Talk:The Who

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article The Who has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Who concert dates[edit]

Hello I was researching your dates to find out exactly when I attended a Who concert in Bakersfield, CA in 1973. It was at the coliseum I believe. I did not see the dates but it was around October I think. I'm 54 so it's been awhile but I'm positive about the year. Thank you.166.147.72.37 (talk) 05:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Ginger

According to Neill & Kent, the best source (imho) for gig dates, the only 1973 dates in California were in November - the Cow Palace, San Francisco on 20 (the infamous gig where Moon collapsed and Scott Halpin stood in) and the Inglewood Forum, Los Angeles on 22-23. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

After looking through this more, Ritchie333, I'm happy to say that you've done this page quite well! Don't know when you plan on taking to FAC, but before you do, I should note that Daily Mirror isn't exactly a top-notch source (FN279). Also, are any of the "Further Reading" texts used as references like those in "Bibliography"? If not, I'd remove them. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi SNUGGUMS. A shame the peer review was closed (though it had been open for a while). There are still outstanding issues for me to do, and that's one of them. I think the Daily Mirror (one of the sources that John would vomit at and remove on sight, and for good reason, it's tabloid trash) was just a holding source for a counterpoint. Crisco was due to do an image review, and he (or indeed, anyone) hasn't done so. The article is looking much better but I don't think it's ready for FAC yet, though if all of that can be completed, it might be. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that wasn't by any means the only issue, just the one that concerned me most. I wouldn't blame John for doing so. He's also very openly anti-Daily Mail and would eliminate that too without hesitation. Damn bot closed too soon. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Why not just re-open the review? Plenty of articles go through multiple reviews. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I've seen people try to re-open reviews only for bot to close them before long. You could request another PR or hold one here on the talk page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, by "re-open" I meant open a new review. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Continued from Peer Review[edit]

I'm going to continue my comments from the Peer Review here.

  • having sold more than 100 million records: as of?
I think Snuggums asked the same question, and I addressed it, however if nobody wants it in there it can be removed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • In 1967, they achieved success in the US after performing at the Monterey Pop Festival, and with the top ten single "I Can See for Miles". They released The Who Sell Out at the end of the year, and spent much of 1968 touring the US.: I might drop that whole last sentence, or at least "They released The Who Sell Out at the end of the year,"—it seems out of scope for the lead.
It was a little bit more than just touring, they strengthened their stage act and went from a good band to a great one, but maybe that's my POV showing. I've removed "the US" for now (they toured Europe and Australia too). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • where Townshend injured his arm onstage: oh, come on! He impaled his arm on his whammy bar while windmilling! You can't seriously leave out such juicy details!
He's still a living person, so per WP:BLP, I think we should err on the side of being conservative. If I wanted "juicy details" I'd cite The Sun more! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Musical style[edit]

