.jpg/220px-Quadrophenia_(album).jpg)
By Patrick Vecchio
“The Who Plan U.S. Tour,” said the headline in Saturday morning’s paper. The subhead warned of the extent of the wretchedness to follow: “Band Plans to Perform Quadrophenia in Full.”
Enough. Please, Pete. Please, Roger. Enough.
Enough of referring to yourselves as “The Who.” The Who died Sept. 7, 1978, when their drummer, Keith Moon, swallowed 32 sedatives. It only took six to kill him. The power of Moon’s drumming still impresses more than 30 years after his death: roaring waves across the toms and snares, and thunder from his double bass drums, all powerfully punctuated by a constant crash of cymbals—and every single beat on time. Moon was a hurricane, blending the raw power of a tub-thumper like John Bonham with the machine-gun dexterity of Mitch Mitchell. He was the best drummer in rock.
Which is why Pete and Roger’s plan to perform Quadrophenia in its entirety is a joke that isn’t making me laugh. In the Associated Press story about the upcoming tour, Daltrey referred to Quadrophenia as “Pete’s pinnacle,” and he’s right. Quadrophenia blew me away when it was released in 1973, and it hasn’t aged a bit. It is The Who at its best. The opening song, “The Real Me,” is full of the rage and bluster that the album’s protagonist—and all of us—felt at 18, 19, 20. “Cut My Hair” and “I Am One” depict the constant struggle to fit in. “The Dirty Jobs” and “Helpless Dancer” tell the story of how we feel we’ve received the short end of the stick, as does “I’ve Had Enough.” The song “Dr. Jimmy” explores the frustration of trying to find our identity with pills or booze. And the triumphant “Love, Reign O’er Me” closes the album with faith in something bigger. Quadrophenia is magnificent, musically and lyrically, and if you’re a fan of classic rock, it belongs in your music library. Period.
As Daltrey said, it is indeed “Pete’s pinnacle” as a songwriter— but it is, more than that, a Keith Moon album. Without Moon on the kit, that album doesn’t get made—and a big assist goes to The Who’s redoubtable bassist, John Entwistle (dead 10 years now. Who’s next?). Entwistle keeps Quadrophenia anchored, keeps it from soaring into low-altitude Earth orbit. Sure, Townshend’s guitar and keyboard work is compelling. Sure, Daltrey shows why he was one of the great rock singers of his era. But Quadrophenia is a Keith Moon album. Listen to it with that in mind. He is a force of nature, a percussive nuclear explosion that birthed the mushroom cloud of the album.
And now Pete and Roger, ages 67 and 68, respectively, want to perform the whole double album? I don’t think Daltrey is capable of hitting half the notes he hit in 1973. I have no idea what kind of chops Pete has anymore, but something tells me there will be at least two other guitarists on stage during the upcoming tour. I don’t know who the hired hands will be on bass and drums, but that’s no matter. Daltrey and Townshend trying to perform Quadrophenia without Moon and Entwistle is a noble but doomed ambition.
Look: I’m not trashing the Quadrophenia/tour idea because I’m not a Who fan. I’ve got more than 80 of their songs in my music library. Who’s Next—man, I was listening to that when it was new. Unless you were there, you have no idea what an earthquake it was at the time. “Baby O’Riley,” “Behind Blue Eyes,” “Won’t Get Fooled Again,” Entwistle’s “My Wife” — five-star songs, every one of them. My library includes The Who by Numbers, a largely overlooked album that includes a brilliant Who song, “They Are All in Love.” There’s their fully realized concept album, The Who Sell Out. And if the band had never released anything but its version of “Summertime Blues” from Live at Leeds, it would still have left a musical footprint. Who knows how many air guitarists that song has expired? “Happy Jack.” “Can’t Explain.” “Magic Bus.” “Substitute.” “My Generation.” “The Kids Are Alright.” This is music you don’t put away. It is the legacy of a superb band.
I wish Townshend and Daltrey knew when to quit. Every time you think you’ve seen the last of them, they roll away the rock and crawl out of the crypt. Their place in rock history is secure. But, to twist a lyric from “My Generation,” they should have stopped rocking before they got old.
Image: Subject to Fair Use, courtesy of Wikipedia.org
I wish this article had been written about the Stones. Those jokers keep on slumming and no one begrudges them for it. They’re almost saluted because Keith Richards somehow manages to keep breathing and because he has never quite gone over the bend and beaten Mick to death with his Telecaster.
I agree that the Who is almost a non-entity without Moon and Entwhistle, but at least they have landmark recordings worth rehashing.
