something of a delayed review of the new album off of The Who, called Who, look you see, but so it goes. judging such things on the basis of sales, to be sure, would suggest that anything i have to say about the record will make little difference, for already it is shifting some significant volume.
interestingly enough, the delay is partially down to The Who themselves. for reasons that i shall mumble through, rather than visit a shop (usually HMV) on day of release (or close enough), circumstance, convenience and appeal saw me place an order online. whereas most bands and artists post (or "ship" if American) their records to the fans so that they arrive on the day of release, it is the way of The Who to have precisely f*** all of that business, with them instead only posting it on day of release. so, mine turned up on the Saturday. which, as they once sang, is all right for fighting.
yes, in respect of the last bit, i know it to be a (Sir) Elton song, but they did an absolutely boss cover of it on that Two Rooms set. worth looking out for, that one, especially for Kate Bush doing the best ever version of Rocket Man to exist, but that is not the album i wish to write of here.
right, then, what exactly do we have here? well, according to the sticker, this is the first studio album by The Who in 13 years, following as it does from 2006's decidedly underwhelming Endless Wire. and that was their first studio album for somewhere north of 20 years, but anyway. it did indeed just get an auto pilot purchase from me, purely because, well, it's The Who, isn't it.
my main point of interest here was hearing how this was an album by The Who when Roger Daltrey's (superb) solo album off of last year, As Long As I Have You, was not. whereas that was released and marketed as a Roger solo album, well, of the 11 (or was it 12) tracks on the record, 7 (seven) featured Pete Townshend on guitar. for those not up to date with such matters, Roger and Pete happen to be the only members of The Who proper still with us, although that is perhaps being a bit unfair on Kenny Jones.
yes, actually it is decidedly a record by The Who. the difference between this and the Daltrey solo is subtle, but significant. whereas Pete was simply performing to support Roger and do as he wished on As Long, here the real magic of The Who is at the forefront. the sound is that of two musicians pushing themselves to be at the forefront, the point of attention, the prominence and the most important to the listener. the utter, utter, ego motivated, rage and anger they drove into their art to outdo each other was what always made them stand out. sadly, of course, we now have just the two of them doing it. whereas when it was the four of them having a go it was like no other music, like no other love, but trust me these two do it just fine. you can only play the hand you are dealt.
why, then, did i "mail order" (bought off of internet) rather than day of release it down at HMV? my biggest reason, or excuse, at this stage is a simple lack of time. i knew there was next to no chance of me being near HMV anywhere close to the release date, so that was that. but, also, The Who are another band that have opted to revive the tape format, and as far as i am aware one could only get he record on tape (as well as CD) off of the website. so, that was a done deal.
no, i really don't get the revival of tape, but i enthusiastically embrace it. sure, when i was growing up, tape was freedom with music - you could listen to the vibes on the go, and it was easier to take a tape of an album round to a mate to listen to than it was the record. but, in terms of quality and feel, if we are honest tape was a means to an end - it was no vinyl or CD. i have bought more tapes (The Who, Ian Brown, Manics, Robbie Williams) in the last couple of years than i imagined that i would, which is to say more than one. but, if the bands i like are going to keep making them, then i shall purchase them.
that said, applause to The Who for doing a proper inlay for the cassette, rather that just shoving it out as cheaply as possible. one particular highlight of this is the presence of the much missed "hope taping is killing music" warning symbol.
before i leave the subject of tapes and return to The Who, yes - if anyone is paying attention, i still think Christmas With The Stone Roses by The Stone Roses would be an ace album, and having it released on cassette for Christmas 2020 would be most excellent, thank you.
how do i best describe this record? probably as what it is, a relatively straightforward 40 or so minutes or rock and roll, played by people who love rock and roll and just so happen to be among the greatest to ever have performed rock and roll. there really isn't a prevailing theme across all of the songs, for it certainly is not another go at one of them "rock opera" things what The Who are rather well known for.
