by Jamie
Rereading one of my favorite books about rock music recently (‘Britpop! Cool Britannia and the Spectacular Demise of English Rock’ by John Harris) I was struck by a wonderfully perceptive quote from Jarvis Cocker that gets to the heart of the matter just four sentences. It almost seems like it could be a thesis to this entire Series as well:
“When British pop is great, it’s great because of the personality in the music. The sense of the romantic in the everyday. Ray Davies finding the poetic in the sun going down over Waterloo Station. You don’t get that much in American rock.”
So with that today, I offer what I consider to be the greatest Pop band Britain has ever produced: the Ray Davis led Kinks.
Saying this one then realizes how difficult, and perhaps arbitrary it is to nominate a single album from their catalog today. It would just barely speak on the albums brilliance and more about my personal preference. But, as I said last week all great bands have a stretch in their career of about 3 to 5 years where nothing is released but supreme masterpieces, and the Kinks run, from roughly 1966 to 1971 is second to none. Just consider the albums in order: Face to Face, Something Else by the Kinks, The Village Green Preservation Society, Arthur (Or the Decline and Fall of the British Empire), Lola vs. the Powerman & the Money-Go-Round, Pt. 1, and finally their most underrated album Muswell Hillbillies (there is also untold riches in the singles from this era as well). From there there would be a smattering of high points (sometimes it’s just a single track like ‘Celluloid Heroes’, and sometimes it’s a complete album, like Misfits from 1978) but never did they reach that point consistently again. And, this is more then understandable and perfectly fine, that run is perhaps the greatest ever (and you could even go a little earlier if you wanted to as something like Kinks Kontroversy from 1965 is great too). The fact that this era also coincided with a late 1965 ban by the US Government that stipulated the band not be allowed to enter the country that wasn’t lifted until late 1969 meant that they were deprived of the largest market in the world and their most brilliant period would never be given its full due. In an era of such social and musical change a voice as articulate and perceptive as Davies’ would have surely been welcomed. Instead, the Kinks are always viewed as slightly lesser then the other titans of the form, always viewed primary by a rabid cult for what they really were.
Today, I’ll be picking for discussion their 1969 concept record Arthur (Or the Decline and Fall of the British Empire), but I’d like to make special comment that I could just as easily be talking about Muswell Hillbillies had the coin toss came out oppositely as they are neck and neck as my favorite from the band.

Arthur opens with the bluesy strum shuffle of ‘Victoria’, which points that while Arthur may be similar to their earlier effort (that many probably thought there’d be no way of topping) Village Green in concept, it was an altogether more rocking affair. ‘Yes Sir, No Sir’ opens with a military cadence and expounds the sometime lack of self worth so found in the working class. It becomes apparent here that this is a chief concern of Davies throughout this record, a class struggle is further articulated into a struggle within the individual, an individual that’s been shown nothing but ill will his entire life and how he (or she) can rise above this for real change. Will he continue to ask permission for such simple acts as breathing from his ‘superiors’ or will he take some semblance of control. Davies gives it the added historical relevance of an entire Imperialist culture for added measure.
The context grows into ‘Some Mother’s Son’, which is easily one of Rock’s defining anti-war statements. A generation later Paul Weller would see the same story for his similar ‘Little Boy Soldiers’ (Setting Sons) but here is the original in all its melancholy timeless beauty. Its vivid imagery makes no connections to any specific conflict thus making it about all modern armed conflicts. ‘Drivin” then seemingly lessens the mood, but therein is the brilliance, as the ‘troubled world around us’ is the specific reason the charms of turning to an open road and just motoring with a loved one is such a desired idea. Dave, the Kinks great guitarist, and Ray’s brother, offers one of his many exciting and instantly recognizable guitar breaks.
‘Brainwashed’ and ‘Australia’ work in tandem to point towards what a more nailed down concept would have sounded and been concerned with (Arthur was originally set to be a TV piece as well). Both songs feature the Kinks sounding like they did a few years prior— a band that executed the greatest examples of British sloppy drumming and garage sound around.
