Comments on: The Over/Under: The Who http://www.magnetmagazine.com/2009/09/08/the-overunder-the-who/ Real Music Alternatives Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:12:51 +0000 hourly 1 By: Corin http://www.magnetmagazine.com/2009/09/08/the-overunder-the-who/comment-page-1/#comment-17770 Corin Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:42:12 +0000 http://www.magnetmagazine.com/?p=43001#comment-17770 I applaud the concept of this blog even if I disagree with your choices. With "My Generation", you completely ignore one of the major reasons it's such a great record : the ground-breaking bass solo. The lyrical sentiment is killer, the aggression of the playing, Moon's drumming, etc. There's a reason it was the band's breakout single- it struck a nerve. Any band would be lucky to come up with such a colossal "mistake". Who Are You has nothing to do with any TV show, it's a work that stands on it's own as a late period Townshend masterstroke. If you can only filter it through contemporary pop culture sensibilities, that's your hang up. And while I love the songs you mentioned in your underrated column, it's definitely cheating to include a whole album. As much as I love Who By Numbers, if we're naming whole albums, the nod has to go to Quadrophenia. Even sticking to underrated songs, the absence of "I'm One" from your list is negligence of the highest order. And where is "So Sad About Us" or the Rock & Roll Circus version of "A Quick One"? I applaud the concept of this blog even if I disagree with your choices. With “My Generation”, you completely ignore one of the major reasons it’s such a great record : the ground-breaking bass solo. The lyrical sentiment is killer, the aggression of the playing, Moon’s drumming, etc. There’s a reason it was the band’s breakout single- it struck a nerve. Any band would be lucky to come up with such a colossal “mistake”.

Who Are You has nothing to do with any TV show, it’s a work that stands on it’s own as a late period Townshend masterstroke. If you can only filter it through contemporary pop culture sensibilities, that’s your hang up.

And while I love the songs you mentioned in your underrated column, it’s definitely cheating to include a whole album. As much as I love Who By Numbers, if we’re naming whole albums, the nod has to go to Quadrophenia. Even sticking to underrated songs, the absence of “I’m One” from your list is negligence of the highest order. And where is “So Sad About Us” or the Rock & Roll Circus version of “A Quick One”?

]]> By: Toby Elwin http://www.magnetmagazine.com/2009/09/08/the-overunder-the-who/comment-page-1/#comment-17560 Toby Elwin Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:50:24 +0000 http://www.magnetmagazine.com/?p=43001#comment-17560 While I am all for stirring the pot, and in a blog medium stirring the pot is a good way to drive comments and search engine optimization, I think this post feels a bit dashed off and not as articulated as it could be. I don't think you can hold any band responsible for radio saturation. There is a difference between overrated and overplayed. "Behind Blue Eyes" and "Who Are You" might be overplayed, but overrated, who are the raters? The public? Good lord if we hold a public competition we are back at American Idol or the Eurovision competitions. Has anyone ever written a doctor's thesis on "Sqeezebox"? It is a silly song and music is also allowed to be silly. Don't fault the band for tossing away a couple of light-hearted songs - this is not prog rock or fusion here. The Who mostly took a track of their own design. Just a chronological review or album momentum is a case for brilliance: The Who Sell Out, Tommy, Live at Leeds, Who's Next, Quadrophenia, and The Who by Numbers are a back-to-back-to-back series few bands could achieve. Each album pushed the rock genre beyond the day's formula for success. Within each is a tip to humor to not take themselves as serious as others might. Each album hits a lyric, musicianship, and track consistency few bands could put on one album, let alone a majority of 5 studio releases. Each album is a snapshot in musical transition: the band that made Sell Out has little resemblance to the sound of the band that made Quadrophenia; the band that made Tommy has little resemblance to the sound of band that made By Numbers. The same can be said for most of the songs within. Few bands, save the Beatles and a period of Stones work can compare. This over/under rated list should not be a collection of hits against a collection of b-sides or unreleased songs, because that is a list of over-played/under-played and comes across as a contest of who can name the most obscure, not the most brilliant. Both the Beatles (though I hesitant to compare The Who to the Beatles) and The Who transitioned from a singles-based, pop band, to an album-based, full-picture band. Your list of Who overrated songs miss the point of context, plus Tommy is an album, not a song. Good blog premise, however, I think the people who posted comments struck a better position. While I am all for stirring the pot, and in a blog medium stirring the pot is a good way to drive comments and search engine optimization, I think this post feels a bit dashed off and not as articulated as it could be.

