Timbale

Wow, looks like we saw all the same shows! I had forgotten about I Mother Earth until reading it...they were really not my thing, so in a way they might be the "worst" for me. But Chalk Circle definitely left the most "blah" impression of all of them.

I absolutely agree with this...and the saving grace is that Townshend and Daltrey seem to be aware of that. The band is usually referred to as the "touring band", I believe. I mean, even back in '89, Townshend was joking that it really isn't the same band at all...but because they can, they have the unmitigated gall to call it The Who.

This is something I've been thinking about lately, probably because I've been seeing lots of stuff in my twitter feed about the current Genesis tour. As a very big fan of that band (and as someone who actually has never seen them live), I am not really interested in going to see this tour. I do not judge anyone who IS going or enjoys seeing them...it's just a subjective personal thing. And for me...it's not just that Phil Collins seems well past his prime as a performer and all that. There is something about it where I think it feels like at this point they are sort of a cover band of their own band. Like, am I really seeing Genesis play Firth Of Fifth, or am I just seeing the members of Genesis play a Genesis song. Is that semantic difference actually a thing?! And it got me thinking about other bands..and why sometimes it feels that way, and sometimes it doesn't. I think it's kind of obvious when you have those bands where the only original members are the bassist and the tambourine player or whatever - that's sort of a different thing to me. But i was thinking about 2 examples. The Rolling Stones, to me, still seem like the Stones. I don't know why that is, but seeing them play Miss You or whatever 40 + years on still feels authentic to me. On the other side of the coin, I was thinking about the R40 tour...and obviously this is totally subjective...but when I think about the fact that I saw Rush play Jacob's Ladder...it doesn't really feel like I saw Rush play Jacob's Ladder. Even though I did. There's some sense, to me, perhaps, that they were in such a different place at that point in their career that it's almost like they were actually sort of "covering" that song. I don't know if that makes sense - I know in a literal way it does not. Is it a thing where if a song is old enough, the band might not be "in" it any more in a way that feels genuine? With Genesis, they are out there touring having not been a creative force in 30 years. That must be a factor. There might also be an irony in the fact that bands who progress and change (like Rush) end up seeming at a farther distance from some of their work than a band like AC/DC, who can probably play Dirty Deeds and have it feel very much in the wheelhouse of what they still do. Do people have thoughts about this?

I honestly can't believe anyone thinks It's Hard is better than WHO.

I am going to include single artists along with bands, because I don't really differentiate when listening ... The Beatles The Band Aimee Mann Genesis Jon Batiste Rush The Who Bob Dylan Elvis Costello Pink Floyd Joe Jackson Joni Mitchell Gillian Welch Beck Stevie Wonder Miles Davis Quintet (the 2nd one with Williams, Hancock, Shorter and Carter) Dave Brubeck Quartet Leonard Cohen Michael Penn Paul Simon Mulatu Astaqé Laura Marling Pete Townshend Tom Waits Peter Gabriel

