What does it sound like?:
First things first…I am a huge Who fan. I remember hearing I Can’t Explain blast out of Radio London in 1965 and I was hooked from then on. An older friend was a jazz fan and hated my pop music, but he had encountered them at the Marquee in late 1964 or early 1965 and even he loved them. My first love were the Beatles, but this was something else – visceral and it hit different nerves. They were the first ever band I paid money to go and see (June 1966, The Edmonton Regal) and they are probably the band I have seen most often since then and they still thrill me as a live outfit over 50 years later.
Let’s get that out of the way, because being a huge fan of a band makes reviewing new material a challenge – your perspective is different, your expectations tempered by past disappointments – it is hard to come with an open mind….so I probably won’t.
If you have even a passing interest in the band then you will have already read good reviews of the new album and one or more of Pete’s interviews – positivity abounds, but, God, I’ve been here before wanting to love something by the Who and having those hopes crushed. I replayed the last album ‘Endless Wire’ the other day; this was greeted with 4* reviews, but my word that album is a struggle – two or three tracks in you feel this is OK and then they hit you with the unlistenable ‘In The Ether’ and there is another flippin’ mini-opera – nonsense lyrics and bits of songs that don’t seem to fit together – not too much of that album in the current live set.
The version of WHO I got to review was the 11 track version and it was a download rather than just a stream, which was nice. Looking at what is available, there is a also ‘de-luxe’ version with three extra tracks and I haven’t heard those (one of them is called ‘Danny And My Ponies’….yes, really…can’t wait), and it comes in a multiplicity of formats – deep breath…you can get it on standard CD, deluxe CD, softpack CD, standard vinyl LP, picture disc LP, cassette, audiophile triple vinyl, completists set (CD, audiophile vinyl and cassette), analogue set (audiophile vinyl and cassette), classic set (CD and cassette), audio set (CD and standard vinyl), and deluxe audio set (audiophile vinyl and deluxe CD…I think). I thought physical product was dying?? Download and streaming is available too of course.
So, is it any good? Firstly, there isn’t an opera or concept in sight, which is probably a good thing on the whole. The first two tracks have been previously released as ‘singles’ and are probably familiar already – ‘All This Music Must Fade’ is all crunching chords, a great lyric and Roger is in fine voice (as he is throughout this set…mostly) – classic Who, this will be good live and sounds like one that will last. ‘Ball And Chain’ has a start very reminiscent Baba O’Reilly, which Pete also did on the last album on one track, and that feels like a bit of a cheap shot. This was originally called ‘Guantanamo’, and I don’t really get the lyrical content here. It is saved by Roger’s performance, some great playing, and the hook is good. The third track is also the new ‘single’ – ‘I Don’t Wanna Get Wise’ – and has a sort of autobiographical lyric. This could have come from Quadrophenia. Hmm…so far so good, hopes raised….wonder why the first three tracks are the singles..?
The fourth track is ‘Detour’, a title that is presumably a nod to that early Who name, and this starts a bit like their early R&B stuff. It’s a bit all over the place – not bad, but ends with that Baba O’Reilly type riff again! ‘Beads On One String’ is a song about how we must all come together (like in Brexit, eh Rog?) – holds it’s own, perfectly listenable, but starts to take shape a few listens in.
What’s this ….strings?… ah, crunchy crunch goes the riff! ‘Hero Ground Zero’ has another great hook (this album is rather full of ‘em) and I really like this. There is some great orchestral stuff going on in the background and I played this a few times in succession on first hearing I like it so much. ‘Street Song’ is serviceable Who – well played, some un-Pete like guitar and Roger’s vocal just soars – could be a grower, but it seems to go on a bit.
Oh, have I switched to another record..? I genuinely thought that at first. A harmonica intro sounds a bit like the Midnight Cowboy theme. This is a weird one – it’s called ‘I’ll Be Back’ and is….well…a bit soppy really. They share the vocal and Rog seems to struggle a little here, and I don’t blame him as the melody is strange. I don’t think too much of this. The next track (‘Break The News’) sounds like Pete has been listening to Mumford And Sons – it is again a great hook, mostly scrubbed acoustic guitars and Roger is much more comfortable with this and it’s OK….oh, Baba O’Reilly again at the end though…
Now things turn seriously odd again at the start of the next track – a piano opening, but then it picks up nicely with Pete singing (very well) and he’s in introspective mood from what I can pick up….being out on the margins, being past his prime and so on, you know how he goes on about being irrelevant – it’s called ‘Rocking In Rage’, but it is pretty good and I suspect another grower.
