The Who - "Live at Leeds"

Was listening today to the first CD of the "Who Live At Leeds" double and was struck yet again by what an awesome, perfectly-toned yet passionate, live band they are. It has been a very difficult time for me of late; I'm struggling with depression in the aftermath of a traumatic divorce and the havoc it has wrought on my emotions, health, and financial situation, so it was a blessing indeed to be uplifted by the presence of sheer power and greatness.

This album is, I think, the most sonically-exciting music ever made. Townshend's riffs are huge and raging, yet never bombastic. His guitar-playing is much under-rated - it may lack the virtuosity of Clapton and Page and the sonic daring of Jeff Beck, but his solos are full of fire and tension, and always mean something in the context of the song. Roger Daltrey is at his peak here, singing with anger and intensity and yet also control. His renditions of "Substitute" and "Can't Explain" have all the verve of the original singles but with the added power and authority built up over years of touring in America. For pure passion and integrity he is the number one rock vocalist - he never indulges in the phallic preening of a Plant or the sexual decadance of Mick Jagger.

Then we come on to the two now-deceased members. Can there ever have been a rhythm section like this ? Entwistle's power is thundrous, and he weaves the most intricate lines between Townshend and Moon. I can think of only one other bass player (Jack Bruce at his peak in Cream) who plays such complex lines with such intensity. And then there is Moonie, who is at his very best here. He thunders around and underneath the riffs, plays a constantly-inventive stream of fills, and keeps a continuous backdrop of hissing, crashing, cymbal-work going. Yet his work is also tightly-disciplined here; not a single drum roll is out of place, and everything he does serves the song. Like that other titanic drummer John Bonham, he has power, flair, and great creativity - every fill and drum roll is worth listening to.

This, then, is the sound of a band who have honed themselves over years of touring in the States and have built their strength as a band - nothing is done out of context of the overall sound. Pete's guitar roars out the riffs; John's bass powers away underneath, providing the fundamental forward thrust of the band while playing some awesomely complex lines. Keith's drums pound under and around the music, and have a tension to them which is always in sync with the rest of the group; listen to the extended "My Generation", on which Keith provides a text-book lesson in how outstanding virtuosity, power, and flamboyance can be tied in with the rest of the music to provide an irresistible force. The cymbals surge over the repeated riffs, the bass and tom-toms thud with intensity, and the fills keep coming.

Then, of course, we have the songs. One key difference between The Who and all the other great English live bands (Stones, Zeppelin, The Faces, Free) is that all their songs are about something. They have a weight, intensity, sensitivity, and humour in the lyrics which matches everything else going on. The band sound as if they are actually on a mission to tell us something. Also, whereas those other bands have a high phallocentric / chauvinistic element to what they do, The Who's lyrics (and Daltrey's singing) do nothing to offend my sisters. The virtues of Pete's songs have rightly been much-praised; what I notice most here is that, for all the virtuosity and musical power of the band, everything they do is in service to those songs, whether they're playing their sixties hits, their supercharged versions of rock'n'roll classics, or "A Quick One" and "Tommy".

A nice final touch is that this notoriously-volatile group do sound to be enjoying each other's company on this album. The banter between Townshend and Moon in particular is hilarious - listen to the introduction to "A Quick One" for the sense of fun that's being had here.

All the great English rock bands listed above have meant an awful lot to me. The Stones have their amazing raw musicality (and Keith'n'Charlie); Zeppelin are over-powering and awesome in their violence yet also mysterious and eclectic. The Faces are soulful, lively, and good-humoured, while Free have that constant sense of tension and emotions reined in. Yet the Who mean the most; they are perfectly-integrated, and have a sheer anger and intensity which those other bands lack. For me their only match as a live rock band (English style) are Cream at their peak, for very different reasons. Listening to "Live At Leeds" I am exhilarated, grateful, and humbled. 


        

The Rolling Stones

The Rolling Stones are a problematic group. They're too obsessed with image, posing, and pouting. Look at their 1978 picture on a recent cover of Mojo; Mick has his customary pout, Keith is dressed in a pretty-boy red shirt, and they come across as the fashion victims they undoubtedly are. The standard of their lyrics dropped alarmingly in the 1980s, albeit 1994's "Voodoo Lounge" signalled a revival. They were never that great as a 1960s singles band - ok, they made a few classics, but a Stones "Greatest Hits" collection lacks the spark, melodic invention, and lyrical cleverness of similar compilations by the Beatles, Beach Boys, Kinks, Who, Small Faces, and the Byrds. In terms of music you won't find much of the adventurousness of musically-challenging groups such as the Grateful Dead, Quicksilver, The Yardbirds, Zeppelin or the progressive bands.

And then there is the subject of "politics". In the sixties the Stones were seen as standard-bearers for the "counter culture", and songs such as "Street Fighting Man" played to that image. Then there was all that satanic stuff - the "Jumping Jack Flash" video, "Monkey Man" etc. Finally we come to morals - most Stones songs are not exactly progressive in terms of sexual politics. They glorify rampant and random sex (for men with 13 year-old girls). Mick Jagger is also a very sharp businessman - a true Home Counties Tory.