It was fun to read through this thread - I didn't see it when most the posts got written. I have to say that I think Neil is a polarizing figure in the drumming community for a different reason than many have stated, essentially say that the "groove police" are the culprits. I actually think that a lot of it has to do with the pedestal that the rabid fans puts him on. I think that the unique nature of Rush's music created a fan base that, in relative terms, was somewhat insular. Meaning, someone who loves something like Fleetwood Mac is likely going to love lots and lots of other things, but there is something in the specificity of Rush's music, the singular nature of it, that bred a fan base that was focused on them to the exclusion of other groups. This is a generalization - and I think it was far more true in the formative years of the band as opposed to the current, internet age we live in. I certainly knew Rush fans growing up who listened to little else. This I think creates a distorted view, because they don't really care that there are other great drummers out there, if those drummers aren't playing Rush or Rush-like music. And when you add to that the fact that Neil's parts are busy, flashy and attention getting, and integral to the compositions themselves, you get a group of people who consider Neil to be an absolute GOD among drummers. But they don't all seem to have much of a frame of reference. And there are people in the drumming community who hear that hero worship stuff, and think "Have these people heard Vinnie Coliuta play? Simon Phillips? Billy Cobham? Mark Brzezicki? Benny Greb? Terry Bozzio? Etc Etc Etc...", and some of those rabid fans just don't seem interested in something that isn't Rush. Which is fine from a listening perspective...but distorts things when it comes to forming an opinion. You can still see this today. I have watched a few "reaction" videos of people watching Peart's solos...and there are so many numbskulls who watch him do the 5 stroke crossover thing or do a big run down his toms and say crap like "He's not human!! He's an insane machine!!!!" It's embarrassing. And people who have some perspective on how many incredible players exist in the world - virtuosos behind the kit - they look at that and say "the whole Peart thing is just a bunch of bullshit - the fans all think he's good because he has 100 toms and does a dumb little marimba thing that a mallet player could play in the 9th grade." And the irony, to me, is that if he hadn't been held up as some god of drums, his detractors I think would be more willing to just put him in the pantheon of great rock drummers, which is where he belongs. Of course we're talking about art, so the idea of a "best" is totally absurd...BUT...if there was such a thing - if there was ONE best drummer in the world - then EVERY other drummer has drummers who are better than them. From a technical standpoint, especially (but not only) now, there are players who are more skilled than Peart. I think Neil's greatest strength was as a composer of drum parts - he was powerful, inventive and unique - and he had a high level of skill to put his ideas across. If people had generally talked about him the way that people talk about Stewart Copeland or Phil Collins or Bill Bruford, I think there wouldn't be such a reactionary response in some circles.

It's not a priority for the record label. Also there's a huge backlog for pressing vinyl which I'm sure is a major factor too. Fair point. Extending tht situation, then I guess it doesn't make sense for them to do CD/HD, and digital first, then vinyl packages later. Probably screws up the marketing and the impact of the releases to split them. And yet, there's this abomination - brand f***ing new: https://www.rushback...p=102112_102215 Yeah that seems like it was a label decision and the band themselves had little to do with it. Also, they almost, ALMOST had one song from every album, but somehow the myth that CoS is as unsuccessful as its tour still persists so they don't include, I dunno, Bastille Day?! Or even Lakeside Park? Shame. They can't even get their cash grab gimmick compilation right. "How do we decide what goes on the compilation, boys?" "I don't know, sir...let's get the dart board out..." "The Polygram era dart board. They love the old songs, they'll buy old songs!!! " Imagine these are what they hit! Need Some Love Rivendell I Think I'm Going Bald Lessons Madrigal Circumstances (okay they did hit this one) Different Strings Witch Hunt Countdown Red Lenses Emotion Detector Tai Shan While I completely get your point...at least that would be interesting. I wonder if it would sell much. Do you think the other one will sell much? I mean, I struggle with what the point of another compilation with Tom Sawyer and Closer To The Heart on it is. None of it makes sense to me at all...so while it's all meaningless, they may as well throw some deep cuts on there.

As great as Who's Next is, Quadrophenia is their masterpiece. The run of song off the top - The Real Me, Quadrophenia, Cut My Hair, The Punk And The Godfather, I'm One - they do not have 5 tracks anywhere else in a row that are that great. Obviously the songs on the album are not as well known as most of Who's Next...but Quad is jam packed with "should be" classics. Punk And The Godfather, I've Had Enough, Sea And Sand, Is It In My Head, Drowned - these are all at least as good as anything on Who's Next. And of course conceptually, Quadrophenia is so ambitious. The idea that Jimmy's 4 different personality types represent the four members of The Who (both thematically and musically) is really fascinating - and wholly unique. It makes it so that Townshend is essentially able to write a story about this mod character...but really be writing about The Who itself as an entity. I think that "musical genius" gets thrown around a lot...but if such a thing exists....I think there's a fair chance that Townshend circa '73 was approaching it. And...Moon's playing is the best of his career. :) I adore Who's Next, and often listen to a self made compilation that includes the other Lifehouse songs in the mix - some via The Who, some via Townshend's demos - to get a more full sense of the scope of what he was trying to do with those batch of songs. I wish he had pulled it off...or at very least that they had made a double album of it, because the Who's Next songs without Pure And Easy included (for example) is a real damn shame. Quadrophenia. Oh yes.

