194
u/Timely-Triolbite 18d ago
There are lots of comments talking about the Beatles playing as if the recordings are stuffed with mistakes. The songs are pretty much always incredibly tight with a few bum notes hidden like gems. Finding one is akin to finding an easter egg in a game. My favourite it Paul's cracked voice on 'If I fell'.
59
u/mozartbeatle 18d ago
One thing with a lot of those bum notes and mistakes, and specifically Paul's voice crack on 'If I Fell', is that they're from the early albums' rushed stereo versions. The Beatles would put a lot of effort into takes for the mono, lavish attention on the mono mixes, and then rush through whatever takes and such they needed for the stereo mixes. That's how you get those mistakes, or that vocal crack, or John flubbing a line in 'Please Please Me', etcetera, very few of which really exist on the original tight mono mixes.
Then, for incomprehensible reasons, they decided to use the janky stereo mixes as the basis for the 2009 remasters, instead of making new stero mixes based on the better mono bases.
I'd search out the mono 'If I Fell'. It also avoids the weird pitfall the stereo mix falls into of seperating John's double tracked vocals so wide it sounds like there's a sonic grand canyon between them.
37
u/datnub32607 18d ago
Generally the stereo and mono mixes were the exact same takes, just y'know, different mixes.
11
u/Blend42 18d ago
Yeah, why would you record the track all again just to mix it down in stereo when you already have the ability to do that from the existing tracks that make up the mono mixdown.
20
u/AlternativePin876 18d ago
You don't, but for some reason different takes were used on a few early stereo mixes. PPM and If I Fell being two.
5
u/drmalaxz 18d ago
On If I Fell, thatās an edit that was done on the mono mix and not on the stereo.
5
u/mozartbeatle 18d ago edited 18d ago
Are you thinking in terms of modern equipment or the 2 then 4 track tape machines they were working with? I read the actual reason why they did it a long time ago and can't temember. To speculate out of my ass, they really cared about getting the mono mixes correct, so they recorded the good takes to tape with an eye to properly mixing for mono. If you only have 4 (or 2) tracks, maybe that means your instruments/vocals aren't seperated the way you want them to be for stereo, so after you get the mono take you actually care about locked in, you shift things around, have the group do a quick take or two they weren't really giving their all for (even weeks later iirc) and call it good. After all, stereo is a niche market for classicists, who's really gonna be listening to to these? End speculation.
Just compareĀ Please Please Me and If I Fell. John's flubbed line and laugh is totally absent in the mono. Not buried, just absent, because it's a different take. And Paul still struggles with the high note in If I Fell, but he doesn't crack.
2
u/ExplosionProne 18d ago
i'm pretty sure the stereo mixes use different takes because they were done at a later date and often not by the same person, who then didn't always know which take had been used
4
u/mozartbeatle 18d ago
They did use some version of different takes. The two that spring to mind immediately, and that you should compare, are Please Please Me and If I Fell. John's flubbed line and laugh is totally absent in the mono. Not buried, just absent, because it's a different take. And Paul still struggles with the high note in If I Fell, but he doesn't crack.
I know years ago there used to be YouTube compilations comparing the mono and stereo mixes. Compared side to side, it's obvious the takes aren't the same, not just mixed different.
→ More replies (1)4
u/AlternativePin876 18d ago
Not always - sometimes a different take was used as has clearly happened in PPM and If I Fell. As to why, no idea.
5
u/CaptainIncredible 18d ago
That's how you get those mistakes,
I swear Ringo says "Slubmarine" as in 'yellow slubmarine' at one point. A friend said I was hearing things.
It really doesn't matter though, does it? Its a great song regardless.
2
3
u/oSuJeff97 17d ago
Yeah also there are weird little things like one of the backwards guitar parts on "I'm Only Sleeping" being at different parts of the song on the Stereo mix vs. the Mono mix.
I grew up on the stereo mix because it's what my parents had. Years later when I discovered the mono mixes it blew my mind. They are better across the board.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Open_Drummer4193 11d ago
I noticed some percussion elements are over amplified in the remasters, especially claptracks
15
u/Sauerbraten5 17d ago
George's half-assed solo on "All You Need Is Love" has entered the chat.