‘Shangri-La’ comes next, and for my money is one of the Kinks truly great tracks, if not my all-time favorite. It turns the album from masterpiece status to status as one of Rock’s true landmark records. It’s achingly bittersweet and poignant, the most beautiful punch in the gut you’ve ever heard. It begins in a stark sarcastic tone, about a retired man who has been spit out from a hard life spent doling towards a twilight where he figured he’d have at least something meager to look forward too. Davies understandably cuts all this down, and around 2:50 the rest of the band joins in to thoroughly trash this culturally respected idea down to nothing but a sedate roll on the old rocking chair. It’s such a powerful track that one doesn’t know to cry tears of sadness or have their eye’s squeeze out tears in the name of righteous anger.
‘Mr. Churchill Says’ continues the song cycle away from Australia and more towards Britain looking eastward upon Australia, and the role the mother country must play going forward. ‘She’s Bought a Hat Like Princess Marina’ continues the Anglocentric portion of the record, and indulges with several new musical textures.
‘Young and Innocent Days’ makes a great argument as the best straightforward pop song on the record. Midtempo ballads had by now been almost been a market cornered by the Kinks (what else can one say when you think about it, this is the band that had offered ‘Waterloo Sunset’, ‘Sunny Afternoon’, ‘Well Respected Man’, ‘This Time Tomorrow’, ‘Dandy’, ‘Village Green’, ‘Animal Farm’, ‘Big Sky etc in the previous few years), and ‘Days’ does nothing to disappoint. Again, a sad longing hangs over much of the affair, but it’s an epic beauty as well making countless plays virtually impossible to resist.
It’s then no wonder that ‘Nothing to Say’ is arranged as it is, uptempo and quite bubbly. The entire band seems in great spirits, there is a rolling piano, Davies offers several vocal ideas and cadences, and the drums remain at their bar room beat best. ‘Arthur’ furthers the upturn in musicality as the album comes to a close. Lyrically it’s wonderfully concise and full of summarization. It’s essentially the entire albums story retold as an epilogue on clarity. Arthur was a swell fellow, and in this frank matter of factness one can either feel happy and joyful or incredibly sad. It’s quite up to you how you take life no?
“Arthur was born just a plain simple man
In a plain simple working class position
Though the world was hard and its ways were set
He was young and he had so much ambition.”
It can crush or it can come and go. As Ray says, “Someone loves you, and wants to help you / Don’t you know it?” In an episode of the old UK show called ‘My Generation’, a show where each episode was devoted to a classic English musical act that some great soul has uploaded a good number of episodes into youtube, Ray Davies himself closes the Kink’s episode with such a perfect and melancholy tribute: “I’ve always been wary of doing interviews, because my work is better then I am. I just don’t live up to it. I’d love to be as good as ‘Waterloo Sunset’.”
(it’s also worth mentioning as long as this album is the subject, is that the deluxe remaster added additional tracks and B-sides from the albums sessions and one is really foolish to not be aware of something like say, ‘This Man He Weeps Tonight’ or the weirdo beautiful melody contained within ‘Mr. Shoemaker’s Daughter’. Bands kill for tracks like these while the great ones stick them on B sides or in vaults unreleased for decades)
Happy listening, see you next week.





In order to find out additional information just follow this link to:
In order to donate just follow this link to:
This is arguably my favorite Kinks record. “Young and Innocent Days” and “Some Mother’s Son” rank up there with Davies’ best songwriting, which in my book put them up there with the best of anyone’s songwriting, and “Victoria” and “Yes Sir No Sir” are also absolute masterpieces. I’ve often wondered about the telefilm this album was supposed to soundtrack. Part of me wishes to see it, but I also know that it could only fail to live up to the greatness of the album.
Well, I’m with you in thinking it would probably disappoint, but these are incredibly strong narrative songs and a pretty compelling story, so who knows. I’ve always thought the 1985 film RETURN TO WATERLOO to be pretty fantastic (especially in several places, and many don’t know that a young Roger Deakins shot the thing), and many of those songs don’t have near the power of these, nor the scope.
Glad you also find this to perhaps be your favorite Kinks record. Davies is a brilliant man.
Arthur was always a little underrated (by me) in the past. I think mostly because of the slightly strained, dirge-like, wobbly bits on Yes Sir, Mothers Son and Shangri-La. But like the way the Kinks will NEVER become dated (partially due to their ‘under exposure’ during this period), Arthur keeps kinda resurrecting itself in no small part because of little gems like Innocent Days, Drivin’, and Nothin’ to Say.
Yeah, so many consider it a masterpiece, but I’ve seen a surge in Village Green the most in recent years often at the expense of Muswell and Arthur. Not sure why this is, but perhaps you could be right and it can just keep ‘resurrecting itself’.