And I watched the interview. I felt like Sting had an energy like he didn't know what he was doing there, being interviewed on a youtube channel...but he seemed to warm to it as he realized that Rick knows what he's talking about. I actually enjoyed, more than Sting, hearing Dominic Miller talk. He seems like a cool guy...and I've always enjoyed his playing.

Once a tw*t always a tw*t. Whatever his personality, Sting is an absolutely brilliant songwriter and lyricist. He's also a stellar musician. I would say half of his output at this point does nothing for me...and some of it I actively dislike...but he is not a vacant pop star by any means. I saw him on the tour he and Peter Gabriel did a few years back. I mostly went to see Gabriel, a guy I had not managed to see at that point. I was really really impressed by Sting at that gig! He was in his mid 60's and still killing it as a bassist and singer. And unlike our beloved Mr. Lee, Sting's voice is still in very fine form. I get that he's a pretentious guy - I actually find both him and Stewart Copeland completely intolerable - but he is super talented.

It's not a priority for the record label. Also there's a huge backlog for pressing vinyl which I'm sure is a major factor too. Fair point. Extending tht situation, then I guess it doesn't make sense for them to do CD/HD, and digital first, then vinyl packages later. Probably screws up the marketing and the impact of the releases to split them. And yet, there's this abomination - brand f***ing new: https://www.rushback...p=102112_102215 Yeah that seems like it was a label decision and the band themselves had little to do with it. Also, they almost, ALMOST had one song from every album, but somehow the myth that CoS is as unsuccessful as its tour still persists so they don't include, I dunno, Bastille Day?! Or even Lakeside Park? Shame. They can't even get their cash grab gimmick compilation right. "How do we decide what goes on the compilation, boys?" "I don't know, sir...let's get the dart board out..." "The Polygram era dart board. They love the old songs, they'll buy old songs!!! " Imagine these are what they hit! Need Some Love Rivendell I Think I'm Going Bald Lessons Madrigal Circumstances (okay they did hit this one) Different Strings Witch Hunt Countdown Red Lenses Emotion Detector Tai Shan While I completely get your point...at least that would be interesting.

It's not a priority for the record label. Also there's a huge backlog for pressing vinyl which I'm sure is a major factor too. Fair point. Extending tht situation, then I guess it doesn't make sense for them to do CD/HD, and digital first, then vinyl packages later. Probably screws up the marketing and the impact of the releases to split them. And yet, there's this abomination - brand f***ing new: https://www.rushback...p=102112_102215 Yeah that seems like it was a label decision and the band themselves had little to do with it. Also, they almost, ALMOST had one song from every album, but somehow the myth that CoS is as unsuccessful as its tour still persists so they don't include, I dunno, Bastille Day?! Or even Lakeside Park? Shame. They can't even get their cash grab gimmick compilation right. "How do we decide what goes on the compilation, boys?" "I don't know, sir...let's get the dart board out..."

I know the "if you can't say anything nice..." thing and all...but I have to say, I really find Hugh Syme's modern, computer graphic stuff tiresome, and not reflective of the "vibe" of the music it is supposed to be representing. I know it's so subjective, because we're so used to the original album artwork that it becomes synonymous with the record itself... but MP is a simple and effective package with a dark, broody energy about it. He's just muddying it in my opinion. Ever since Test For Echo I've found his work very sterile and emotionless.