The final track is ‘She Rocked My World’ and is another piano led track over a shuffle samba beat – it’s an odd way to end the album as it’s the most Un-Who track ever and leaves you wondering what the hell that was there for. Not their finest hour, I can’t think what made them sequence this at the end of the album – maybe it works better on the longer ‘de-luxe’ version.
Getting this on a download meant I could stream it through the hi-fi and sonically it sounds a terrific production – full of textures and touches that keep you engaged, and it’s definitely one for windmilling to when you turn it up. The lyrics…? Well, you know Pete….just listen to the guitars.
A word about the cover art – a rather spiffing montage by Peter Blake with lots of Who references to decipher, they have rather pushed the boat out with this release. Does it stack up to the hype? WHO definitely isn’t the worst Who album ever made by any means (I’m looking at you Endless Wire, Face Dances, It’s Hard, By Numbers, Who Are You), so definitely worth exploring if you have even a passing liking for the Who. Their imperial period (Sell Out through to Quadrophenia) remains unsurpassed and unthreatened, but this will definitely be a regular play and at this stage it could well be my favourite since Quadrophenia.
Now….which version to buy??!! Probably not the cassette…
What does it all *mean*?
The Who are still a great band – good on them!
Goes well with…
Being slightly refreshed.
Release Date:
6th December
Might suit people who like…
Rawk
Great review, I have all their other albums (plus Townshend solo), seen them live many times, but I won’t be getting this one. Spent forces since the 80s, Townshend is an idiot (possibly with some dubious habits), Daltrey supports Brexit and I Won’t Get Fooled Again …
PS And it’s not “The Who”.
Funny how Pete has been singing about been old and aged and past it since Who By Numbers in… 1975.
Looking forward to Friday when this should land on my door mat.
Just wondering now if I should’ve been a bit profligate and bought the deluxe edition rather than the standard
(3 quid though, that’s nearly paint of beer (in wetherspoons))
Nice review of an interesting release.
I have to say there are some days when By Numbers is my favourite Who album. 1975 was a big year for me.
I have to say I agree with you. I bought it on your review too. For some reason I was always under the impression that it was an earlier ‘Ooo record, from the Sixties so I avoided it. It’s fantastic.
It’s a decent album, but nowhere near Who’s Next, Quadrophenia, Tommy or The Who Sell Out. I would say it is on a similar level to their first two albums.
They released suprisingly few albums. Only 8 with the original classic line-up, then 2 without Moon and now a further 2 also without Entwistle. That’s 12 albums (inc 2 doubles) in 54 years. The Beatles managed that in 7.
Think Sell Out is overrated. Its quality dips considerably on its second side (Silas Stingy anyone?).
By Numbers, however, is underrated. Daltrey has never sung better and the songwriting is so raw. Even the Entwistle number works as part of the whole. Throw in a wild card novelty single in Squeeze Box and you have a mini-masterpiece with some typical Who eccentricity thrown in for good measure.
Note: some people have quoted the line “Goodbye all you punks, stay young and stay high” from They Are All In Love as being some sort of commentary on Townshend’s view of the Sex Pistols, but of course the song, and the use of the term “punk” predates all that by at least a year.
The Who Sell Out is my personal favourite, nothing wrong with Silas Stingy! Side 2 also contains Can’t Reach You and Sunrise which are beautiful songs, it’s the Who album with the most Townshend singing I think (except Tommy maybe) and that suits me.
Who’s Next is probably their most consistent. Who By Numbers is also consistent (Squeeze Box may be the worst track), but a little too much Townshend naval gazing for me. Maybe I would prefer it as a solo album?
I think Townshend was rather in favour of Punk’s energy. Apparently he was very supportive of The Ruts and the People Unite thing around them and Misty In Roots.
His meeting with Steve Jones and Paul Cook did inspire Who Are You and a couple of other tracks on the album.
Unfortunately, they didn’t share Pete’s “revolution vision” of what he thought Punk could be, and became disenchanted and annoyed with that too
(he spent a lot of time annoyed and dis-enchanted)
No, it’s better than the three you mention. Because I think it is.