Arthur was the first Kinks album I ever heard and purchased. I remember getting it for $1 at a Salvation Army with Grievous Angel by Gram Parsons (what a day!!!!). The beginning of a long and fruitful listening association with one of the great British groups of the 60′s. I actually prefer Village and Something Else these days, but Arthur is certainly top tier.
I love all of the Kinks albums – including the “rock musicals” of the Seventies, which I think are brilliant, both in terms of lyrics (in my opinion Ray Davies has no equals as a lyricist) and music – but Arthur continues to hold the top position, with VGPS just behind. And though I’m spoiled for choice, my very favourite song of all is Shangri-la. The song in itself has a beautiful melody, and I love the shifts in theme, but the “class consciousness” is what struck me the most. An insightful view into middle class insecurity blended with complacency and gratification with material comforts. And though it refers to a particular historical period, the general concept is timeless, as is much of the Kinks music.
What can I say Michelle, you have great taste. While ‘Shangri-La’ is a song I’ve always said can make me cry every time I listen to if I let it, the same could also be said of ‘Oklahoma USA’ on Muswell Hillbillies. That’s an absolute stunner too.
I’m with you on all their musicals in the 70′s too, better then most realize.
Yes indeed Jamie. “Shangra-La” is absolutely one of the greatest single tracks ever written during the full run of the rock era. I would actually go as far as to say it would for me rank in the Top 5. And yes, you are quite right to assert here that it’s inclusion on this record turns a great album into one of the all-time masterpieces. While it’s true that both “Lola vs. the Powerman” and “Muswell Hillbillies” are arguably as great as “Arthur” I’m inclined to give the slight edge to “Arthur” which showcases some of the greatest writing of the rock era. “Victoria” is another I’d rank among my favorite songs, and all things considered I would concede this album is probably as great as any single album released by the Beatles. “Shangra-La” and a few others here are also included on the later “Kinks Kronicles” album.
You are really at the top of your game with this essay.
I think Village Green is their most ‘Beatles’ like record, and also equals anything by the Fab Four as well. The title track on that one about “Donald Duck and draft beer” is a supremely great pop song.
And since I mention it as just a B-Side here’s ‘This Man He Weeps Tonight’, for anyone who might not be familiar. Just sublime.
The reputation of VILLAGE GREEN has gone up in recent years, I completely agree with that estimation. It’s a great album too, and it does have the Beatle sound, but I still favor ARTHUR, MUSWELL and LOLA. Great B track here!!!
Animal Farm is my favorite on Village and perhaps all of Ray Davis.
Yep, great one. The song “Alcohol” on MUSSWELL HILLBILLIES is another Kinks classic.
‘Animal Farm’ is definitely top 5 for me, and my personal favorite from that great record.
Christ.
Fantastic!
As far as your assertion that the Kinks are ‘the greatest pop group’ Britain has ever produced, I am very very close to you on that statement. I’ll go with:
1. Beatles
2. Who
3. Kinks
4. Smiths
5. Stones
I’d have to separate as I do above into a pop then a rock category. But if I didn’t it would be something like,
1.) the Who/Pete Townshend
2.) the Kinks
3.) Paul Weller (the Jam, the Style Council, solo)
4.) The Clash
5.) the Smiths/Morrissey
6.) Pulp/Jarvis Cocker
7.) the Beatles/Lennon
8.) Manic Street Preachers
9.) Depeche Mode
10.) Joy Division
Then in the next 10 you’d start to get bands that I still adore, the Damned, Wire, New Order, Siouxie Sioux and the Banshees, Dusty Springfield, New Order, Small Faces, My Bloody Valentine, Jesus and the Mary Chain, the Skids, etc.
I’d also say that you’d get to 35 or 40 before you’d be into bands that aren’t absolute masters of the highest order and that what separates #3 (or whatever) from #18 is minimal and almost entirely personal taste.
Great to see you have The Who on top there! And yes The Clash deserve a high spot too. Your listings put my modest one to shame, but your remarkable knowledge of this music and period is second to none.
You aren’t a big Stones guy Jamie,is that right?
No, I’m not.
They’d be in the 11-20 range. Still masterpiece status. I find much of their content to oscillate between misogynistic, druggy voyeuristic, to crass. Plenty of good to great stuff too, just not my cuppa.