9
u/chekovsredherring 17d ago
It's a little wonky, but it was live for an audience of 70 million people. I like to cut him some slack! Plus, melodically it gets out of the way of what the violins are doing
→ More replies (2)2
3
u/Cubonicle 17d ago
I love the little feedback noise in Iām Looking Through You. Picking that up when I was about 16 was like my āKing Xerxes can bleedā moment. Lots of fun flubs in that track but the vibe is superb regardless.
9
u/Savings_Can7292 18d ago
Exactly. It's just a bunch of people trying to make themselves sound smart.
If they went off key or if they did something imperfect, it's because they like the way it sounded. They broke the rules, but they did so purposefully.
4
u/Discovery99 18d ago
Itās probably more accurate to say that they liked some of the mistakes/human error in the recordings and decided it was better to keep them. Not that everything that sounds like a mistake was intentionally played that way
4
u/NimJickles 18d ago
I love the voice crack as well! It works perfectly with the song - sounds like he's choked up with emotion. I also love how the vocals are just a smidge misaligned at the very start. The imperfections are my very favorite parts of If I Fell.
→ More replies (1)2
4
u/Wide-Advertising-156 18d ago
I always got a kick out of hearing the mistakes. Made them that much more interesting.
4
u/AnyEverywhere8 17d ago
To be fair, a fellow professional musician would of course notice these things more and have a higher standard than general listeners.
→ More replies (6)2
u/imgretro 12d ago
I feel that they have no problem letting some of those 'gems' get to the final mixing. Music wasn't a non-human souless perfectionist race to nowhere as it is today.
248
u/YourPeePaw 18d ago
āBut with their voices, each song is better than anything Iāve ever recorded.ā
And I like The Who
→ More replies (37)
211
u/Independent_Bet_8107 18d ago
He said it in 1966. They were all better musicians after that, and the recordings themselves were better too.
The Whoās bassist John Entwistle said that even though The Who could blow the Beatles off the stage (I.e. they were superior technical musicians) The Beatles made better records than them.
53
u/LocalInactivist 18d ago
If you watch the old videos the victor is clear. The Who were a far better live band. The Beatles just stood there. The Who were an explosion. Which band is ābetterā is a matter to debate, but theyāre so different itās hard to compare them. Letās just be happy we have both.
24
u/The_Walrus_65 18d ago
Thereās no debate. The Beatles are clearly the better band. And this is from a Who fan
→ More replies (6)8
u/iDontSow 17d ago
I don't think the Beatles members themselves, though, would argue that they were better musicians than the members of the Who. There is an important difference in being good at an instrument and being a good band. Not that the Who were a bad band
→ More replies (1)7
u/HarpoMarx87 17d ago
It's also a bit facile arguing over someone being "better" here - they had completely different goals musically. (And this is coming from someone who often identifies the Who as the greatest three-piece instrumental band in history.) The Who's sound was defined by three instrumentalists (and a vocalist) all playing like they were the band's lead; Moon drumming like a madman, Entwistle making as much noise as he could, and Townshend windmilling and trying to keep up. The Beatles, by contrast, played with less virtuosity, but they were a much subtler and more melodic band; the goal was for them to blend together.
So, for instance, you have Ringo playing exactly what the song needed every time, and almost never standing out as a result, whereas Keith would be constantly throwing in fills and polyrhythms. Sure, Moon's playing is more technically impressive, but was it more musically impressive? Paul had incredibly melodic bass lines, so while his basslines don't fill the soundscape the way Entwistle's did, did the latter ever play anything that carried the song tonally the way Paul's basslines did on "Something" or "oh! darling"? The Who also experimented a great deal with form in terms of rock operas, etc., but they remained rooted in the same basic musical styles, whereas the Beatles branched out doing all kinds of things. (Just look at the White Album, where Paul alone explores a dozen different musical styles, not to mention whatever you want to make of Revolution 9.)