True, but maybe The Who gets more abuse now because they haven’t spent the last few decades making cartoons of themselves? I think we just expect so much less of The Stones these days, whether that’s fair or not.
Thanks for reading and commenting, fikshun. I took a pretty good run at The Stones here on S&R earlier this month. At least they have survived as a band (pretty much, except for hired hand Ron Wood, whom I tried to skewer in my earlier post). What bothers me about The Who is that Pete + Roger does not equal The Who.
Thank you for reading and commenting, Sam. I think the Stones get off easier than The Who because the Stones *are* a cartoon. They’re like our favorite uncles: forever beyond hip now, but still amusing in their way. That “way” is not a musical one, however. These guys have made a fortune going through the motions—and I’m not sure they fully realize it. I think—based on his facial expressions when he’s playing—that Charlie Watts is the only one who has figured it out.
Townshend is just so damned sincere, though. Someone needs to pull him aside and say, “Ah, Pete, there’s something you need to know. It’s not 1973 anymore.”
Thanks for writing, Patrick. I read the article on the Stones with gnashed teeth, but opted to stay out of it because I’m not a Stones fan. Let the Stones fans have their fun. While I’m a fan of the Who, I’m not thinking too seriously about driving a few hundred miles to catch them playing Quadrophenia. It’s probably my favorite album of theirs, but yeah, it’s not 1973 anymore. But it’s also not Roger’s and Pete’s fault that Keith and John are dead. If they want to keep playing, in spite of Pete’s tinnitus, then Long Live Rock.
I go back and forth on this one. On the one hand, there are those who make the “stop it, you’re tarnishing your legacy” argument. We get this every time a quarterback or some other elite athlete refuses to “go out on top.” And certainly there’s merit to it. How much greater would the Stones’ legacy be had they quit after SOME GIRLS (or taken the ultimate career-boosting step of a massive drug OD)? Hell, had Jimi lived he might be doing duet CDs with Maroon 5 and Kelly Clarkson now.
On the other hand, you know what – it’s the best fucking job in the world. If I were a pro athlete I’d probably be out there until they had security haul me out of the building, and if you’re Mick, what the hell else are you going to do that isn’t mind-numbing by comparison?
So I get both sides of the issue, I guess.
I compare both Bands of Geezers to guys their age who still “have it.” Richard Thompson is a young 63, but I saw him play a solo acoustic show last year and his playing was dazzling. He remains one of the best storytellers around, and remember: He started with Fairport Convention. That goes back a ways.
I saw John Mayall last summer, and for a guy who was 78, he delivered. I had seen him in ’73. Both times, I got my money’s worth.
And then there’s 68-year-old Jeff Beck, whom I’ve seen twice in the past three years. He is a jaw-dropping player with stunning technique; in fact, when I saw him two years ago, he received a standing ovation after just his second song. And he just wanders around the stage and plays, trading inside jokes with his band members; no guitar hero grimacing or massive windmill riffs for him.
Compare Beck’s work to Who’s Left and the Stones, and those guys aren’t even in the same universe. I’ve got nothing against Pete and Roger and Mick and Keef, but when I go to a show, I want to hear some music played honestly and with passion, as opposed to either the Stones’ going through the emotions or Townshend and Daltrey’s faded talents: their Super Bowl show Exhibit A in that regard.
And Sam, who knows if Jimi would have done anything else that was mind-blowing and genre-bending. I mean, look at poor Eric Clapton. It was all downhill from Layla, and I’d argue that without Duane Allman pushing him, Layla would be a mere afterthought today. On the CD “Live at Ronnie Scott’s,” Clapton comes out and plays two songs with Beck. They had to pick up Clapton’s fretboard with tweezers by the time Beck finished with him.
Pete still has the chops. Over the past 10 years he has been just great if not better on guitar. But Roger’s voice is not as great and in general they don’t have as much physical energy onstage.
But their live act can still blow away a stadium crowd, moreso than the Stones. and this is largely because the songs are still so powerful and bombastic, The songs make for the drop-off in Pete and Roger’s physical capabilities.
If an OD is the ultimate career-booster, I think part of the fun with the Stones is that Keef has taken SO many drugs most of us are amused (and perhaps impressed) that he HASN’T done the Big O.D. That alone has made him a caricature.
As Hendrix said, “Once you are dead, you are made for life.”
“Poor” Eric Clapton? He did pretty well with After Midnight, Cocaine, Wonderful Tonight and Tears in Heaven. The miserable geek somehow made 360 million pounds without your snotty comments. Get a life.