Oh, and I misspoke, at 10. I’d have Gang of Four, then Joy Division at 11. Though I’m sure if I keep thinking about it I’d keep changing my mind… as I now think Elvis Costello needs to be top 10!
Well, that’s fair enough.
Any sane person would have Wire in the top ten British groups ever lol….
Get with the program guys!!!!!!
How are we measuring “Greatest” here? Favorite? Most influential?
Jon, I always think it’s a combination of these, but everyone of course can establish their own ground rules.
@ Sam- No I get it. I do, but if I was making a list of Favorite and Greatest, it would be a totally different list. I would have Oasis in my favorite top 5, but I wouldn’t be able to convince anyone that they were one of the 5 “greatest” bands from the UK ever.
Yes, Wire right there as I said Maurizio, obviously my larger then normal Gang of Four love comes into play here.
Jon, Oasis might not even crack the BritPop top 5 (Pulp, Suede, Manic Street Preachers, and Blur are all probably easily better. And I personally like The Auteurs and Beautiful South more then Oasis) so it’s pretty hard to put them that high.
Also, for awhile I debated ending this Series with a list in order of bands/artists but I’ve trashed it as ‘too wank’. I think a top 1000 British songs would be incredibly more worthwhile and fun, but, damn who has the time for that?
Jamie,
That’s my point though. If I’m making a “favorite” list, I can do anything I want. If I’m making a “greatest” list, I would probably put bands on there that aren’t particularly my favorites but I respect them because of their output or whatever etc. That was why I was asking, Jamie is your list your favorites?
It’s 50/50 (Subjective/Objective). You can assert anything you want you just need to argue for it…
Yeah and that’s what I’m saying, I’m not arguing for Oasis for a top 5 spot. That would be stupid, but they are a personal fave. Same for The Stone Roses. I would have them in my top 5, but there is not case for them really being there other than personal preference. Help me understand then your reasoning for putting 6 bands ahead of The Beatles.
They are all better acts, period. The Beatles are great and had about 5-7 masterpieces but the ones I put over them had more. Simple.
As I understand your reluctance to not put bands over top of others that don’t ‘deserve’ it. Many would claim I’ve done that here, but partially this Series intent was to remove the air of superiority the Beatles now have. But I have objectively judged them, it’s why you don’t see The Housemartins or the Skids, or Adam Ant above them. They’re all acts I listen to more, but I judge them fairly.
I might be wrong here though, but outside of personal opinion, I don’t see any way of designating that distinction of “masterpieces” or “better act” which you speak of. There is nothing objective about this from what I can see and your assertion that they’re all better acts than the Beatles is purely opinion.
I’m fine with opinons though Jamie. I just don’t see how you are able to look at all this objectively. I’m not the expert on this by a long shot.
Well is your whole premise that is “Why aren’t the Beatles number #1?!” objective or can be objectively defined? Absolutely not, it seems I’m between a rock and a hard place of the echo chamber that’s put them there and you before the conversation even starts no?
Jamie,
Let’s step back a bit. I didn’t say The Beatles should be number 1. I said why are are there 6 bands ahead of The Beatles and help me understand. You said it was based on 50/50 subjective and objective.
“It’s 50/50 (Subjective/Objective). You can assert anything you want you just need to argue for it…”
Right so your “argument” was that the others are “better acts” and had more “masterpieces”. These are opinions. I hear all subjective arguments. I don’t hear any objective arguments.
I honestly don’t care where you put the Beatles, but you said you had to argue for whatever you wanted and I want to hear more. Sorry I didn’t make this list and wouldn’t even try.
I mean I love The Clash more than anyone. I love them more than The Beatles, but they hardly had 5-7 albums, let alone masterpieces.
Sorry put this in the wrong spot below.
Let’s try a different approach.
Here’s a more objective way to do this but who has the time?
33% of score based on number one hits or albums and rank accordingly (objective)
33% of score based on musicianship or live act quality (subjective, maybe objective too) and rank accordingly
33% of score based on personal preference and rank accordingly
Add up all the scores and come up with a final ranking. This is just an example. Sorry I’m a numbers guy. This doesn’t even address “social impact” or something along those lines that probably should be in the argument.
When we are saying ‘masterpieces’ here we are saying albums, right?
Sam that was my assumption.
Yes, I think I was (referring to albums) but I suppose in this medium it could also be individual tracks (45s or singles), EPs, or bootlegs.