I think it's pretty clear how it goes from here...so I'd like to be a dissenting vote. I actually might consider eliminating Who's Next before Tommy in real life, mostly because a good chunk of it has been played to death. A lot of times, when I want to hear some of those songs, my go-to is Townshend's Lifehouse demos. Getting to hear versions that are quite close, but a little different allows some of the better known songs to have a bit of a second life for me. But of course, the overplayed nature of Who's Next isn't a reflection of its quality. It is a masterpiece. But I adore Tommy. Some people don't seem to like it as much as other Who stuff because it's not as "rock" - but the fact that it's mostly driven by acoustic guitar and isn't so heavy is one of its great strengths to me. I love the sound of the record so much in general - I would never say it's their "best" sounding record...but it has a unique charm to it. The vocal harmonies are wonderful on it, and the musical themes that work their way through the songs give it a nice cohesion. I also discovered Tommy at an impressionable age, where it opened up my mind to what pop music could do. There is a nice mix with the Who of lofty ideas... but without those ideas coming off as pretentious. (I know some would argue that point.) I was already into prog rock when I first got into Tommy...and there was something refreshing about how it was so forward thinking in form...but at the same time just a collection of great little pop/rock songs with some wonderful instrumentals in there for good measure. It didn't take itself seriously in the way that Floyd, Rush or early Genesis sometimes could (and I love those bands a lot.) So I'm voting Who's Next off. I am very interested to see if it or Quad take the #1 spot...

Quadrophenia?

It’s not that they don’t want to release stuff. They’ve gone on record saying that there’s nothing to release. As in nothing exists in the vaults. Anything that didn’t work wasn’t kept. It was all thrown out. Geddy said the only thing that might still exist would be unfinished bland demos that the band hated. Key word. Might. And honestly not much has leaked in over 40 years. We have Fancy Dancer and Garden Road, but live versions only. And we have a demo version of Power Windows that only exists because the guy who received the tape preserved it. That’s it really. I’m all for hearing new music, but the band has always been pretty truthful regarding what does and doesn’t exist. If Geddy says there’s nothing there’s probably nothing. It's not that I want to argue - particularly about something that neither of us can verify - and I imagine you are quite possibly right. But... This is a band that has stated that for a long time they recorded their soundcheck jams so they could go back later and mine them for song ideas. It is hard for to imagine that those tapes no longer exist. The existence of the Power Windows demos makes me think it it likely that there are demo recordings of most of the albums. As I said, it's conjecture, but Geddy Lee does not seem like a guy who throws stuff out - if anything, he seems like a slightly obsessive pack rat. With that in mind, I just don't believe that after working on Gawain for however long, and then mining it for parts to make Natural Science, that they literally threw the tape in the garbage. Maybe they did...but it seems more likely to me that it is in a box somewhere next to the drum machine version of The Weapon and the Tough Break song they did with their tech friend.

I really don't understand why the band is so dead set on not releasing abandoned tracks or demos or outtakes. Given some of the inferior live recordings that have had an official release, they really can't argue about it diminishing their legacy. But the time for releasing these things is quickly coming and going. Whatever is left of Gawain (I'm sure there are some rehearsal takes on tape somewhere) should have made the 40th Permanent Waves box. It's a shame they aren't more open about this stuff.

Seems like an absurd match up...but when you think about how much From Genesis To Revelation sounds like the Bee Gees, it really isn't. Main Course is a pretty great record...Nights On Broadway is, as the kids say, the shit. As a side note, I really enjoyed the relatively recent documentary on the Bee Gees. More than I thought I might. But Nursery Cryme is the birth of something extraordinary. I actually think it's a less consistent album than Main Course. There is some pretty weak stuff on it - I don't dislike any of it, but to me there are 3 tiers of work on it. 1 - forgettable, innocuous songs like For Absent Friends and Harlequin, which are fine but just leave your head immediately after listening to them. 2 - proggy, but very dated, slightly silly things like Harold The Barrel and Return of the Giant Hogweed. (I know some people really adore Hogweed...and there is some great playing on it, but I don't think it has aged well at all.) 3 - classics that point the way to greatness, which is Fountain Of Salmacis and of course The Musical Box. So even though I kinda think the Bee Gees is a "better" record all around... Nursery Cryme, for about 20 minutes, is astoundingly brilliant. So it wins.

The masterful Who Sell Out has to go.