  • and then to mod: is "mod" not rock? Either way, some sort of brief explanation would be helpful.
It's already linked and explain in the "Early career" section, should we repeat the information here or move it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I suppose, but it was introduced more as a fashion than a music style; I think a brief explanation would be helpful. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, there's a bit in now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Entwistle's bass has been described as displaying "the strong influence of Rhythm and Blues"...His bassline on "Pinball Wizard" was described as "a contribution of its own without diminishing the guitar lines"...as "a bass solo with vocals": quotes need attribution. It might be simply just to rewrite.
I don't understand, all three quotes have inline cites to specific book sources with page numbers. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
That's citation; attribution tells us who said what (rather than vague "was described as" type of writing). Either way, if they're not particularly choice quotes (say, quotes that are themselves widely quoted), I'd paraphrase them, anywas. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I've reworked this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • has been described Moon's arrival in the band: what happened here?
What appears to be the case here is that I was in mid copyedit, my youngest son came downstairs to complain that one of his siblings hit him, who retorted with "no I didn't", at which point I went off to tell them to go and play in separate rooms and try and get along (and wondering if such words would work on ANI), came back downstairs, saw the edit window with a summary parked in it, and hit "Save Page", forgetting what I was doing earlier. (Sorry, that was a bit long winded). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I blame my kids for every plague in my life, too Face-wink.svg Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • lead parts on his drum kit: meaning drum solos? Drum riffs? I'm not sure what this is referring to.
Definitely not drum solos, no!. I'll see what else Marsh or Atkins has to say on the subject. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The group integrated feedback as an integral part of the guitar sound: the group did this? And was it really an integral part? They weren't Sonic Youth.
Sonic Youth weren't around in 1964. And if Daltrey didn't like the feedback sound (at that point he was the leader and spokesman), he would have stopped it. I've changed it to "a deliberate component", which is more the emphasis I want to give. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps Daltrey would have stopped it if he didn't like it, but that doesn't mean he necessarily actively took part in choosing to include it. How about "feedback became a deliberate part" or something? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I went with "deliberate part"
  • Moon stopped using the hi hat in 1966, and started using Premier drum kits on an exclusive basis: this "stopped...started" seems to imply one was related to the other. Also, what was the significance of Moon dropping the hi hat?
Reworded. As for the significance, he was the only notable drummer in 1966 to do it.
That still doesn't make it clear why it's mentioned. Is it a difference that would have been noticeable to contemporary listeners? If not, is it worth mentioning? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!
I'll see if I can still pull out another source for this, but hopefully there's a bit more meat in there
  • Townshend coined the term "power pop" to describe the Who's style: a brief explanation of "power pop" would be nice.
  • I'm surprised "power chord" is left to the "Legacy and influence" section
  • particularly after the Who and the Experience met at Monterey: it may not be obvious who the Experience were (gasp!)
I've expanded it in full
  • albeit with Moon's distinctive drumming: why "albeit"?
Soft pop songs don't generally sound like somebody playing toms like a herd of elephants in the background! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
That's the thing, I guess—we really haven't got much of a picture of Moon's drumming. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • creating more than mere three-minute pop songs: Wasn't this already happening before Tommy?
Kind of, with "A Quick One" and "Rael", but they weren't commercial highlights. Even in late 1968, the Who were still plugging singles like "Magic Bus" on British kid's TV, as that's what the public knew them as. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe "focusing on" or "turning their focus toward", then, istead of "creating"? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I've redone this - they carried on having hit singles throughout the 70s, so it's not really true to say they abandoned that style. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • and using backing tapes live: like Milli Vanilli?
I've reworded this, but if you mean the audience weren't hearing a complete live instrumental, then yes. This is the best example I can think of, the acoustic guitar and synths are all tapes, but the vocals are all live (pretty obvious when you listen to Moon really). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Who author John Atkins: do you mean "biographer"? He didn't write the Who, did he?
Reworded Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Who author John Atkins praised Moon's ability to be able to synchronise with the synthesizer backing on "Won't Get Fooled Again".: this seems to jump out of nowhere.
See below Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I think it'd be nice to go into each of the instruments in separate paragraphs, say: Townshend's guitars, Entwistle's bass, Daltrey's vocals, Moon's drums, and "other" (such as synths). We've got a couple of sentences on the backing vocals, but virtually nothing on Daltrey's! We're getting info all over the place, and I'm having trouble fitting them together into a comrehensible mental picture.
  • Overall, I think this is the weakest section I've read so far. It's not particularly well organized, it's so vague, and seems to miss keys information—no mention of power chords! ... No explanation of "power pop" ... vague hints of what Moon was about ... even vaguer hints about Daltrey's vocals, pretty much summed up as "guttural"—what, he sounded like Alice Cooper? I'd recommend rewriting, starting with identifying what key points need to be explained, and then filling in the details from there.
I think Snuggums and Retrohead both mentioned this. Half the problem is finding good sources that actually give substantial information in one place, most just talk about a particular style or part of it at a specific time in the overall narrative. I'll have a think about this lot. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Right, I've had a reorder of this and it's now split into band, voice, instruments, each going up in chronological order. I've know got an idea of what's left - Townshend's guitars (specifically the Rickenbacker, Gibson SG, Les Paul and Eric Clapton Strat, some of which can be moved from history), bit more on synths, and Jones and Starkey's drumming styles. That should get us in the right direction. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I've redone this section to include more on gear. The problem I've had is the main book sources generally assume some basic working knowledge of the Who (not unreasonably), so it seems you can't easily a citation for some basic style details. I've gone elsewhere, and added more information about the gear. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Legacy and influence[edit]

  • made one of the first notable concept albums: this means Tommy? It seems to imply a different album than the aforementioned "rock opera".
It's not sourced, and "notable" is in the words to watch so it shouldn't be in there even for a GA. Nuked. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • their embrace of pop art: which reminds me, wasn't The Who Sell Out a statement about Pop Art? Should that have been mentioned earlier?
That was a celebration of pirate radio, specifically (obvious if you hear the album). The Pop Art connection comes from their early stage costumes, including Moon's target T shirt, Entwistle's jacket with medals, and Townshend's jacket made of flags. (let me run off and find a source for that lot).
But the jacket was Pop Art, wasn't it? I thought I read that the ads all over it weren't supposed to be snide anti-conumerist statements, but an embracing of Pop Art. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I've added a bit more about the Pop Art connection
  • Several notable artists have been influenced by the Who.: I think "several" is an understatement, and also redundant as we've just been told they were "one of the most influential rock groups from the 1960s and 1970s".
But "many" or "lots and lots" reads too much like a fan's point of view, which I'm keen to avoid. What word what you recommend. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I meant, since it's redundant, why not drop it? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
See below Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Bono of U2 said, "More than any other band, the Who are our role models.": Why start with Bono? Why not start with a contemporary band, and then work through bands where the influence is more obvious (bands with lots of big, dramatic power chords, etc)?
  • On that note, I don't really see any rhyme or reason to the selected bands and quotes. The whole second paragraph seems rather tossed together.
I've thrown it out and redone it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Didn't Paul McCartney write "Helter Skelter" in response to "I Can See For Miles"? I'd consider that a rather eye-opening example of how deep and immediate their influence was.
Yes, and that wasn't the only Beatles' connection either. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The band has also been called "The Godfathers of Punk": this after the mod revival and Britpop?
  • the MC5: are more often referred to as proto-punk, aren't they? Again, this is happening a-chronologically, starting with the late-70s London scene, and then moving to the late-60s Detroit scene, etc.
I've reworked this a bit so things are a bit tighter and in the right order. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It might be more informative to describe what kind of influence the band has had, rather than having fawning quotes from a bunch of bands. U2, for example again—this is not a band for whom the Who seems like an obvious influence. Do the sources not give any examples of how these bands incorporated their Who influence? It's been twenty years since I collected guitar magazines, but I seem to remember articles going into these things. I remember Townsend saying stuff about a Purcell influence on his use of power chords, as well—is this not mentioned in your sources?
What's happened here is that I started working on the article and trimmed out everything that was unsourced, then trimmed out everything that didn't match the citation given, then trimmed out everything I didn't think was particularly noteworthy ... and what we've now got is what's left. I'll have to redo this lot. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I've redone this - finding actual sources where bands cite the Who as an influence and say why seems to be like looking at a needle through a haystack. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Just because I'm like that, I'm going to take another break. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@72.43.153.30: I am not about to start an edit war on an article I am trying very hard to improve to featured article status (as you can see from the large array of comments upthread), but in summary, we generally don't cite stuff in the lead, and we put due weight on recent events to avoid recentism. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but I think pinging only works for logged-in users. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Most important British rock acts.[edit]