OK, I will list the albums that I consider ‘Beatles’ masterpieces, though I understand this will put Jamie on the spot to compare and contrast.
The White Album
Revolver
Abbey Road
Rubber Soul
Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band
Magical Mystery Tour
Beatles For Sale
Let It Be
Sam I don’t dispute these 5
The White Album
Revolver
Abbey Road
Rubber Soul
Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band
Indeed Jon, those are the core five. I added BEATLES FOR SALE, as I’ve always felt this was a supremely underrated album; MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR brings together some of the greatest singles the group ever wrote (Penny Lane, Strawberry Fields Forever, I Am the Walrus, The Fool on the Hill) and LET IT BE is a flawed masterpiece that includes what I believe is John’s most beautiful lyrics ever, Across the Universe.
Sam, Beatles For Sale is my second favorite Beatles album behind The White Album. I don’t need any convincing there. It doesn’t nearly get the consensus the others get, which is disappointing.
Wow Jon, you like it that much? Nice. It’s true that it’s the one that always gets short shrift.
Sam, I certainly wouldn’t be able to convince anyone that it’s better than those others, but it’s just a personal thing.
I wouldn’t overly dispute any of your choices either Sam, but therein lays the problem for many in these type of discussions. If a flawed, somewhat uneven record like MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR (my father’s favorite Beatles album btw) is considered (I would for the same reason you do) then all eccentric, uneven but still great albums by other acts fall in. Queen’s JAZZ, Pete Townshend’s WHITE CITY and the Who’s WHO ARE YOU, Jethro Tull’s THICK AS A BRICK, etc. Suddenly bands/acts jump from having 2 masterpieces to 5. I have no problem with this of course as I always err on the side of inclusion when pop music is being discussed, but it would lead me to bump The Smiths/Morrissey over the Beatles… (for the record though, I think HELP! is a masterpiece too)
Then there is another drawback I have towards the Beatles that many view as a strength, the number of songwriters contributing. It gives many of their albums an increased number of great songs, but it hurts the albums tonal ideological qualities (the most glaring I always speak on is on HELP!, you go from “You’ve Got to Hide Your Love Away” stone cold brilliance, but then it’s buttressed up against lines like this elsewhere: “And we’d just met, she’s just the girl for me / And I want all the world to see we’ve met”). The Who, for example, as great as they are were nothing but a Townshend backing band, same for the Smiths, or the Jam and their principal writer, making me have no problem with adding Townshend’s entire life output into one slot since conceptually these albums are all coming from the same philosophical perspective. While Lennon, if added to the Beatles here would bump them higher as I feel he made 4 or 5 masterpieces himself, but alas he’s only usually 50% or so of any Beatle release. It’s just an interesting aspect to also consider that I do in things like this.
You offer a great argument, backed by all kinds of expertise. I won’t dispute what you are saying here.
BTW, I positively LOVE Thick as a Brick!!!!
I actually recently bought it on CD, and I don’t know why. I used to smoke pot in HS a fair amount, though I have not in about 6 or 8 years, and that was one of my favorite albums to do that to. I had it on record and considered it a strange, overly indulgent masterpiece. I was thinking about it the other day (I have no idea why) so I picked it up. I still like it, but it’s pretty fucking absurd for the most part… which you have to give in to to see Ian Anderson’s manic brilliance.
Yep, I know some others who went down that road in high school with it, and agree it’s absurd, But it’s soaring lyricism and ravishing melodies really do show the brilliance of Ian Anderson. A PASSION PLAY is even more absurd, but I love it too. ‘The Hare who lost his spectacles’ is a hoot.
There was a rush along the Fulham Road.
There was a hush in the Passion Play.
“They are all better acts, period. The Beatles are great and had about 5-7 masterpieces but the ones I put over them had more. Simple.”
Wait The Clash certainly did not have more than 5-7 masterpieces? Also if your going to add solo recordings both Lennon and Harrison has great albums after The Beatles ended. Some of these artists also lasted longer. What about a group like Joy Division that only exists for a short period of time and then disappears for whatever reason? I’ll take Unknown Pleasures and Closer over anything by Pulp or The Smiths. Longevity, especially for rock n’ roll is not always the best determining factor. Your seemingly objective stance in the above statement is not shared by me.