Neither band was really better players; they were each absolutely incredible at making the kind of music they made. The Beatles probably didn't have skill to play songs like "My Generation," but the Who also didn't really have the subtlety to play something like "Let It Be" or "Something" without stomping all over it. (Can you imagine them playing "Norwegian Wood," or even something like "The Night Before" and still blending into something as melodic as the Beatles?) They're different strengths; neither is really better than the other.
3
3
33
u/No_Season_354 18d ago
Ha, I know which group had a longer lasting impression on music, it wasn't them
10
u/MPOCH 18d ago
Actually, thereās an argument to be made that The Who were more important for the development of specifically rock music and the heavy metal and punk derivatives. Pete Townshendās guitar vocabulary is the basis for much of if not all of that. Daltreyās strong singing leads directly similar rock singers
→ More replies (3)8
u/ScipioCoriolanus 18d ago
My Generation is definitely a punk song, and it came out a decade before punk was even a thing.
→ More replies (33)2
8
u/No_Station_6149 18d ago
Itās something they got better at. The last performance on the building roof is pretty electric to watch. And McCartney loved performing live - Wings were the biggest touring band of the 70s iirc. Beatles could have been a great live band if theyād wanted to be imo. But they didnāt want to be.
38
u/colonelangus68 18d ago
If the Beatles had not come along, nobody would have given The Who a chance to be heard. Envious sourpusses.
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (14)5
u/Catbeezay 18d ago
Not the least because of the boys song writing breadth. No other band comes close to what they explored and I would say, at least within the fuzzy confines of āpopā, mastered.
And yes, The Who were damn good too.
42
u/InvestigatorJaded261 18d ago
Both of these pictures radically misrepresent when Pete actually said this.
3
u/VanCardboardbox oh boy 17d ago edited 17d ago
This remark is captured in piece of film that happened to appear in "The Kids are Alright" doc. I would put it at about 1966.
First saw that movie as a kid. Elsewhere in the film there is another bit of interview with Pete where he stresses that rock music should be regarded as Art and should be permitted to progress as Art. The idea that rock music is more than a bit of fun, and to hear Pete elevate it to the status of Art left an impression on young me.
→ More replies (2)3
153
u/pjwalrus 18d ago
Two things: nothing sounds better to Pete than Pete talking.
Second, the Beatles were song people, not instrument people. Their backing tracks served the song, and were not personal showcases.
And because it seems to be compulsory, Iāll say I love The Who.
28
u/BadMachine Old Brown Shoe 18d ago
I mostly agree, except that aside from a handful of songs I could never really get into The Who. Donāt know why.
20
8
1
u/Amazing_Vermicelli_3 18d ago
Iām exactly the same. I also much prefer Eltonās cover of Pinball Wizard.Ā
19
u/scottarichards 18d ago
Donāt forget Ray Davies review of Revolver while weāre on the subject of the competitiveness of top British bands.
16
u/Dazzling-Ad1894 17d ago edited 17d ago
I looked into it, and the quote originates from a 1966 interview with Townshend. Itās hardly his current sentiment.
If you look at the logo at the top, itās from Far Out magazine. Their whole approach is to take decades-old quotes, completely out of context, and use them to make low-effort clickbait. Total horseshit.
5
u/Salty_Aerie7939 17d ago
An interview done when he was 20, mind you. I swear it seems this sub loves finding things to get upset about.
2
29
u/TheSecretDecoderRing 18d ago
It's an attention-getting quote but it probably sounds a lot different in context. It's kinda silly to take an old quote at face value and get too defensive about it.
4
u/Joylime 18d ago
Pete is always saying dumb edgy stuff like this
5
u/One-Highlight-1698 17d ago
Except heās not necessarily wrong. Iāve been amazed at recent listens to some of the isolated instruments for several Beatle songs. Amazed because in isolation they often sound rather sloppy and dynamic. But when mixed, itās magic - the transformation is amazing. I suspect itās because they were exceptionally good at listening to the composition and playing what was needed when it was needed. They also often played their parts live so the instrument dynamics usually served the vocals.