There’s no right and wrong in opinions, except your’s is wrong 😉
Well I disagree with your opinion that my opinion is wrong. In my opinion your opinion is wronger. So there.
I agree with MC!
It must be pretty easy being Peter Blake.
He’s just re-hashed his cover for Weller’s Stanley Road, hasn’t he?
And Face Dances
Oh, you know I love The Who but, like the Stones, they kind of died around 1972.
It’s interesting that their peak both as a live and recording band coincides almost exactly with the Stones.
I know. It’s spooky. It may sound like a throwaway comment but I actually believe it’s true. I can’t think of any record either band made after that date that stands up to the stuff they made prior to it. They gradually became pantomimic versions of themselves- the Stones more so perhaps (who gradually gave up even trying as they figured out where the big bucks were). I suppose we should give Townshend credit for not going gently into that good night. But I shan’t be buying this record.
Cannot agree. Blue and Lonesome is one of their best. Tattoo You, Stripped, Voodoo Lounge all pretty enjoyable. The Who post-Moon, by contrast, offer nothing of any interest IMO.
Mmm. Let it Bleed. Beggar’s Banquet. Aftermath. Exile on Main Street. Sticky Fingers. Plus a shedload of incredible non-album singles too numerous to mention.
When the history of the Stones is finally written (and some already have been written of course) I doubt if anyone will mention Stripped, Tattoo You or Voodoo Lounge with any degree of seriousness. (And they don’t).
You are wrong to say no one will mention Tattoo You with any degree of seriousness. It was released to critical acclaim and continues to be well regarded by those who have their judgements preserved for posterity.
I maintain that, whilst enjoyable, it will probably get one or two mentions in an index rather than an entire chapter.
‘Some Girls’ is often regarded as the finest album of their non-golden era and it does show the band trying new things (‘Miss You’ is great). I also, personally, like ‘Fool to Cry’ but nothing, in my opinion, post 1972, could hold a candle to ‘Gimme Shelter’, ‘Jumpin Jack Flash’, ‘Brown Sugar’, ‘Midnight Rambler’. I could go on.
Interestingly, at least 80 per cent of the Stones stage act these days comprises of tunes they wrote and recorded pre-1972. They know when they were the Stones.
And when it ended.
Quadrophenia was 73. The Who By Numbers was good (75) as were Townshend solo albums Empty Glass (80) and all the Best Cowboys Have Chinese Eyes (82).
All the Stones releases in the 70s have something to recommend them. Emotional Rescue (80) had a few good moments, Tattoo You (81) is slightly overrated. Steel Wheels (89) had some good songs amidst terrible production. After that Voodoo Lounge (94) is the best but A Bigger Bang (06) and Blue and Lonesome (17) are very listenable.
Stones win.
You got me on Quadrophenia. Maybe 73 was the cut-off point for The Who.
But however listenable some of those post-72 Stones albums may be I would still stick to my guns and say that the bulk of their creative armoury had been spent by 1972 and that their legacy was already set in stone(s).
So they couldn’t keep up the levels that they had when making 4 of the greatest rock albums ever made? Who could? (doesn’t mean The Who could)
True. So many bands burn out after a few albums. The overwhelming majority don’t even get that far of course.
I think the Beatles had the right idea.
And I thought I was the only one – glad it’s not just me that sees some worth in Steel Wheels.
I’ve never yet met anyone who will defend Dirty Work over similar time period Stones
Undercover and Dirty Work are the worst, next come Bridges to Babylon and Rolling Stones no. 2.
Don’t diss The Goat.
👿
Goat is the worst of the 70s. FACT!
The trick is re: Beatles – Stones – Who – frankly, anyone or anything …
What would Liam or Noel Gallagher reckon?
Got that in mind?
Do the opposite.
That mindset will never, ever fail you.
Surely: Beatles – Dave Clark Five – everyone else.
Did you not see the DC5 documentary?
Honestly. Has no-one learned anything? It’s DONOVAN -> everyone else.
In ths 60s:
Beatles > Beach Boys > Kinks > Stones> Who
Thanks Dai.
I’ll keep this post as a handy look-up guide in case I forget.
Oops forgot Velvet Undreground!
Where do they go? Above The Kinks?
Near The Byrds (who I also forgot) 🙁
@MC Escher: I was never really a Donovan fan but – good gravy! – The Hurdy-Gurdy Man is one of the best records I’ve ever heard (had never encountered it until it was used in Britannia on Sky. A Mickie Most production, right? Hayzoose, that man had some ear.