OK, so, sorry to undo your undo but I don't know how else to start a conversation with you? This is the first time someone has undone one of my updates! I won't change it again until we have discussed it and agreed. OK? Putting opinions aside, the reference article simply doesn't say anything like "For much of their career they have been regarded as one of the three most important British rock acts, along with the Beatles and the Rolling Stones". The article starts by saying that "Along with the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, the Who complete the holy trinity of British rock". Unless I'm missing something? I just don't see how it is saying that they are one of the 3 most important British rock acts? FillsHerTease (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Replace it with a sentence summarising brief sales figures and chart positions. Neill & Kent has this, but only up to 1978, Atkins may have more up to date figures, so may the RIAA archives. As you can see from the peer review and talk page conversations above, it's not been particularly looked on favourably. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I would like to wait for JG66 to respond before making any further changes. I'm sure we can come up with something that we all agree on... FillsHerTease (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
As Binksternet has also reverted another attempt to put it back in, I think consensus is to leave it out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
This is what I wrote in my edit summary: "several things are wrong with this addition: the sources do not support the phrase 'much of their career' or 'one of the world's best-selling bands of all time'. Also, the lead section is not for new information but for summary information." I am sympathetic to the general drift of the text addition, that the lead should say that the Who are huge, but it should be based on text found in the article body, a summary of cited statements about how big they are. Binksternet (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
(Or you could always ping me, Ritchie333?) FillsHerTease, that's very good of you – I have to say I read your original change as coming purely from an anti-Who PoV. Personally, after looking at the mention of the band being "One of the most influential rock bands of the 20th Century" (in the BBC article) and Rolling Stone '​s "Along with the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, the Who complete the holy trinity of British rock", I thought they did support the grand statements in the Lead. Obviously, there's a bit of a gap in the Lead currently, as a result of its removal.
Yes I apologise for that JG66 and you were right to undo it. Although I didn't think what the lede said was supported by the reference, I am in no way anti-Who and I should have started a discussion or at least changed what was written rather than just removing it. My bad. You're right that The Who merit a significant statement in the lede. I think my interpretation of the "Holy Trinity" quote is that, along with The Beatles and The Stones, they were the first three, the first wave, the ones who inspired all the others. My problem with the original quote was not that The Who weren't incredibly important, it was that saying there were 3 most important British rock bands was simply not possible. My first thought was "what about Led Zeppelin, what about The Sex Pistols, what about Radiohead etc."? So it wasn't The Who I had a problem with - but I can see why you would get that impression sorry - it was just that British rock has been so important and so significant that limiting it to 3 bands over the course of the last 50 years simply won't do! I hope that makes sense? :-) FillsHerTease (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Why is it not possible that The Who are one of the three most important British rock acts along with The Beatles and The Rolling Stones? I've heard that from many quarters for decades. They have even been regarded as The World's Greatest Rock Band, something even the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame acknowledges. The Rolling Stone line about the Holy Trinity of British Rock is certainly NOT about The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and The Who being the "first three" or the "first wave," because MANY British rock bands pre-date The Who, including the likes of The Kinks, The Animals and The Yardbirds. So if they're not referring to a "first wave" with their Holy Trinity line, what do you think they're referring to? 72.43.153.30 (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Additionally, the 1992 Rolling Stone Album Guide opens The Who section with, "Ranking just below the Beatles and the Rolling Stones in the Great Triumvirate of British rock, The Who..." 72.43.153.30 (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine with however it pans out, but I would have thought the Who merits a statement of that magnitude in the opening paragraph. Most readers would expect it, I'm sure (although I appreciate Binksternet's point about wording). I was trying to find something suitable at Rock's Backpages, but … well, there's quite a selection there!. JG66 (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
@JG66: (that better? :-D) It does merit some sort of mention like that, yes, just haven't worked out what yet. Hey, as the header says, I don't WP:OWN the article, so somebody else can always have a go! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)