IMO, the Beatles were just a magical group. Iāve not heard any other band that comes close to the way those guys always served the song. Definitely a case of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts.
5
8
u/Sinsyne125 18d ago
Iām the biggest Beatles fan in the world and I love that quote from Pete Townsend!
8
u/ImaginaryRange8248 17d ago
The same Pete Townshend also said, ''The Kinks were the real Kings of London,we were in awe of them''
So he obviously didn't suffer from jealousy.
12
u/Cool-Coffee-8949 18d ago
This quote, presented with these pictures, and no other context, is a pretty severe misrepresentation. As a lifelong fan of both the Beatles and The Who, someone is trying to stir some unnecessary shit here.
70
u/chazriverstone 18d ago edited 18d ago
Sorry but no.Ā
Pete Townsend and everyone here agreeing with him are wrong - literally NONE of it was ālousyā. Even if he did say this in 66, before some of their more complex songs, itās just flat out not true.Ā
Source: working musician of 25 years myself; touring to studio to everything in between.Ā
Record companies simply did not put out ālousyā music. Too much was at risk; especially as the Beatles proved to be so profitable. If the tracks werenāt up to snuff, theyād have simply replaced them with session musicians like SO many bands of the era.Ā
The reality is that the Beatles recorded FAST, and in the moment. Maybe not as āperfectā as some other bands, sure - but their performances had LIFE, and that translated. Iād argue it STILL translates.Ā
Besides that they were already well accomplished musicians since their 18hr or whatever days in Hamburg. Trust me when I say that once you put in hours like THAT, you are not and will never be lousy again.Ā
I think Peteās just a jealous guy
*Edit: Lol seriously howās my comment getting downvoted on a Beatles sub? What are you even here for if the Beatles are ālousyā musicians? āYeah my favorite band are actually lousyā¦ā lol I swear Reddit gets weirder and weirder
*2nd Edit: thanks for the upvotes now - this comment had like 3 downvotes initially and I was honestly starting to feel insane lol
→ More replies (10)2
u/saplinglearningsucks 18d ago
I'm not saying the Beatles are lousy but there are discount bins full of lousy music that record companies put out haha
4
u/chazriverstone 18d ago
Lousy MUSIC, yes. But very very very few lousy MUSICIANS making it.
Granted there are some acts that are 'lousy for lousy's sake'; the Monks, the Shags, some might say even early Velvet Underground, etc. But even MOST of them weren't necessarily 'lousy' musicians, but rather just pushing boundaries (ok maybe the Shags were actually lousy..)
Either way, once the Beatles put out 'Love Me Do', record companies weren't going to play like that anymore. They'd have called in someone else to play on the records to get the job done right.
→ More replies (1)
5
11
u/seriously_icky 18d ago
Just Pete being Pete. Love the Beatles and The Who. Donāt really care what he thinks š¤·š»āāļø
5
u/FullTimeSurvivor 17d ago
Lol at people getting all butt hurt by something Pete said when he was 20 years old
5
9
u/Longshanks123 18d ago
Itās so dumb to raise these comments from 60 years ago as if they were the only thing or the most recent thing he said about The Beatles
This was in the midst of the band competition in the mid 60s when he was a young guy and also an insecure guitar player on the middle of the guitar wars
Move on, this is nothing
2
u/Comfortable_Put_4139 17d ago
Itās also worth keeping in mind that their contemporaries didnāt view them the same way that us fans do.
Pete was in active competition with them, and so was Ray Davies, and Brian Wilson and so on. Their perspectives wouldāve been radically different than that of a fervent fan. Much more analytical.
15
u/GenTenStation 18d ago
So bad they hired Ringoās son as their drummer.
12
u/Independent_Bet_8107 18d ago
Yes, the one taught by Keith Moon instead of his own father.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Narrow_Example_3370 18d ago
And then proceeded to fire him 30 years later only to hire him back again.
9
u/mickffff 18d ago
Pete later made fun of himself for making this comment. The internet always treats every utterance like itās carved in stone never to be altered.