And modest with it too …
It is a belter, agreed. My post was a meant as a callback to a to this thread which has evolved into a bit of an AW meme. You might have missed it:
Original version of Ball and Chain…
“I sort of remember the album Exile On Main Street being done in France and also in the USA, and after that going on tour and becoming complacent, and thinking … it’s 1972, fuck it, we’ve done it.”
Mick Jagger said that.
You can’t get him for not laying it, with alarming accuracy, on the line.
Small show just announced
https://www.banquetrecords.com/the-who/pryzm/WHO140220
A very general comment on a specific thread, but I basically have never seen the attraction to the Who. I accept that this is almost entirely down to me not being able to stand Daltry’s voice but there it is.
To me he’s in the same category as people like Tina Turner and Tom Jones – he can sing, undoubtedly, in the sense that he can belt it out, but there’s just no emotional depth to his voice at all. Take Baba O’Riley – fantastic start, really exciting, then Daltry starts. Ruins a great song.
It’s Daltrey.
He’s not to everyone’s taste, but on Baba O’Riley the contrast between the 2 voices is superb. On the same album I think he sings Behind Blue Eyes with the correct amount of emotion.
There are, undoubtedly, ‘better’ rawk singers out there in terms of nuance and rootsiness. One thinks of Paul Rodgers, Rod Stewart and Mick Jagger for instance. But the sheer energy and power needed to front the Who for fifty years would surely have shredded their combined vocal chords into ribbons by now? Despite my misgivings about their output since 1972/73 one would have to concede that Daltrey is still in fine voice.
Hell, he may well be indestructible.
He is perfect for The Who.
Yes, Rogar Daltrey
I’ve recently finished reading his autobiography (breezy, blokeish, honest enough, probably more ‘readable’ than Pete’s – which I haven’t read – and enlightening in general/big picture terms about the band dynamics and history). Curiously, he seems very keen on ballads – insisting that his early solo albums be the opposite of the Who’s music. I suppose I can see the appeal to the person singing loud rock on every gig… but I’ve just never cared for Roger singing ballads. If I want gentle music I much prefer it from 101 other people, whose voices can express softer sentiments more compellingly, and more naturally. The ‘rock ballad’, to my ears, is an unlovely oxymoron – and that includes stodge like the Who’s ghastly ‘Love Reign O’er Me’.
I quite like ‘Love Reign O’er Me’ although I do have a slight issue with the faux-folksy spelling. For me the highlight of that album has always been ‘5.15’. Probably the funkiest the Who ever got up to that point. Not sure about the overall ‘concept’ though. Townshend is a great writer, but he can’t tell a proper, linear story.
The Seeker is relatively funky, I think.
I bought The Seeker for 10p in the dire 1980s, thinking … “erm … 1970, 10p, close enough to the Brunswick/Reaction/Pictures of Lily etc. 45s, can’t be that bad … it was.”
About as funky as The New Seekers.
More and more I dislike The Who, with Daltrey’s tiresome working class ignorance and Townshend’s perennial Raaawwwkkk Opera fixation, not forgetting the bi-annual turnover of Tommy and Quadrophenia.
Imagine if McCartney had re-done Sgt. Pepper’s and Abbey Road every couple of years … he’d have been slaughtered for it.
I’m getting rid of a lot of stuff next year, moving the Golden Age and Agers back a bit, and The Who may ultimately be represented on my shelf with the debut LP on CD and Rarities Vol 1/2.
I don’t think I’ll even keep Quick One and Sell Out.
Yes, I like 5:15. They had a terrific run of five 1971-73 singles from Won’t Get Fooled Again to 5:15, with eight non-album tracks among them (everything bar the two A sides bookending them). Obviously, Deramdaze would entirely disagree.
I do disagree.
Not just as something to listen to but by then they were ugly and bombastic and corporate.
I like them on the cover of the RSG E.P. when, at the height of Swinging London, they were none of those things.
They were fun … girls (pretty girls in mini skirts!) liked them ,,, and they were side-by-side in the charts with The Beatles and Jimi, not Gary Glitter and The Wombles.
Incidentally, two of the the four bonus tracks with this set are unearthed ‘lost’ tracks from 1966 – one on the cd, the other only on the deluxe vinyl for some reason.