Well Maurizio, that’s probably why it’s my list and not yours, lol. While it is important to note this as well which I plainly state:
I’d also say that you’d get to 35 or 40 before you’d be into bands that aren’t absolute masters of the highest order and that what separates #3 (or whatever) from #18 is minimal and almost entirely personal taste.
It does come down to a weirdo thing like ‘degree of masterpiece’. Which you seem to fully understand with someone like Joy Division (their two albums are better then say Queens’ 4 masterpieces or so). I regard the Clash on similar grounds.
As for counting and not counting certain solo acts read through the rest of the thread it’s touched on a bit.
And, god damn it. I forgot Mark E. Smith’s The Fall.
I do think ranking bands like this is quite a bit wanky, songs are incredibly more workable like this. But god damn Sam and his need to list suckered me out!
Let’s try a different approach.
Here’s a more objective way to do this but who has the time?
33% of score based on number one hits or albums and rank accordingly (objective)
33% of score based on musicianship or live act quality (subjective, maybe objective too) and rank accordingly
33% of score based on personal preference and rank accordingly
Add up all the scores and come up with a final ranking. This is just an example. Sorry I’m a numbers guy. This doesn’t even address “social impact” or something along those lines that probably should be in the argument.
Yeah, this is all fine and probably how I subconsciously ranked my list.
I’m not offering more specifics as this thread simply doesn’t contain enough space, my reasons are explained week in and week out for over a year now (and will continue for another)!
And, if you read my piece on the Yardbirds I actually go into some of this sort of thinking….
Fair enough sir.
Here is how close our thought processes are:
Here is where I justifiably judge The Beatles so poorly. Pure visceral sonic thrill. It’s a thing I think every band needs to be classified as great. Yes it’s not the only criteria (compare it to the old criteria for judging Masters in painting, such as those employed at the Accademia di San Luca or the Academy of Art in Florence in the mid 1600′s, an ‘objective’ attempt at judging art: where color, composition, drama, historical relevance, accuracy etc, were each judged separately on a scale of 1 to 100 with the highest scores going to the ‘true’ masters. Now I understand it’s academic to the point that it zaps the fun out of viewing and appreciating art [but they're a hoot to look at now, as an unquestioned master of today like Caravaggio scored embarrassingly low, while many lesser names popular at the time place very high]), but hear me out. Imagine one for Rock/Pop music. What’s worthy criteria (which says as much about you I suppose)? I’d offer a few easy ones: lyrics, skill (separated into songwriting craft/construction and instrument dexterity), visual acumen (live, television, album covers), and finally live presence/improvisation (and for fun I’d put things like subversiveness and ‘other’— conversational abilities, style. etc as things I personally think are important to being a great pop band but you don’t have to agree). This last one, that really is the true essence and power of rock and roll (and I’d weigh it in grading accordingly), The Beatles would score terribly low in by most objective people’s opinions. True, they score as high as anyone in several other categories, but the fact remains, during their peak creative time they ceased to be a live act (along with the fact that their albums never really contained visceral, raw, or/and sonic moments). Which, while coincided with the pop/rock medium becoming the explosive live experiment we so famously know today, hurts them. In short, The Beatles proved to be a great 4 speed, in an era where 5 and 6 speeds began dominating the motor ways.
http://wondersinthedark.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/getting-people-over-the-beatles-a-series-examining-the-greats-of-british-and-uk-pop-music-part-12/
The problem is that post was almost a year ago and you might have been around then…
Yep actually just read it and it goes along the lines of what we were just talking about, you’re right and explains things more. Nice piece.
Haha you’re right though, I was not around then!
For me I base the worth of a band/artist on only two factors… albums and (to a lesser and even more subjective reasoning) innovation. Live performances mean nothing after father time intervenes. I said something similar about MC5 and The Stooges about a month back. A great live band unfortunately gets lost in time regardless of if they are immortalized on tape. No “live” recordings ever really capture the full extent of a band’s prowess on a stage. Most of the time (especially for groups in The Beatles era) you have to take someone’s subjective opinion as fact. I’ve seen live footage of MC5 tearing up a stage (and imo seemingly greater than The Who) to epic proportions. There are stories of Lynyrd Skynyrd’s prowess on stage opening for The Who that basically wiped the floor with the headliners thus forcing Townshend and his manager to basically pink slipped them. Are Skynyrd better than The Who? Maybe they were live, but certainly not in the one area we can observe at this point…. albums. As time marches forward, all we have left is the recordings to truly judge. In some ways this is unfair, but its the only viable and concrete evidence to determine these opinions. Especially considering The Beatles had to basically give up touring relatively early in their career due to screaming fans what else can they be judged on?
