Where's The Who?

There is The Who and hundreds of bands in the same situation. The "prog" aspect of their music was all around the late sixties and early seventies and is around since mid-nineties.

The influences of The Who in prog rock bands are the same influences of Chuck Berry, John Coltrane, Beethoven and Robert Johnson

The Whistler wrote: Here are my personal reasonings, presented WITHOUT the aid of "if they're here, why aren't X?" strategies.   The Who should totally be in the 'chives. Proto-prog would be acceptable I suppose, but I think prog-related would be better (art rock might be a bit too far). The band has several things that classify them as "prog or prog related."   First off, the things that have been mentioned already. They didn't invent the concept album, but gosh, they perfected it. They DID invent rock opera. Long songs, songs that flow together on an album, rock operas that range from ten minutes to two discs...these do not, of course, make one prog, but gosh, we'd live in a poorer world without 'em. And of course, musical progression has been cited. For me, prog rock is less a sound, and more an ideal, and musical progression is an important part of it.   Hinted upon: song length and use of synths. When I say use of synths, I mean USE OF SYNTHS. The way they're utilized in the almighty Quad? To, uh, recreate the sound of an orchestra? What's that called again? Oh yeah, "symphonic prog." And this was in the early 70's. I don't know a hell a lot about the period, but was that a really popular thing to be doing outside of prog?   What no one has said is virtuoso playing. Townshead is not the greatest guitarist, but Entwhistle is a God among bass players, easily as good (I'd say better) than yer Squires and yer Lees. And Moon? Holy crap, the world's best drummer ever. EVER. And not just in a bash the skins sorta way, in a very intelligent way, drumming along lyrically with songs rather than keeping 4-by-4 beat, and amazingly inventive too; dig the way he mimics a train slowing down on "5:15."   These things on their own aren't that impressive, but taken as a whole, I think that they should have some kind of standing in the 'chives. I mean, if Led Zep is here...

nice post and an intelligent one ....

though exactly for many of the reasons you said.. they should be proto.  Much was made of the 'rivalry' between the Stones and Beatles. That was something dreamed up by the press as a good boys/bad boys thing... what is more interesting is the rivalry creatively and artisticaly (though probably a bit one sided in Townshend's case) between the Beatles and the Who. 

as far as the whole PP or PR question.... my two cents and observations.

Proto-Prog - prog before the era of prog,  or groups or music that influenced prog.

Prog Related - groups influenced by prog OR (the one that has a bee up my ass) those who did prog albums but are overshadowed by 'popular' notions of the group or it's music. (best example ELO). 

pretty damn obvious that by that... which I think most would agree is how those categories have shaken out.... the Who if added, should be in Proto. 

The Whistler wrote: Proto prog is an area of mental conflict for me--does it still count if you continue doing stuff into the progressive "golden age?" The Moody Blues are "art rock," but Procol Harum is "proto." Oh well, what matters is getting 'em into the archives first, then dicking around with sub-genre.

obviously that's up the big cheeses to decide hahahha..  Proto seems to me to be as much conceptual as much as musical.  That is where the Who really are important to Prog.. the music itself... as always is questionable/subjective... but like the Beatles, The Who's importance to creating the environment for which Prog could exist, really is beyond doubting. I have always looked to this site as much an educational tool, and like Tony R said to me one time... serving the site users.  If site users think of the Who as many do ....crashed cars..destroyed hotel rooms, and power chords galore.. then we should drill it into their heads that the Who were much more than the gods of hard rock they were in the 70's.

akin wrote: There is The Who and hundreds of bands in the same situation. The "prog" aspect of their music was all around the late sixties and early seventies and is around since mid-nineties. The influences of The Who in prog rock bands are the same influences of Chuck Berry, John Coltrane, Beethoven and Robert Johnson

As a London west end band to come to the fore during the UK's Mod period, then I would suggest reference points given here are imprecise. Try John Lee Hooker, Chess label recording artists (and don't mean Chuck Berry), Tamla. Subsequently minimalist composer Terry Riley.