Wow, this is a really good match up - it is essentially a coin toss for me! Both these records are pop masterpieces - both arguably the most mainstream records from both artists...and yet somehow both are high art. They also both include huge hit singles fuelled by very popular videos. They are also both very produced sounding albums. I think So has aged a little bit better than Graceland... but even So, with Lanois at the helm, is a tiny bit of its time. Graceland's big thing that marries it to 1986 for me is the drum sound, particularly that big, gated snare. I think if Simon did a remix of the drumkit sounds and removed a bunch of reverb and the gates, it would sound way more timeless as a record. But it doesn't have to be timeless to be good. Neither do. I am picking Graceland, despite how deeply I love So. They are so evenly matched as emotional experiences for me...but Simon's lyrics just cut a little deeper for me. When Peter is being "serious" on songs like Don't Give Up or Mercy Street, they are very moving...but with Simon even the up tempo songs have images and turns of phrase that kill me. And there's something about Simon as a singer where he just has some moments that make my heart swell - when he sings "She says the joke is on me/I say the joke is on her" in Crazy Love Vol II, it crushes me. I could go on and on with examples like that...but, come on - "The Mississippi Delta was shining like a National guitar" might be the best opening line of a song ever. I'm also picking Graceland because I think it's not gonna have as good a showing as So. As for the singles....Call Me Al is my least fave on the record...but I don't hate it. There are some great lyrics in it. Sledgehammer is also not a big fave, but Big Time beats it for least fave. Sledgehammer is Gabriel having fun...and I dig that. I'm gonna go listen to So now.

I had to vote Who Sell Out off, which breaks my heart, because there is nothing like it, and it is amazing. But all the albums left are amazing...and the closest runner up for me, Who By Numbers, is a hidden gem - the non-epic album that gets overlooked in the catalogue. Because the kinda dumb Squeezebox is on it, the cooler tunes get short shrift. When I saw The Who a couple years ago, they did Imagine A Man from the record, which was a lovely, deep cut treat. But Who Sell Out is hard to give the chop to - it's funny, inventive and full of cool tunes.

That's the album that got me hooked on the band. My next-door neighbor bought it the day it was released and we listened to it start to finish. Very impressive to me at the time ( 14 y.o. ). As a kid I thought it was cool. As an adult a rock opera built around the abuses suffered by a deaf, dumb and blind pinball savant just doesn't resonate. I have always thought that pinball is a pop culture reference that is standing in for rock music. For playing the guitar. In that sense, I feel that Townshend is writing, in a very veiled way, about himself. He is the deaf, mute and blind person who finds the one thing that he's good at, and through that discovers himself spiritually, gains fame, and also experiences the limits and fickle nature of being a "voice" for the people. Tommy's obsession with the mirror - the only thing he can see in his "blindness" - is, to me, anyway, a strong metaphor for the experience of youth, particularly in the moment he was writing about...essentially the birth of the teenager. I say this because - and of course we're all entitled to our opinion! - to me Tommy is not un-relatable and doesn't lack resonance at all...it's just that the resonance exists under the metaphor of the plot itself.

Love all three bands, likely in the order of The Who, The Beatles and then the Stones. I don't know the context of the Daltrey comments...but, if he's talking about the way the Stones currently sound cranking out the old hits, I think he makes a fair point. I've been checking out a few clips to see the great Steve Jordan playing, to watch how he fits into the group...and none of the clips I've seen sound stellar. They're all ok...which is kinda the same as saying mediocre. I'm sure if Roger puts Goat's Head Soup on the turntable, he can hear how f**king good it is. Also, kinda interesting, given how they have a history of fighting like brothers, that it is Townshend who has always been the staunchest fan of the Stones. Heard him say a few times that they are the greatest rock and roll band of all time.

But, Sister Disco... :wub: I know, Goose - I know. It's a stone cold classic. I'm also a fan of the title track (even though it's overplayed) and Music Must Change (although I prefer Townshend's demo version). It's a hard one.

I would not want to derail the thread...but I would be interested in people's rankings of the 5 Police records. I'd have to think about mine...