in what way, exactly does one approach or comment on a new record by The Who? this is a band with a career, off and on, which goes north of fifty years. a band which has seemingly effortlessly (although appearances are not what they seem) delivered anthemic classic after great album, and also along the way showed that a live album can be as great and as important as any studio work in the form of Live At Leeds. my thinking is that one can only hold it up against what the band has said it should be.
let me start with Roger Daltrey's comments, then. i do not apologise for saying i start with Roger in the hope that he takes this as respect, and so i avoid getting punched (quite hard) in the face by him. channelling virtually every review of every Bowie release between 1983 and 2016, Roger has taken it upon himself to declare Who as "the best album by The Who since Quadrophenia". which is quite a weighted but obvious statement.
essentially what Roger is saying, then, is that Who somehow manages to be "better" than the 5 (five) albums attributed to the band, recorded and released between 1975 and 2006. nice one. of those records, By Numbers is nowhere near as bad as some make out, especially as it features Success Story. following that, Who Are You features Who Are You, so it is not a complete write off. the next two suffered not because Kenny Jones was on the drums (although Roger says different in his memoir), but rather people just weren't interested in a Moon free Who. admirably, in an interview thing with Ken Bruce (one of the last few actual proper presenters left on Radio 2), Kenny said "there was only ever meant to be one drummer for The Who, and that was Keith, not me". no matter how much grief or stick he gets for it, this is all the evidence required to show that Robert Plant has been absolutely right to try and leave Led Zeppelin in the past ever since Bonham died. and, as for Endless Wire, see the comment above.
it is important to clarify that Roger is not saying that Who is either as good as, or better than, Quadrophenia. there would be no sense in doing such. for a random figure, in the whole of recorded music, at best there are perhaps 40, maybe 50 albums which have been recorded by anyone since Quadrophenia came out that could get away with claims of being as good or better than that one.
with all of this in mind, then, yes, Roger Daltrey, as he is so prone to being, is absolutely correct and right in his declaration. the music on the Who album flows freely and in a most agreeable way, featuring good to excellent ranking songs, organized well and giving good listening from start to finish. once i had finished my first play, the instinct was to hit play again. not skip back and forth to just hear the most outstanding moments, but to listen to it all again.
to the Pete Townshend benchmark, then. no, i am not going to worry about him punching me in the face for listing him second. whereas Roger has a keen sense of justice and will only punch you in the face if you have transgressed laws both written and unwritten, if Pete wants to do it then he will just do it, no questions asked or solicited. and you will thank him if he does it, and you will ask him if he may do it again.
for Pete it appears that the most important thing was that the record be "contemporary". he had no wish, to borrow one of the greatest lines ever written by the Manics, to be an old man on the streets tonight, playing with newspaper cuttings of his glory days. Townshend wished for the record to be relevant to 2019, and not just some exercise in nostalgia.
does he achieve this, or get what he wants? yes, mostly. it would be ludicrous, ridiculous in fact, for The Who or any artist to completely disregard their own past. often when the band touch on their past it delivers some of the finest moments on this record, and here i am thinking of the track Detour. more often than not, reflective lyrics across the album are less "remember when we was fab", more a way of trying to express understanding of where they are now, or if you like who they are now. fair enough. and, every now and then, one gets treated to a cheeky musical refrain borrowed from a previous Who song. well, why not.
in terms of sales, or general acceptance of a new record by The Who, you would have to say positive. the album entered the chart at number three. not a number one, sure, but for a band and a record that now has rather more niche than general appeal, this cannot be argued with. as to comparison, earlier this year the efforts by Ian Brown and Morrissey got as high as number four on week of release, so i guess The Who are certainly still one louder. to be third is to be behind an unexpected chart battle between Robbie Williams and Sir Rod for the all of a sudden coveted "Christmas number one album" (since the chart company destroyed the singles chart), so this seems nothing less than respectable.
ultimately Who is a solid, as expected album of The Who by The Who. there really is no greater compliment or praise one could give or seek. is the world a better place for it existing? yes.
anyway, enough yakking. time to boogie, so i am off to enjoy the record again.
be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment