Warning: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in ..../includes/class_bbcode.php on line 2958

Warning: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in ..../includes/class_bbcode.php on line 2968

Warning: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in ..../includes/class_bbcode.php on line 2958

Warning: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in ..../includes/class_bbcode.php on line 2958
What's in Your cd Player - Page 234
Welcome to the ClassicVanHalen.com.
Page 234 of 384 FirstFirst ... 134184224232233234235236244284334 ... LastLast
Results 2,331 to 2,340 of 3837
  1. #2331
    Yours truly, As Is
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Starwood, WA or is it Gazzariville?
    Posts
    5,800
    Quote Originally Posted by vhfanjack View Post


    I remember ICM posting a similar video of this a while back.
    It's one of the coolest things I've ever seen.

    The Who were light years ahead of the Stones and the Beatles.
    Hell, this is ahead of what Zeppelin were doing at the same time.
    Incredible.
    I'll never tire of watching or listening to this stuff. I've never understood how the Who didnt get the level of recognition that the Stones and Beatles did. The Who were indeed on a whole other level.
    "My favorite position for drumming was always a cigarette in one hand and a drink in the other. And checking out the women!"-Alex Van Halen

    Proud to be an ADKOT loving, Drum Thread starting CVH "bad apple" to counterpoint pompous, self centered egotism.

    Duct Tape:A Drummer's best friend!

  2. #2332
    Yours truly, As Is
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Starwood, WA or is it Gazzariville?
    Posts
    5,800
    Quote Originally Posted by Ice Cream Man View Post
    This is the first song on the first album, and I always liked it a lot. I'd love to go in a bar and start with this one today. People would be flipped out at first, I think, but then they'd get into it. I try to imagine this manic energy coming out of a Marshall 4x12.

    I often felt like the Thamesmen morphing into Spinal Tap was sort of a joke on how The Who started as a Beatles-ish band with Rickenbachers and turned into a guitar-smashing monster with SG's.

    Even on all the old stuff I always LOVED the tone that Moon got out of his toms. Always a huge sound...
    "My favorite position for drumming was always a cigarette in one hand and a drink in the other. And checking out the women!"-Alex Van Halen

    Proud to be an ADKOT loving, Drum Thread starting CVH "bad apple" to counterpoint pompous, self centered egotism.

    Duct Tape:A Drummer's best friend!

  3. #2333
    Like Mike
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,338
    Found a Youtube Channel with a few complete VH boots uploaded, like Martial Law 1981 and London 80. I have most of them on my hard drive, but that hard drive is in Australia, and I can never go through the effort of connecting it and listening through there. This is much more convenient.

    Here's the channel, in case anyone is curious: http://www.youtube.com/user/VH4ME612?feature=watch

  4. #2334
    Band Manager
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Wouldn't you like to know?
    Posts
    3,078
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Drummer View Post
    I'll never tire of watching or listening to this stuff. I've never understood how the Who didnt get the level of recognition that the Stones and Beatles did. The Who were indeed on a whole other level.
    They don't have as many great tunes, that's why. The Who probably appeal to instrumentalists a bit more, because they feature Moon and Entwistle, but the Beatles just outclass them by a mile in songwriting (both stylistically, and variety of songwriting techniques), and their vocals are unsurpassed. The Stones embody a way of life (and have great tunes), and offer a soundtrack to sex and decadence that is beyond the grasp of The Who (or really ANY other band). They are beyond just music, and more like a sociological phenomenon. As great of a live band as the Who were, I don't think anything by them matched the late 60's Stones, like "Gimmie Shelter", "Jumpin' Jack Flash", or "Street Fighting Man".

    I sure some will disagree, but I have the history books on my side...
    It can't be "Van Halen" without Roth, any more than it can be "Van Halen" without Eddie.


  5. #2335
    Like Mike
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,338
    The Beatles are vocally unsurpassed? Eh...

  6. #2336
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    5,746
    Quote Originally Posted by 1234over View Post
    I sure some will disagree, but I have the history books on my side...
    History books written by music critics who look like Elvis Costello.

    The Rolling Stones and Beatles had earlier put out lightweight songs that appealed to girls. The Who were smashing and bashing from the start, and then went through the `67-`72 phase that created a whole new genre, refined by Zeppelin and Sabbath.

    Pete has even said an obstacle they had was that they didn't have any "glamor." They didn't appeal to girls, their thing was power and volume and smashing guitars, which were all mechanical things that appealed to guys.

    They would be more highly thought of by the metal/hard rock crowd if they had caught that sound on LP, but in their era you sounded light and clean on record, and saved the anarchy for the live show. Only Live at Leeds presented what they were capable of, and that was supposed to have been a filler, contract obligation record!

    "My Generation," "Magic Bus," "I Can See for Miles," "Substitute," "I Can't Explain"...you're going to say those aren't greats? Then on to "Baba O'Reilly," "Won't Get Fooled Again," "Bargain" (WHAT an awesome song!), "The Real Me" (ANOTHER awesome one! Not even Slayer can sound so sinister and threatening!).

    In this area, 1234, I'm going to have to say...maybe you don't "get it."

  7. #2337
    Band Manager
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Wouldn't you like to know?
    Posts
    3,078
    Quote Originally Posted by Ice Cream Man View Post
    History books written by music critics who look like Elvis Costello.

    The Rolling Stones and Beatles had earlier put out lightweight songs that appealed to girls. The Who were smashing and bashing from the start, and then went through the `67-`72 phase that created a whole new genre, refined by Zeppelin and Sabbath.

    Pete has even said an obstacle they had was that they didn't have any "glamor." They didn't appeal to girls, their thing was power and volume and smashing guitars, which were all mechanical things that appealed to guys.

    They would be more highly thought of by the metal/hard rock crowd if they had caught that sound on LP, but in their era you sounded light and clean on record, and saved the anarchy for the live show. Only Live at Leeds presented what they were capable of, and that was supposed to have been a filler, contract obligation record!

    "My Generation," "Magic Bus," "I Can See for Miles," "Substitute," "I Can't Explain"...you're going to say those aren't greats? Then on to "Baba O'Reilly," "Won't Get Fooled Again," "Bargain" (WHAT an awesome song!), "The Real Me" (ANOTHER awesome one! Not even Slayer can sound so sinister and threatening!).

    In this area, 1234, I'm going to have to say...maybe you don't "get it."
    Where did I say they weren't great? Just not as great as the Beatles or Stones. You are right across the board, but I don't think they have as many great songs as the others, and their best aren't as good as the others best either.

    The Who were ugly fuckers, and people want to relate to attractive people (generally), so this hindered their popularity, which is really what we are talking about, right? Why they aren't considered to be at the same level as The Beatles an Stones.

    They are better at "metal", but not better overall. Obviously people well beyond just the "Elvis Costello" critics (like Who-boy Dave Marsh?), love the Stones. And in fact many of the nerdy critics HATE the Beatles and/or Stones, but love the Who.

    The Stones and Beatles have ALWAYS been more popular than the Who, regardless of what critics write. I think the Who just has more appeal to the Van Halen demographic. They ain't never catching the Beatles or Stones in the annals of history, sorry.
    It can't be "Van Halen" without Roth, any more than it can be "Van Halen" without Eddie.


  8. #2338
    No cheer******s allowed!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    28,415
    The Stones, for me, by a wide margin.

    The Who were kinda the Deep Purple of those classic bands (Zep, Stones, Beatles).
    The Who were great musicians, but kinda came up short in relation to the others.
    Like 1234 mentioned, they weren't physically appealing, and they didn't have the same
    caliber of song's as the others (though The Who had awesome tunes, in their own right).

    The Stones just seem untouchable.
    They were bad boys, effortlessly cool, but such deep songwriters.
    "Let it Bleed" still blows my mind, to this day.
    There's a looseness to everything they do.
    The music is sexy, sometimes dark or serious, but also full of humor.

    "Skittles" lent me the Rock 'n roll circus DVD, which i hadn't seen, and i could
    not take my eyes off Jagger.
    That version of "Sympathy for the devil," the chicks are losing their minds.
    I'm thinking, "This guy invented all this shit," in a lot of ways, at least for the bands i
    listened to later on.

    I love hearing The Who, but i can't watch them.
    From Daltrey to Townshend, they just look so goofy.
    The Stones, though, sounded exactly like they looked.

  9. #2339
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    5,746
    Quote Originally Posted by 1234over View Post
    The Who were ugly fuckers, and people want to relate to attractive people (generally), so this hindered their popularity, which is really what we are talking about, right?


    I think you'll find it hard to locate a woman who thinks the guy above is "ugly."

    Pete's "mistake" was probably in not giving Roger sexy lyrics for the ladies. Instead he stuck him with songs about blind children playing pinball. Major missed opportunity. Robert Plant ripped off Roger Daltrey's look but had "I'm gonna give you every inch of my love," and, "When mountains crumble to the sea/there will still be you and me," and ta-da, he's much better known.

    Mick Jagger and Keith Richards are definitely not "good looking."

    The Who looked like they sounded - raw, in-your-face anarchy. Pretty boys have nothing to have massive angst about. If you dropped Kip Winger and Jon Bon Jovi into that Woodstock clip, I wouldn't believe their passion and energy at all.

  10. #2340
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    5,746
    "I'm taking this picture because I know women find me gross."


 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •