John Lennon's Coolness to Pete Townshend

I think you're looking at this completely the wrong way.

Personally, i don't consider Revolver to be much of a rock album, it's way better than that.
For me, the Beatles transcended the definition of "rock & roll" early in their career,
there isn't anything special about being bounded by that genre, which could easily be seen
as inferior to what the Beatles achieved.

Rock? That's what stupid adolescents get off on. Aerosmith, Eagles, AC/DC, that's rock.
Sure it's fun, but what the Beatles did went way beyond that genre.

 

We can argue what is "rock" or "rock and roll".
My point is, to dismiss the Beatles merely as "pop" or "light pop" is a meager attempt to undermine the band and its influence.
It's really a dated argument.
Revolver is a direct influence on Are You Experienced----i don't hear this mentioned too often.

 

.......and if Pete held this 1982 view from the moment he made the scene......i'd respect it.
But it rings false.

Keith Richards has said his share of snippy things, but when he says he hated Pepper, I have to respect it because nothing suggests that it's anything other than his authentic opinion of many years-----it rings true.

 

Agreed. Although I take much of Keith's Beatles bashing with a grain of salt, I believe him when he says he hated Pepper. It's basically the antithesis of Keith's approach to music.

 

I don't think Pete's comment was to "dismiss" or undermine the Beatles, but rather his point was to differentiate their style from his style,
which by his definition was what "rock & roll" had been, at least from the perspective of the early 80's when his interview was given.
Van Morrison was influenced by Black American blues musicians, that doesn't make him one.

 

There may be an element of truth in this, but I think Pete was very much dissing the Beatles. He was inferring that his rock influences were more legit.

 

Herman and the effin Hermits?

 

Exactly. It .was said to belittle them, as if they were inferior in some way. I mean come on...the whole Herman's Hermits swipe. Townshend is second teir. He's nowhere near the level of a Lennon, McCartney or Dylan, thus the desperate attempt to elavate himself.

 

And for a time in the 80s.......I agreed with Pete! Then I got the CD's in 1987/1988/1989 (it took three years on a bagboy's pay) and began studying musical history in earnest! (and formed my Opinions)

 

He did some darn fine solo records. Better than Lennon IMO.

 

Great . But comparing Who albums, which are group albums, to JL solo albums is BS.

 

I always roll my eyes when someone labels The Beatles as a pop band and The Stone or Who as a rock band. Both bands did some of both. You have Yer Blues and you have Happy Jack and Ruby Tuesday. When the fabs wanted to rock they out rocked them all

 

Maybe so but PT solo was a lot closer to the Who than JL solo to the Beatles.

 

Oh, how dare you refer to True Art as 'Screeching'?.?????
The beave

 

Here's my takeaway: according to Pete, Little Richard didn't matter and "Ebony and Ivory" is ****in' amazing.

I love the couple of great Who/Townsend records as much as anybody, but that book of his was so jam-packed with self-important high-art BS that it makes it difficult to go back to anything he's been involved with - whether a song or a magazine article or whatever. The dude loves the sound of his own voice...

 

Arrogant a** (Pete) deserved it.

 

I'll have to give that a closer listen next time I'm in the Nagras. I always thought they were just playing the riff from George's incidental 'Cowboy Music' from the Wonderwall soundtrack - which may very well have been inspired by 'A Quick One'.

Chip Madinger
www.lennonology.com

 

Umm, not quite

One thing that comes to mind is their was a time when bands such as The Beatles, The Beach Boys, The Rolling Stones, The Who, etc were inspired and influenced by each other's work...that friendly competition was going on.

I still don't fathom how Pete's opinion of The Beatles can bother some fans to an extent. To understand Pete's neurotic behavior, one must realize any quote of his means he meant it when he said it...and that could change the very next day. And for all of Pete's arrogant asinine comments, Lennon could be very much the same. Like Pete, John (in interviews) said what meant, and meant what he said...at the time he said it. At least these guys were passionate about it

 

Petes solo career was fair. Not exactly a success just like Mick and a Keith's. POB and Imagine far outweigh only of his solo stuff.

 

Two notoriously self-absorbed, arrogant, capricious rock stars didn't really care for each other? Say it ain't so, Joe!

I'm a great admirer of the music of both men, but surely no-one is surprised by now that both were/are guilty of often being less than stellar human beings.

You seem to be describing practically any classic rock star, there.

 

^
^
THIS [my emboldening].

 

Lennon's hostility to hard rock, heavy metal, progressive rock and (especially) 'intellectual rock' is reasonably well documented. Most of Pete Townshend's music fits into the first or the last categories, so it should surprise no-one that John was not a fan.

 

One contemporary whom John regularly praised was Eric Burdon.

 

My appologies, I meant to say cry of a baby elk .

 

The Who extended the rock and roll genre too, in their own way. But no one can compare to the Beatles. No one.