The Whistler wrote: Wasn't "Barbara O'Reilly" some kind of feeding of a human signature into a synth tape? And whatever happened to that Lifehouse thing?

Worth checking the earlier part of the thread!

Originally posted by Zargus

2 double album rock opera's, and 1 that never got finished but turned out as the best classic rock album ever made, what more do you need? How many rock opera's or consept albums did deep purple, the doors and queen write? And then lisen to the first who album and up to quadrophenia, now thats progresion for you. After that one they didnt have much more to prove.  BTW Baba O'Riley - a fusion of the names of Townshend's spirtual mentor at the time Baba Meher and minimalist composer Terry Riley (check out Riley's Rainbow In Curved Air to hear where Townshend gathered some of his musical influences).

Right then. So what's Endless Wire?

Snow Dog wrote: ^^Its their latest album?

...and their utmost disaster of music?

My vote still stays no, regardless of the details that go from "some pieces that are prog" to "some other non-prog bands that, illicitly, stumbled upon being wrongly added in PA" (the classic "X is here, though it shouldn't, let's add Y too" - don't we just love it?!)and "key albums that have influenced the entire rock movements, but particularly it seems like progressive rock benefited the most". They have one album with some kind of progressiveness, the first years are pure rock 'n' stuff, the later years are pop.  I simply wouldn't even dream of presenting Who towards a Prog Archives addition.


Edited by Ricochet - June 22 2007 at 05:11

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: I will use revolutionary red.     Wow This change us from your Liberal blue, I'll take my preffered green   Sean Trane wrote:    Who would dare to say that The Who's discography should not be here when you see what else is in this Record shop racks????   Sean, as you see we all manifested our objections in the moment over some of this bands, but they are here and nothing can be done, but again IMHO a mistake doesn't justify to make another one. The idea of my post was not to question the validity of prog Related or the groups inside. PR is here to stay as so are the groups. In that regard The Who is a valid addition to PR when comparing the rest of the groups in there.   I also strongly objected to some of these bands being added at the time: mostly on Queen and Roxy >> but since they were in, I decided that there was no valid reasons why 10 CC shouldn't be in and Godley And Creme are on the way (pre-approved, but I have to find the time).   But since the nonsense of Zeppelin's forceful inclusion , I don't see why we should oppose a band that was 10 times more progressive than Zep. This is why I am talking of being consistent with ourselves.   The Who is a great band, they influenced everybody in certain degree, but if they are Proto something, they are Proto Punk. >> I don't think that The Who can be a valid proto-something. Their glory years is the 70's, even if they had a mini-suite in 68.     Why don't we care to add 100% Prog Acts instead of insisting and insisting in dubious Prog Related acts to have an excuse to add more dubious Prog acts? This is indeed a problem we both agree on.   The next time would be: Hey if The Who are here, why not Boston? And believe me Boston is at least a conservative evolution of Prog directly influenced by it, despite this they should not be added because they split completely from the genre. >> we don't have typical AOR groups as of yet. (except Kansas )   We are getting deeper in the hole with each addition, lets worry about the real Prog acts, there are plenty of bands for all genres in the master list, clean the master list first, check the 100% Prog additions and then worry about Prog Related. >> indeed, but just how much work would it be to add The Who? If the asker is writting the bio, we openthe page up and he adds the album. This person is taking his own time and not blocking ours.   Some people have made a priority of Prog Related and that's not what this site was created for, Prog Related is a escape for bands we know should be added but don't fit in any 100% Prog sub-genre and as an exception, not as our priority mission. >> the last prog-related addition was BOC three months ago   Iván   Hugues

Ricochet wrote: .....They have one album with some kind of progressiveness, the first years are pure rock 'n' stuff, the later years are POP..........'

Edited by gong - June 22 2007 at 11:21