Frankly, I’ve never believed those Skynyrd tales (as I’ve never heard them corroborated from anyone outside their inner camp) but that was 1975 and the Who were mired in trying to play to backing tapes of QUADROPHENIA’s complex arrangements and the technology just wasn’t there. And Moonie wasn’t the same 6 years later. It would be like saying right now if Mooney Suzuki (who play brainless shit essentially) opened for the Who they’d own them and be better. I’d say no shit as Daltry and Townshend are almost 70. It’s like the old Ty Cobb joke from the 1940′s or 1950′s where someone asked him what he’d hit in that era when pitchers were supposedly weaker and he said, “Only .290.” To which the questioner seemed baffled as his hitting prowess was legendary. So then Cobb humorously added, “bare in mind I’m 68 years old now!” (or whatever he was at the time).
Oh and I’m not sure how the Beatles are even in this discussion as they didn’t even play live during their important period. And if the live performance is subject to certain irregularities you note, what about studio technological advancements? that’s also not a level playing field, at a certain point some degree of give and take needs to happen, which I think my long Yardbirds excerpt begins to move us towards.
“Frankly, I’ve never believed those Skynyrd tales (as I’ve never heard them corroborated from anyone outside their inner camp) but that was 1975 and the Who were mired in trying to play to backing tapes of QUADROPHENIA’s complex arrangements and the technology just wasn’t there. And Moonie wasn’t the same 6 years later.”
You may be right, but then again all that stuff is lost in time now. The best (and only) way to really understand the greatness of The Who at this point is through recordings. How do we really know when Monnie slipped? Can we ever truly figure out exactly when The Who lost a step live? Its all speculation now and the evidence has evaporated. Otherwise I do tend to agree with your assertion that those rednecks were probably embellishing their prowess on a stage to some degree lol…..
Well, frankly as a Who fundamentalist we actually can hear when Moonie slipped (AND it’s well documented in print). It was after Who’s Next was released and the Who became millionaires (also partially due to the hugely successful Tommy tours) and they took almost two years off (they no longer had to play regularly to pay debts). In the subsequent years of boredom as Moonie didn’t write or do anything but play drums live or in the studio or drink/do drugs when the Who returned to touring post QUADROPHENIA Moon was visibly different. In the remaining 5 years of his life they played less and he aged considerably due to massive wear and tear and poor upkeep. By the time WHO ARE YOU was set to be released (which he died shortly after release) Townshend was already angling to remove him because he couldn’t handle ‘Music Must Change’s slightly odd (6/8) time structures in the studio (the song on the album doesn’t really feature drums, but foot taps and other timing devices taken from Townshend’s professional demos).
The large biography about Keith called ‘Moon: The Life and Death of a Rock Legend’ by Tony Fletcher details all this quite brilliantly, especially his down time, and how it so wasted his talent (besides it’s a well written book, I highly recommend if you’ve never read it). Besides, he was a drummer, which is the exact instrument you need to remain somewhat fit to play.
Or, you could get a bunch of live bootlegs from their career (I have over 30) and just listen to them somewhat chronologically. He gets worse with time, and it’s pretty clear. I cherish the boots from 1969 where he (and they) play fills and parts as a whole that are just mind blowing.
_ _ _ _
Besides if were taking all these past first hand accounts out and removing them from the lore, shouldn’t we also remove the other data that also enhances much rock music that becomes dated or individualistic? Stuff like cultural and zeitgeist defining moves, lyrics, stances, etc? Doing this trashes relatively good bands (Jefferson Airplane, Janis Joplin, Happy Mondays, etc) that were so important to their time and place. Countless other examples exist.
If anything I’d agree with you to a degree, don’t take past hazy memories as everything OR as gold, but if there are enough corroborated testimonies pointing in a certain direction we can move forward. Plus, some of the larger bands do have well recorded gigs, the DVD of the Who at the Isle of Wight is one such example. That was never remembered as a startlingly great gig by their standards (rather it’s seen as typical of any given night) but I can say with some degree of certainty that the Beatles could have NEVER touched that live. Ringo and the lot just didn’t bring it.