, then my earlier post about the Who themselves being overrated has all the ammunition I would ever need.

You wanna talk great rock albums, let's talk White Light/White Heat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jazzypaul's assessment of Who, Sabbath, and the Stones comes right out of the "rock critic textbook," pretty much the "party line" on these bands (as is his endorsement of Velvet Underground, an admittedly great group but also ridiculously overpraised, "untouchable" critic's darlings - must be the American, NYC chauvinism thing - well come to think of it, where were all the CRITICS from in that era? :P ), and so I bristle and take exception immediately because "party line = disengage brain, engage mouth" plus I personally think the later work of these groups is due for some re-evaluation.

"Hole in the Sky" from SABOTAGE (indeed, just about everything on the album) makes the young hard rock posers of the 80's, 90's, and current scene look pitifully limp and ineffectual. I agree with Greg (rarely that happens) that period of Sabbath was killer, and personally my favorite. "Iron Man," "War Pigs," etc are fun and all but ultimately cartoonish and tame with 30 years' hindsight. SABOTAGE still sounds razor sharp and just plain scary at times. Only Motorhead has been able to approach that kind of sinister, barely contained fury on record. Tony Iommi's guitar sound has never been adequately replicated by the imitators.

The Stones have by and large thrown in the towel over the past 20 years or so, but they made at least a couple great albums after EXILE - SOME GIRLS (which sounds better and more prophetic every year, full of songs that are holding up much better than once-classics like, say, "Paint It, Black" which frankly now just sounds kind of lame and faux-exotic) and TATTOO YOU - albums that I would much rather have than not. And another personal post-EXILE favorite is BLACK AND BLUE, a very unjustly neglected little gem IMHO although admittedly not to all tastes. I agree their batting average sucks after that, though (I'd have sent 'em to the minors long ago) and think jazzypaul's comments are most on-target about the Stones of all these groups.

To call Pete Townshend an "ineffectual" guitarist is to beg a series of questions (followed by full audiologic examinations) regarding the integrity of one's hearing. If nothing else, Townshend's skills as a driving, instantly recognizable rock guitarist have never abandonded him. What a joy to hear a guitarist from that bombastic, 20 minute solo era NOT wank around trying in vain to emulate Chet Atkins and Les Paul. Hands down the greatest hard rock rhythm guitarist. Not to mention that WHO BY NUMBERS is easily the band's most mature, intelligent, and heart wrenching album, and that was fully 3 years AFTER the admittedly splendid WHO'S NEXT. Townshend finally sounds like a real live adult person, talking about personal emotions and experiences candidly and articulately (and with nary a whine) rather than spraypainting arena rock slogans on the wall. Sure, "Won't Get Fooled Again" gets my rocks off occasionally, but how many times can one jump around playing air guitar every time it comes on the radio? Tracks like "Dreaming from the Waist" on NUMBERS wear a WHOLE lot better as one approaches 40.

If it seems the "consistency quotient" of classic rock bands inevitably gets smaller as they age, it's also a truism that nearly all of them have thrown up (the pun is intended) a few late masterpieces that people miss out on by dismissing those later years out of hand.

Time to put aside the rock album guide and LISTEN.

Edited by DrJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Quadrophenia is the Who's strongest work, along with Who's Next. My favorite Sab album is actually Master of Reality. Vol 4 had the "Changes" clunker where you hear Ozzy lament how he "had a woman", he "loved her so". . .and he's "goin' through changes" to backdrop of strings and silly piano playing. The clunker on Sabbath Bloody Sabbath (Who Are You--ain't that ironic in a thread about the who?) is pretty bad, but what about Sabotage? That is strong--an understatement for most of the material--all the way through IMO. What's not to like?