I don’t think you can hold any band responsible for radio saturation. There is a difference between overrated and overplayed. “Behind Blue Eyes” and “Who Are You” might be overplayed, but overrated, who are the raters? The public? Good lord if we hold a public competition we are back at American Idol or the Eurovision competitions.
Has anyone ever written a doctor’s thesis on “Sqeezebox”? It is a silly song and music is also allowed to be silly. Don’t fault the band for tossing away a couple of light-hearted songs – this is not prog rock or fusion here.

The Who mostly took a track of their own design. Just a chronological review or album momentum is a case for brilliance: The Who Sell Out, Tommy, Live at Leeds, Who’s Next, Quadrophenia, and The Who by Numbers are a back-to-back-to-back series few bands could achieve. Each album pushed the rock genre beyond the day’s formula for success. Within each is a tip to humor to not take themselves as serious as others might. Each album hits a lyric, musicianship, and track consistency few bands could put on one album, let alone a majority of 5 studio releases. Each album is a snapshot in musical transition: the band that made Sell Out has little resemblance to the sound of the band that made Quadrophenia; the band that made Tommy has little resemblance to the sound of band that made By Numbers. The same can be said for most of the songs within. Few bands, save the Beatles and a period of Stones work can compare.

This over/under rated list should not be a collection of hits against a collection of b-sides or unreleased songs, because that is a list of over-played/under-played and comes across as a contest of who can name the most obscure, not the most brilliant.

Both the Beatles (though I hesitant to compare The Who to the Beatles) and The Who transitioned from a singles-based, pop band, to an album-based, full-picture band. Your list of Who overrated songs miss the point of context, plus Tommy is an album, not a song.

Good blog premise, however, I think the people who posted comments struck a better position.

]]> By: wallace http://www.magnetmagazine.com/2009/09/08/the-overunder-the-who/comment-page-1/#comment-17368 wallace Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:51:57 +0000 http://www.magnetmagazine.com/?p=43001#comment-17368 I need to reiterate how galactically misguided this article is. I need to reiterate how galactically misguided this article is.

]]> By: elf http://www.magnetmagazine.com/2009/09/08/the-overunder-the-who/comment-page-1/#comment-17319 elf Thu, 10 Sep 2009 06:19:05 +0000 http://www.magnetmagazine.com/?p=43001#comment-17319 I agree Squeeze Box is a dumb song, but I wouldn't call it over-rated. Who over-rated it? Critics? Have they been listing it as an important Who song? Fans? When you ask someone on the street to name the best Who songs, are they going to say Squeeze Box? Dumb? Yes. Over-rated? I guess if it was a hit it can qualify, but nobody seriously thinks it is a great Who song. I must have no musical taste because I think Behind Blue Eyes has a very nice melody. Maybe you were thinking of Velvet Underground's Pale Blue Eyes (which was also listed as over-rated on the VU version of this article) which drones on and on. I agree Squeeze Box is a dumb song, but I wouldn’t call it over-rated. Who over-rated it? Critics? Have they been listing it as an important Who song? Fans? When you ask someone on the street to name the best Who songs, are they going to say Squeeze Box? Dumb? Yes. Over-rated? I guess if it was a hit it can qualify, but nobody seriously thinks it is a great Who song.

I must have no musical taste because I think Behind Blue Eyes has a very nice melody. Maybe you were thinking of Velvet Underground’s Pale Blue Eyes (which was also listed as over-rated on the VU version of this article) which drones on and on.

]]> By: mister charlie http://www.magnetmagazine.com/2009/09/08/the-overunder-the-who/comment-page-1/#comment-17309 mister charlie Thu, 10 Sep 2009 04:08:46 +0000 http://www.magnetmagazine.com/?p=43001#comment-17309 OOPS. I hit tab and it posted. oh well. so much for the zeitgeist. by the way, allmusic.com says "Squeeze Box" is "cloying, lightweight filler". So JUST WHO IS OVER-RATING THIS SONG? Answer? Nobody. This article is a dead-line beater and nothing more. OOPS. I hit tab and it posted. oh well. so much for the zeitgeist. by the way, allmusic.com says “Squeeze Box” is “cloying, lightweight filler”. So JUST WHO IS OVER-RATING THIS SONG? Answer? Nobody. This article is a dead-line beater and nothing more.