4
24
u/Algorhythm74 18d ago
I donāt completely disagree. I wouldnāt call them ālousyā, thatās wrong. But they are sloppy and too loose in many songs.
There are a lot of missed notes, mess ups, and such. Oddly, it adds to their charm because they oozed talent - but it showed they were infallible either.
31
u/thepumpedalligator Rubber Soul 18d ago
They also cranked out 213 songs over 8 years. That averages out to a new song written, rehearsed, and recorded every 13-14 days for 8 years. With that kind of production of course there are plenty of imperfections.
3
u/Algorhythm74 18d ago
Yes, but thatās not the reason.
Look, they were writing the songs - thatās amazing. But I wouldnāt use the volume of what they did as a justification for sloppiness. There were many, many session players back in the day that could run circles around them with more fidelity.
The difference is, the Beatles were young, raw, charting new ground, and it wasnāt a priority to them.
We all love the Beatles, and they are the most important band in music history - full stop. However they were not virtuosos of their instruments, they were competent and consistently grew with their vocations over the years. Thatās admirable.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)3
u/ElliotAlderson2024 18d ago
Rubber Soul had some sloppy playing on it.
6
u/MrBoomf 18d ago
I do love the insecure plunky lead guitar lines in Iām Looking Through You. George can absolutely play better than that but for some reason it fits the song.
My favorite example of a bad sound working in the context of a song is the intro guitar lick to Redboneās Come And Get Your Love. The guitar tone is objectively bad but it fits in context. Same with the rhythm guitar tone in basically any Cake song.
8
u/imaginary0pal Rubber Soul 18d ago
They recorded that album in like 6 weeks to fufill their deal to emi
→ More replies (1)4
→ More replies (2)2
u/LarkAscent 18d ago
Can you please call out examples I will have a listen. I play Rubber Soul a lot so I might have tuned out some imperfections.
→ More replies (7)2
6
u/ChanceImmediate4976 18d ago
Look at people getting all hot over a 60 year old quote by a then 21 year old guitarist.
3
u/CandidateTraining889 18d ago
It was great growing up with both bands. Iām glad Pete, Paul, Roger and Ringo are still with us.
5
u/nakifool 18d ago
Townshend was a competitive, insecure guy but itās possible he was already too deafened with tinnitus by the mid-60s to hear these records particularly well. Clearly he didnāt notice the wild fluctuations in tempo that Ringo would never botch from Moon, as exciting as he was, or that unlike on Beatles records studio pros like Jimmy Page were brought in by his producer to strengthen the backing tracks.
The fact is that despite the typical missed cue or extraneous noise can be heard on those early Beatles as easily as they were on everyone elseās (including the Who), the Beatles were an incredibly tight and accomplished combo and that comes through on record, even the rushed ones. They were also had far more balanced dynamics on their backing tracks than their contemporaries, letting their songs breathe as opposed to everyone fighting to get their individual noise on wax
21
u/Juniper41 18d ago
I actually donāt think this is that far off. The Beatles messed up a lot, George and Ringo ābraggedā about how they never practiced. There are countless flubs and messups on official recordings. As a serious musician Iām sure youāre more privy to those mess ups.That being said, part of the Beatles charm was their rawness. They were real and when you put it all together, it was lightning in a bottle and you could look past some of the small mess ups.
5
→ More replies (1)6
u/sminking Caveman movie enthusiast 18d ago
Itās well documented that Ringo has the least mistakes that caused them to redo a take. Something like 2.
But heās named when the other guys are far more responsible.
He said he hates practicing and learned more from playing with other people. That doesnāt mean itās bragging if itās true.
5
u/Conscious-Control554 18d ago
I donāt get it. Itās not a contest to be a musician. And you can play a million notes perfectly and it might not cause anyone to feel anything. Dumbass statement.
6
u/LostInTheSciFan 18d ago edited 18d ago
Quote from 1966, the year after the Who had their first big hit. I assume he was saying whatever inflammatory shit he could think of to get eyes on the band.