Finally there is the feeling that they have simply gone on too long - they have released only two new albums since 1994, and have traded for years on their oldies. They can be seen as yet another nostalgia band.

And yet, and yet....the Stones may have made some sub-standard albums, but none of them are unlistenable and they have never cut a really duff track (unlike Dylan and The Beatles). Their run of albums from 1968's "Beggars Banquet" until 1974's "It's Only Rock'n'Roll" is unparallled in music for the sustained high quality throughout. There is a very personal magic in the way that Keith's (and Mick Taylor's) guitars produce a churning, thick-set rhythm and the way it plays against Charlie Watts' precise and clipped drumming and Bill's (or often Keith's) fluid bass underpinning.

Most people will acknowledge that Keith has written the finest riffs in rock and many of the greatest intros ("Honky Tonk Women", "Gimme Shelter", "Brown Sugar" etc.). There is also a constant textural interest, a fascinating and subtle interplay between various elements of their backing tracks, which makes their work endlessly playable. I must have played "Beggars Banquet" and "Exile On Main Street" nearly a thousand times each over the years; there are so many touches in the music which provide constant listening pleasure. I'm thinking of the muddy acoustic sounds on "Street Fighting Man", the build-up to the guitar solo on "Stray Cat Blues", the dark intensity of "Midnight Rambler", the strange lurching rhythmns of "Sway", the percussion on "Shake Your Hips" etc. etc. etc.

Moreover these albums show the Stones to be in love with American music - all the core forms are here, and all synthesised into that unique Stones grit. They write and perform great Country songs such as "Dead Flowers" and "Torn and Frayed". There's gospel throughout "Exile On Main Street" ("Just Wanna See His Face", "Shine A Light"). A folk influence occasionally comes through on "Beggars Banquet" in particular. And they have such a unique take on the blues, from the "purity" of "Prodigal Son", "Love In Vain", and "You've Got To Move" through to more quirky, angular works such as "Ventilator Blues".

Lyrically Mick is at the top of his game in this period. "Beggars Banquet" is a very sophisticated look at the landscape of 1968 and a study in detachment (see Simon Frith's excellent article in Greil Marcus' "Stranded" book on this), while a song such as "You Can't Always Get What You Want" has weight and high seriousness. The lyrics can be playful, ironic, funny, melancholic, and dark. Listen to "Shine A Light" if you think Jagger lacks compassion. And of course his singing is definitive - THE great non-voice of the last 50 years, meshing perfectly with the quirky, tense, and grinding flow of the music.

So what about other periods ? Pre-1968, it must be said that "Aftermath" is a great album, featuring "Going Home", which extends all their textural subtlety and tension over 11 minutes, and so is not only one of the first but one of the very best long tracks. Then there is "Play With Fire" from early 1965; this eerie comment on London class issues features harpsichord and acoustic guitar and came out well before The Beatles started diversifying on "Help". For its time it was the most advanced track recorded by a rock'n'roll band. Their first album (scandalously unavailable on CD) is a driving rush of raw blues and R'n'B, and is still possibly the greatest debut album ever made. I've never been that fond of "Satisfaction" - it strikes me as a petulant whinge with a dull riff - but "The Last Time", "Get Off My Cloud", "Paint It, Black" and "19th Nervous Breakdown" are loud, glorious, chaotic, full-on rockers and hence a joy forever. Finally their "pastoral" period offers many treasures, such as "Lady Jane" (a song of creepy, evil melancholy), "Back Street Girl", and "Ruby Tuesday".

So, while the Stones Greatest Hits don't match up to those of other bands, there are plenty of gems to be found in their pre-1968 output. But what about after "Exile" in 1972 ? Their next two albums, while not quite up to their peerless 1968-1972 period, are strong records that have stood up well over the years. "A Hundred Years Ago" is a complex song with a thrilling final section, "Star Star" is great Chuck Berry and great fun, while "It's Only Rock'n'Roll" has "Time Waits For No One" and "Fingerprint File", two great examples of the Stones bringing other 70s developments into their world. "Some Girls" from 1978 has several durable tracks; best of all is the remarkable "Shattered", which has Mick showing rare vulnerability to convincing effect.

And since then ? Their 1980s output was fairly minor but always entertaining (I can't help it - I just love the way they sound) - they have never released anything unlistenable. Their last three albums have been really terrific and unfairly ignored; lyrically they are at their most convincing on the slow, melancholic tunes such as "Out Of Tears" on "Voodoo Lounge", while the rockers and blues tracks are always a pleasure to hear. While they'll never make an "Exile On Main Street" again, they do make albums which stand up to repeated plays and have something to offer on virtually every track.

Summary :- yes, The Stones are poseurs, phonies, musically conservative (after 1968), and still have the cheek to play on into their 70s (oh, and Ron Wood has been sadly supressed - a waste of a fine talent). Yet they are still at the core of this wonderful rock'n'roll of ours, and are still "The Greatest Rock'n'Roll Band in the world".