]]> By: mister charlie http://www.magnetmagazine.com/2009/09/08/the-overunder-the-who/comment-page-1/#comment-17308 mister charlie Thu, 10 Sep 2009 04:06:50 +0000 http://www.magnetmagazine.com/?p=43001#comment-17308 To try and hit upon something not previously mentioned by my esteemed colleagues... "Squeeze Box" is OVERRATED? By who? Critics? Or is there a "That's anzeitgeist Magnet has touched into To try and hit upon something not previously mentioned by my esteemed colleagues…
“Squeeze Box” is OVERRATED? By who? Critics? Or is there a “That’s anzeitgeist Magnet has touched into

]]> By: Chippy http://www.magnetmagazine.com/2009/09/08/the-overunder-the-who/comment-page-1/#comment-17278 Chippy Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:12:53 +0000 http://www.magnetmagazine.com/?p=43001#comment-17278 Jesus whisky, tequila and vodka must be cheap in the US, 'cause that artical has some pretty cheap shots. The author must have been pissed or a wino to write it too! Jesus whisky, tequila and vodka must be cheap in the US, ’cause that artical has some pretty cheap shots. The author must have been pissed or a wino to write it too!

]]> By: Kenneth Harris http://www.magnetmagazine.com/2009/09/08/the-overunder-the-who/comment-page-1/#comment-17275 Kenneth Harris Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:17:27 +0000 http://www.magnetmagazine.com/?p=43001#comment-17275 Someone wrote: "How can anyone be expected to be taken seriously with a **music** article if they don’t even know the difference between an *ALBUM* and a *SONG*?" I think you're over-reaching here...she mentions in the intro she'll be discussing the most over and under rated "Who works"...a word at the top of the subsequent list is hardly reason to not take the article seriously. You can agree with the list or not, but dismissing the author like that is nonsense. Someone wrote:
“How can anyone be expected to be taken seriously with a **music** article if they don’t even know the difference between an *ALBUM* and a *SONG*?”

I think you’re over-reaching here…she mentions in the intro she’ll be discussing the most over and under rated “Who works”…a word at the top of the subsequent list is hardly reason to not take the article seriously. You can agree with the list or not, but dismissing the author like that is nonsense.

]]> By: Gene Paul http://www.magnetmagazine.com/2009/09/08/the-overunder-the-who/comment-page-1/#comment-17274 Gene Paul Wed, 09 Sep 2009 16:51:15 +0000 http://www.magnetmagazine.com/?p=43001#comment-17274 So instead of actually addressing any points, people have to throw the old "doesn't know the difference between song and album so the whole article is garbage" idiocy. I disagree with a couple of the points (My Gen) but can understand some others (WAY in particular). Even with Tommy, which I've heard and seen in countless forms, has its weak points (Welcome in particular), I can agree somewhat. I rarely listen to it in its entirety nowadays, but Quad is run end to end all the time. I think she is over-reaching a bit with "Early Morning..." as I've always thought it was a good decision to leave it off the album. This appears to be more of a "I'm gonna choose an obscure track to reinforce my street cred" pick. Anyway, interesting take on all things Who...nice conversation starter. So instead of actually addressing any points, people have to throw the old “doesn’t know the difference between song and album so the whole article is garbage” idiocy. I disagree with a couple of the points (My Gen) but can understand some others (WAY in particular). Even with Tommy, which I’ve heard and seen in countless forms, has its weak points (Welcome in particular), I can agree somewhat. I rarely listen to it in its entirety nowadays, but Quad is run end to end all the time. I think she is over-reaching a bit with “Early Morning…” as I’ve always thought it was a good decision to leave it off the album. This appears to be more of a “I’m gonna choose an obscure track to reinforce my street cred” pick. Anyway, interesting take on all things Who…nice conversation starter.

]]> By: Edwin http://www.magnetmagazine.com/2009/09/08/the-overunder-the-who/comment-page-1/#comment-17270 Edwin Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:17:38 +0000 http://www.magnetmagazine.com/?p=43001#comment-17270 "Tommy" and "The Who By Numbers" are songs!? Learn something new everyday. Another hip writer in the post-print age "substituting" sophmoric opinion for content and insight. At least I'll get my washing done... “Tommy” and “The Who By Numbers” are songs!? Learn something new everyday.

Another hip writer in the post-print age “substituting” sophmoric opinion for content and insight.

At least I’ll get my washing done…

]]>