  1.   Hole in the Sky - 4:00

  2.   Don't Start (Too Late) (Black Sabbath) - :49

  3.   Symptom of the Universe (Black Sabbath) - 6:27

  4.   Megalomania (Black Sabbath) - 9:38

  5.   Thrill of It All (Black Sabbath) - 5:51

  6.   Supertzar (Black Sabbath) - 3:40

  7.   Am I Going Insane (Radio) (Black Sabbath) - 4:15

  8.   The Writ (Black Sabbath) - 8:08

Edited by GregM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr J,

This is my reasons for my thoughts...Stones up to Exile and Sabbath up to Volume 4 are both batting close to 1000. I was never a big Who fan, but about 95% of the songs I like from them come from everything pre-Who's next. Is Sabbath Bloody Sabbath a good album, and maybe even a great one? Sure, but they're starting to show signs of falling apart. And they put Rick Wakeman on the album (shiver). Might my tastes in those three bands coincide with what the rock critics say? I guess they do. But, trust me, as a fan of Phish, The Grateful Dead and Zeppelin's Presence, I'm not really one to trust a rock critic's judgement much.

If other people want to claim that Townsend's guitar playing is this, that or the other, let them. I never really enjoyed it. For the pure visceral rush of good rock and roll, give me the Velvets, the MC5, The Stooges or The Sex Pistols (I know, I know, big Who fans, blah, blah, blah...).

I consider them to be overrated because people put them in the same rarified air as Cream, Hendrix, The Beatles, The Stones or Zeppelin. I can't see how anyone can do that without getting their heads examined. The Beatles wrote better pop tunes, The Stones did better R&B covers, Cream rocked harder and Hendrix put on a better show. I think they laid the groundwork for a lot of great bands to come. I don't think they were one of them however. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, and I have really never had even a moment's time for Cream - bloated, "supergroup" mentality white boy blues. "Crossroads" is the best soporific I know of, totally mystifies me that anyone thinks they were "the stuff." Clapton as a guitarist is probably the most overrated rock musician ever. Wonderful voice, I'll give him that, but totally boring and repetitive blues lick stealing on the guitar. Why listen to Clapton when you can go back to the source? Maybe it was cool and new in 1967, when most white people hadn't ever heard of Albert or BB King, Muddy Waters, etc, but I'm not going to waste my time with that pap now when I know from whence it came, in undiluted form. The other bands you list - Zeppelin, Stones, Beatles, etc - OK, they had influences, but they transcended them. But listening to Clapton is like listening to a blues guitar lick library all strung together. He ain't God; hell, he ain't even Jimmy Page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would definitely put Exiles as the last good Stones album. I also lost interest in the Who after Who's Next. (I thought Quadrophenia was more enjoyable as a movie than as an album!) I must admit, though, that Sabbath, Bloody Sabbath is probably my favorite Sabbath LP...

But then I'd rather listen to the Kinks anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr. J,

you forget, there was 66.7% more to Cream than just Clapton. Jack Bruce could play (and write) like a monster, and, well, Ginger Baker is the reason I play drums in the first place. His drumming is fiery, inventive, and endlessly grooving. So, I have a soft spot in my heart for Cream. Call it a quirk, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DrJ, I think you would do well to follow your own advice and listen again to the four studio releases of The Velvet Underground. As rock albums, they are at least the equal of anything else recorded in the '60's, IMHO. The critics just might be right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quadrophenia is one of my favorite Who albums. But my outright favorites are the pre-Tommy stuff (Live At Leeds is great):

My Generation

A Quick One

The Who Sell Out

I was surprised that recently I felt I didn't like Who's Next as much as others; the songs feel roughly the same tempo which I think is even greater on Quadrophenia, but lyrically I like the subject matter better on Quadrophenia. Overblown? Yes, but I think the movie helped tie it better to the mods (and therefore punk in sense of it being a movement) than just the album did. Keeping Moon restrained to backing tracks is one of the things that kept everything at the same tempo, took a bollock out of them. Ironically, I like Who Are You but that's because I heard it when I was younger and didn't have these opinions. I like it more than Who's Next overall. I know it's not a great album, but neither it A Quick One, and I love that. I wasn't crazy about The Who By Numbers either. But I can't get enough of Face Dances & It's Hard! :P There's a handful of songs from both albums I think are great, but again, I was pre-teen when they came out. Tommy sounds better live than on the original album. I think that covers it for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.