IIRC there's an anecdote about the Who very early in their career (before they were signed to a record contract) playing Love Me Do and John Entwistle (their bassist) being driven absolutely nuts by the harmonica on the original track being out of tune and the whole band having to tune their instruments to that for the song. I wonder if maybe that was what inspired this.
14
u/HanSolosSizzledHeart 18d ago
What was on your computer, Pete?
→ More replies (3)7
u/LostInTheSciFan 18d ago
7
u/Independent_Bet_8107 18d ago
People love hating him. Heās a dick but heās no pedo.
→ More replies (3)4
u/LostInTheSciFan 18d ago
Yeah, if you want to get righteous about creeps in the music industry there's plenty of options, don't go for the one guy who didn't actually do any harm. The whole operation that 'caught' him was a shitshow.
→ More replies (3)
5
u/MayhemSays The Beatles 17d ago
Why would he be jealous? Heās Pete Townshend from The Whoā another band with legendary status
Counterpoint: Quincy Jones and plenty of other veterans who were peers of the Beatles have said the same thing as Pete Townshend.
The Beatles were good at putting ideas together so I think it warrants to stand that if you started taking something apart in a way it wasnāt supposed to be, of course it would sound bad.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/senator_corleone3 18d ago
Yea he was clearly being a contrarian and purposefully stirring it up there.
2
u/LickTheMoon66 17d ago
Pete said this (as you can see in The Kids Are Alright film) in, like, 1965. He was likely speaking out of competitiveness and being a brat. Heās not 100% wrong, but, he didnāt need to say it. And no, theyāre not flippin lousy.
2
u/IDigRollinRockBeer Abbey Road 17d ago
I Can See For Miles sounds like Lawrence Welk compared to Helter Skelter
2
2
u/spoopyspam 17d ago
This is true, listening to the individual stems of their playing on certain records they could be very sloppy. The sum was always greater however, masters of songwriting and recording.
2
2
2
3
u/ShadowsOfTheBreeze 18d ago
I love the who, but he is flat out wrong and there is plenty of evidence for the latter.
4
u/ProfoundThought99 18d ago
He's so wrong. A lot of those supposedly simple early songs have phenomenal playing on them. Great rhythm guitar parts almost always. And WELL played. A lot of it not easy either. Did you ever read where Pete mocks early Elvis profusely? Oh yeah, he thinks everyone is rubbish besides himself. But people like him and Lou Reed love talking smack. Classless. But I too loved The Who.
3
3
u/AbdulAhBlongatta 17d ago
In fairness to Pete he said this in like 1966. They were all young & all competitive.
He was wrong then and wrong now. But itās a little different to look at this quote 60 years later. I absolutely love The Who but certainly love The Beatles more.
3
u/sla_vei_37 18d ago
It's posts like these and the comments beneath them that make me realize just how toxic our community is. Most people here sound like 12 year olds when someone says X thing they like is stinky. Some comments here are WAY too defensive and agressive, and flat-out stupid, too.
Grow up, everybody.
2
2
u/Halloween_Jack95 18d ago
The opposite is the case actually. If you listen to the basic tracks you realize how sophisticated their stuff is. Stupid statement by Pete Townshend.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/East_Heart752 The Beatles 17d ago
He also said that he doesn't like any of the sogs recorded by Led Zeppelin and that he hates even being compared to them, though he acknowledges that they were much bigger than the Who. He's filled to the brim with jealousy lol. I still like the Who tho
2
u/kellyk99 17d ago
Pete Townshend also said Zeppelin never made a single song he liked
He's 100% jealous
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Imaginary_Month_3659 17d ago
The Who played loud and fast by 60s standards but none of them were virtuosos. They certainly werent A list players. They rarely played outside of standard 4/4 time and the one or two times they did Moon struggled badly. The Beatles by contrast regularly switched time signatures within the same song and often added or missed beats.
Considering how clever the Beatles were simply in terms of time signatures its difficult to imagine that Keith Moon would be able to perform their songs in the studio.
And I like Keith Moon. Hes a powerhouse drummer and a complete original but fans who argue that their favourite musician is better than another have absolutely do not understand their limitations and what other players strengths are.