Congratulations, Peter. You win today’s Missed the Point Entirely Award.
James, thank you for reading and commenting. I agree with you on the bombastic nature of the songs; I just don’t think Pete and Roger can deliver anymore, musically. But what’s the fun about a rock ‘n’ roll discussion without a little disagreement?
Peter, thank you for reading and commenting. Make sure you add “Son and Sylvia,” and “Better Make It Through the Day,” among others, to the latter-day, lazy, going-through-the-motions output of the guy who used to tear it up with Cream (example: “Sleepy Time Time” on the first Live Cream album.
“Wonderful Tonight”? Puh-lease. And I already have a life, thank you.
Peter, I had to run an errand and didn’t have time to respond more fully to your post about The Guitarist Formerly Known As Slowhand. I notice that of the songs you cite as examples of his prowess, two of them—”Cocaine” and “Wonderful Tonight”—date back to his Slowhand album, 1977. Let’s set aside the fact that “Cocaine,” also from that album, is a cover of a J.J. Cale song. Slowhand also contains such scorchers as “Lay Down Sally” and “May You Never.” You cite “After Midnight,” which is from his first solo LP, which he released *43 years ago*” As for “Tears in Heaven,” that goes back only a mere 21 years. These songs are evidence of the quality of his latter-day output? After reading my comment on Clapton and making your reply, your head should have exploded from the cognitive dissonance.
The fact that Clapton has made millions of pounds is irrelevant. Abba has sold more than 370 million records worldwide. The Bee Gees sold 270 million. If Clapton had released just four albums, like Jimi Hendrix did, I’d wager their earnings would be about the same. Clapton has longevity on his side.
One more thing: Your telling me to “get a life.” Now, *there’s* an original insult. Who knows how far that one goes back? I’m thinking it probably came into vogue about the same time “Tears in Heaven” did.
This is a wonderful discussion (except for the Veckman who really should think about something/anything other than money – what made all the guys discussed here so great was that they DIDN’T think about money first and foremost at the height of their powers).
But there are a couple of larger questions here that SOMEBODY ought to write about:
1) When should a rock star “quit,” “retire,” “for god’s sake give it up already”?
2) WHY should a rock star do any of the above? Blues/Jazz/Classical/Bluegrass-traditional music/country guys don’t. WHY are the rules different for rock guys?
Hmm?
Hi, Jim. Thanks for reading and commenting. Interesting questions. Some thoughts: The answers depend on the listeners. I sincerely hope that fans who want to spend hundreds of dollars feel like they got their money’s worth to hear Pete and Roger wheeze their way through Quadrophenia. My standard is that rockers should quit once they cross the “cringe” threshold. I just bought the Jack Bruce and His Big Blues Band: Live 2012 disc, and he (no surprise) doesn’t have the pipes anymore. But the man still knows what to do with the bass. I’ll pay money to hear that.
This may sound self-indulgent, but I relate songs in my music library to certain times in my life. When the original artist slaughters the song because her or his talents have eroded, it degrades my memory of the song and cheapens the memory of the time in question.
Eventually, we have to come back to Ian Hunter: “Rock and roll’s a loser’s game/It mesmerizes and I can’t explain/The reasons for the sights and for the sounds.”
Actually, Townshend can still play interesting guitar. It’s not necessarily what he played 40 years ago, but that’s ok, actually. And I’m someone who thought that Kenny Jones was one of the best drummers around, and a fitting replacement for Moon. Moon was a great drummer, but he wasn’t the only drummer who mattered. So if The Who do a tour, I’m tempted. But less so for Quadrophenia, I have to say. I just want to see them again. And I’d be surprised if there’s another guitarist there, frankly. This isn’t Pink Floyd.
And I agree about Thompson and Beck. If Jan Akkerman ever makes it to the US again, prepare to be entranced.
Remember when we thought John Mayall was, like, old? He and Peter Green did a tour a couple of years ago that I missed, but if they ever do it again, I’m there. I know some people live forever, but apparently some don’t. When I saw Mayall decades ago at Fillmore East, Mick Taylor was his guitarist. This would be after Clapton, Beck and Green. I agree on Clapton too, btw–Layla was Duane’s work, and Clapton never approached those peaks again.
And Jim, of course you’re right. I don’t want them to. I have no interest in seeing the Stones again, but Mayall? Beck? Townshend? Absolutely. I see Thompson every time he hits London, which is usually once or twice a year, and as long as he’s playing and singing, I’ll be there.
I take it back about the second guitarist–there’s one lurking in the background here at their 2005 performance at Live 8. Daltry’s chops are gone, obv., but Townshend’s still got his.
Wufnik, thank you for reading and commenting. I don’t run into Richard Thompson fans that often. The first time I saw him was on the “Mock Tudor” tour, and the music was great. So were his remarks to the audience. His humor reminds me of Lyle Lovett. I’ve seen him twice since then, and he’s on my “whenever he comes around go see him” list. He’s a seriously underrated guitarist.
As for your seeing Mick Taylor with Mayall, well, you’re a lucky person. I think it was Jim Booth a couple of my posts ago who said Taylor made the Stones a better band. So true. After I figured out Keef wasn’t playing all the leads on Sticky Fingers, I never listened to that album the same way again.
Yes, I agree. I always thought the Stones went downhill starting with Taylor’s departure and Wood’s arrival.
There’s another issue here too, btw, and it relates to Jim’s point about why should these guys (or any musician, for that matter) retire? It relates to an artist and his work. Why shouldn’t an artist revisit his (or her) work? Especially after 40 years? Maybe Townshend has a whole new take on it. If he does, I’d like to hear it. It will probably outrage a number of fans. Bit it’s his prerogative–he wrote the damn thing, after all. Now, I don’t know if he does, but I’m curious. Of course, maybe you’re right, and it’s not that complicated, and will end up being two old guys looking slightly foolish. But still, I’d like to find out.
Oh, and on RT–that was a really good tour. One of his best albums. A great album by any standard, actually.
Okay, guys (specifically Wufnik and Pat) – as far as guitarists in that RT vein, I lost mine a short while back (God rest you, Bert Jansch). But I don’t think anyone has addressed my key question – WHY should rock guys have to quit when guys in other genres don’t? I agree – Roger’s pipes are gone (as are Plant’s, Jagger’s and – get ready to gasp given my own biases – Macca’s). Players, of course are different animals – Jack Bruce can’t sing, but holy moly he can still play like hell. Same for PG, RT, and others. I, unlike some, am undecided on EC – I haven’t been impressed with Page much over the last 20 years or so – Clapton has been better, I think. Beck, of course, is a god sent to us from planet guitar….But I’ve seen guys in EVERY other genre who shouldn’t have been playing either. And I’ve seen those who can still get it done. But it’s only in rock where I see so much snarkiness about those who are running on fumes (I’m looking at you, Keef). There’s an explanation for that. I’d like to hear your takes….One more thing – Wuf, I agree about Kenny Jones – damned fine drummer – and Zak Starkey is no slouch….
Jim, I’ve been listening for the past few days to Jack Bruce and His Big Blues Band: Live 2012, and you’re right: The man can still play. That glorious voice has receded, but what the hell: I’m willing to cut him a break after he endured that near-fatal liver transplant. And he’s about 900 years old, too.
I don’t know about other genres enough to answer your question in the same vein as your rock question. That’s because I don’t know how audiences react to, say, a jazz guy. I know Sonny Rollins is still recording, and he’s 80—but I haven’t heard enough of his early stuff to know if he can still bring it or not. And to tell the truth, I haven’t figured jazz out, really. And it’s the same with country. The blues? I’ve seen Buddy Guy twice in the last two years, and he still can play, but at each show, his stage patter was exactly the same (“Here’s a song my friend Eric Clapton wrote …”) Have a seat, Buddy.
But rock? Rock’s just about all I have left that can make me feel young again, if only for a moment. I associate a specific event with the song “L.A. Woman.” I remember using J. Geils lyrics to try to charm a girl in college. I remember exactly how I felt after listening to “NSU” on the first live Cream record. It altered my ears forever. Steppenwolf’s “Born to Be Wild” turned me into a rocker. And I could tell you a half-hour’s worth of stories about Lou Reed’s Rock ‘n’ Roll Animal LP.
But to turn against to the miscreants at the center of his argument, Mr. Daltrey and Mr. Townshend, they electrified my younger life. Who among us has never air-guitared Townshend’s windmilling at the end of “Won’t Get Fooled Again”? Who among us has never in his cups felt like “Behind Blue Eyes” was written just for him? Do Entwistle’s opening bass riffs in “The Real Me” make your toenails fall out? They still do for me. And now these geezers, long in tooth and short in eardrums, voices shot, want to take the stage and pollute those memories for me. When I think of the Stones now, I don’t see the menace of their balls-out “Gimme Shelter” or “Sympathy for the Devil.” Instead, I see Mick as Gumby on speed and Keef as a human cough. Remember when the Stones mattered? Remember when you just *had* to dance to songs like “Bitch”? Now I just shake my head.
So with rockers, Jim, it’s personal. They want to fk with my memories and the soundtrack that went with them. The Stones and the Who and all the other bands on the Geezers of Rock agenda are like the latter day Muhammad Ali. As a youth, Ali boasted, “I shook up the world!” and he did. And at the end of his career, he was being beaten senseless by palookas I’ll bet neither of us could name.
I watch film of Jimi at Monterey Pop. He was so young, so beautiful, so fkd up on acid, but man, could he play. And he’ll always be that young man to me. Deep in my heart and my head, I like to pretend I’m not *that* old. And then Keef cackles and coughs, his face as wrinkled as an elephant’s trunk, and I’m reminded of a line, a terribly haunting line, from David Baerwald: “Maybe I ain’t all that young anymore.” All those fossils of rock make me feel old, so in return, I’ll make fun of them. That’s the best I can do at evening the score.
We’ve been hearing the “geezer rock” complaints for decades now. I remember how The Who and The Rolling Stones were questioned/ridiculed for touring in 1989 when they were in their forties. I understand the ageism directed at classic rockers, but I don’t entirely agree with it. Since it’s beginning in the 1950s rock music has been a youth oriented genre. So what do you do if your music has its basis in youth, but you’re no longer young? Well, if you’re Led Zeppelin you stop and preserve your legacy in a 1970s time capsule. And there’s something to be said about that. The Who (and The Rolling Stones) have gone a different direction. They’ve chosen to continue touring and celebrating the music they created when they were young. And this bothers some critics. “How dare they!” “Please stop. You’re almost 70!” “You’re tarnishing your image!” “It’s not The Who without Keith Moon and John Entwistle!” (Well, is it The Rolling Stones without Brian Jones, Mick Taylor, or Bill Wyman?) I say rock on, as long as you still deliver the goods. And The Who most definitely still deliver a great live rock show. Better than most “current” rock groups. And that brings up another point. There really aren’t that many current rock groups of note – it’s not the dominant musical genre it used to be. So if you like live rock music, you owe it to yourself to see The Who live because they’re the best at it. Of course it’s not the same as it was in the 1970s but it’s still damn good. I have more of a problem with classic rockers recording new crappy music. And The Rolling Stones are guilty of this. Their last great album was 1981′s “Tattoo You”. Everything since has been middling at best. Nevertheless, they’ve continued to record mediocre albums so they would have an excuse to tour, where the real money is made. The Who essentially stopped recording in 1982 (2006′s “Endless Wire” notwithstanding) but continued to tour. Does the absence of new material from The Who while they continue to earn a living playing live make them charlatans? I don’t think so, but we’ve been conditioned to believe that there is only one formula to follow in rock – record, tour, repeat. The Beatles continued to record new music after they stopped touring. The Who have taken the inverse approach.
In conclusion, if the shows sucked, people wouldn’t go, and The Who tours would stop. But the shows are good and thousands of people are entertained and exposed to legendary music by living legends in the process. Pete, Roger, please don’t stop.
Hi, Fraz. Thank you for reading and commenting. I agree with much of what you say—so much that it would take up too much time to list each point.
But I don’t think your “if the shows sucked, people wouldn’t go” conclusion is true musically. People go see The Stones or The Who for the spectacle, not for the musicianship. I’ve got no problems at all with someone wanting to go see the Stones purely for the event’s sake, but I’m among those who won’t pay triple-figure ticket prices to see Keef, Mick, Pete or Roger impersonate their younger selves. And they’ve made enough money from me over the years that I think I’ve earned the right to say, “Enough, already.”
Is criticizing them ageism, to use your word? I don’t think so. I saw John Mayall last summer, and he’s what—78, 79? If I were an ageist, I wouldn’t have gone. But Mayall still delivers the goods. He still sounds like he cares. He has surrounded himself with new musicians to push him harder. My beef with the geezers isn’t with their age.
There are plenty of musicians who have been around for decades but have continued to grow as artists: Costello, Bowie, Peter Wolf, and Graham Parker among them. There are plenty of more contemporary bands that deserve my attention: Constantines, Band of Skulls, Arcade Fire, Black Keys, Black Dub, The National. Singer/songwriters like Aimee Mann and Neko Case are on my musical radar screen. Those are the shows where I’ll pay my money and open my ears. I read recently (it may have been on this blog) that the Stones are just a cover band of their old selves. I’m out there today looking for new originals.