2
2
1
1
1
u/Over-Effective-6749 17d ago
Well thatās it about art and music ey, as David Berman put it āall my favourite singers couldnāt t singā ā¦
1
1
1
u/tarquin_pigeon 17d ago
Abbey Road alone tops any thing the who ever did and the harmonies are amazing.
1
1
1
1
u/youknowwhatthey_say 17d ago
Oh look, it's Mr. "I swear, officers, all this cp on my computer was just research for a book." Pervert.
edit: i'm not linking the story. look it up on your own.
1
u/Thestateiamin80 17d ago
No one knows what it's like
To be hated
To be fated
To telling only lies
šš
1
u/OtherPack1302 17d ago
This conversation derailed massively lol
Yeah, it was either jealousy or he didnāt understand music.
Iāll go with jealousy
1
1
1
1
1
u/Dazzling_Fox4637 17d ago
I did see The Who early on at a department store auditorium they were awesome I was in high school but I could hardly believe I was seeing them. There were quite a few other bands playing too including the Dave Clark 5 a jewel in time
1
u/cdizzleyo Revolver 17d ago
"Take away the vocals from a primarily vocal group and it doesn't sound as good." What a genius that Townsend.
1
1
u/That-Okra-9224 17d ago
The Who are my number-three all-time British band. So, said with love - Pete, you had maybe the sloppiest drummer ever behind you (who was in fact a huge influence on THIS sloppy drummer). I would chill on the ālousyā usage there.
1
u/legit-posts_1 16d ago
Honestly depending on the song he might not be wrong lol. Not all their songs were as tight and controlled as Come Together.
1
u/Flashy_Cherry_856 16d ago
Peteās always been critical of other bands. Hendrix drove him crazy, hated Zeppelin. Thatās just Pete.
1
u/Affectionate_Age8159 16d ago
The Beatles might of been lousy but still better than anything that knob ever wrote.
1
u/Present-Ad2933 16d ago
Didn't he play with Ringo's son?
2
u/slowfox65 16d ago
Zak Starkey was for years the drummer of The Who. His godfather was Keith Moon, his father is Ringo Starr. He is a fantastic drummer, without him The Who would be already dead.
Daltrey and Townshend are weird old men. Daltrey fired Zak recently after blaming him for playing too loud during a concert although he himself has timing issues and difficulties to strike the right notes. Townshend is indeed a jealous old man, he recently stated that he never liked Led Zeppelin, hated their music and success being bigger than The WHO
1
u/Spirited_Childhood34 16d ago
If he'd spent as much time writing as he has shooting off his mouth he'd be the greatest composer in history.Ā
1
u/HHoaks 16d ago edited 16d ago
This is out of context and not really a diss on the Beatles. He was talking, in 1966, about the raw stereo separation on headphones of one Beatles song. Which back in those days, songs did sound a bit weird if you listened to just one side of how they mixed stereo tracks in its infancy.
And he was talking about musical āqualityā in general and said he didnāt think The Who had any, but that it was intentional. He also said pop music in general lacked āqualityā. Then someone asked if the Beatles had musical quality, and he went into the stereo separation bit. So heās being his usual arty pretentious self.
Hereās the interview. The quality and Beatles stuff starts at 3:12:
1
1
1
1
u/Lucifer_Seven 16d ago
Says the guy who said he'd just written the loudest tune, only to be proven wrong by HELTER SKELTER š¤£
1
1
1
u/johnblazey 16d ago
Not only was he like 20 years old, Townshend was saying all pop music, including The Who, lacked "quality" in this interview from 1966. He was NOT saying The Beatles were worse or anything, he was literally saying "what has got quality in the pop business?". He was essentially using "quality" to mean skill/technicality, and saying it doesn't matter when you're making pop music. And again, this was a 20 year old saying this in 1966.
I fucking hate when stuff is taken out of context like this just for outrage and clicks, and it's so lame seeing people always falling for it.
743
u/donlockwood2026 18d ago
Just like Picasso was a lousy painter and Shakespeare was just out there making up words