The Who Album-By-Album (& Single-By-Single) Thread

So what does everybody prefer? The 45 mono (not to be confused with the super loud bass BBC version, used on many compilations) or the LP version?

Pete, himself, seems to have once preferred the former (at least, according to the MBB&B liner notes - though, if that is the case, he never explains why the 45 got swapped out for the LP version...surely he must have had enough "clout" by then - late 1970 - to dictate such decisions), but seems to have changed his mind. He told our host, in the late 80's, to use the stereo LP version for the cd issue of MBB&B)...

 

I like all 3 versions you mentioned. The sad fact though is the rarity of a live non-lip synched performance. Correct me if I'm wrong but it wasn't until "Join Together" was released (The Who on Ice) that an official live version was released.

Oddly enough though, here is an audio clip from 1979:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Hy38l7WttM

 

How is it "mucked up" on that release?

 

Can someone describe the differences between the mono 45 and LP versions?

 

That is all too true. No 1967/1968-boots have surfaced with that track. Thanks for the clip, I love Pete's guitar playing on the 1979/80 tour, but Kenney (too little) and Simon (too much) were just unable to play "I Can See For Miles". Zak could - and the most faithful live version (audio only) we have to the studio take is actually the one and only time they played it in 2002 (Boston). Roger is straining, Pino sounds plonky, but apart from that - they're pretty good. This is a typically dry and dull soundboard recording, but still:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvfUhdbXaSY

 

Eeek, on that 2002 version, first time I heard it though- thanks.
Edit: On further listen, your right, not too bad.

But this one is really double:thumbsdn::thumbsdn:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9HScfVlim0

 

Weaker than what?

I'd hardly call "Under My Thumb" weak. True, the Beach Boys-inspired backing vocals give
it a different feel than The Stones' original recording, but Pete's fuzz guitar solo bests the
laid-back (DI-sounding) Chuck Berry licks that Keith came up with. Too bad Mick & Keith made bail so fast...I would have dug hearing Who versions of "19th Nervous Breakdown" or "It's Not Easy" among others.

 

It's simply another case of a mono mix having it all - a perfect 10. The stereo version, mixed later for the album, was weak. It didn't match the power of the mono single. A lot of it was the placement of the instruments; drums mixed far to the right and lower in level.. the song just lost all its juice.

No doubt this track was a beast to get right in any form. Even after it's completion you can imagine there were still disagreements: for one thing, John never felt his bass could be heard. And he's right! But a de-emphasized bass sound was what it took to give the track its edge. (John's later attempt to "fix" things with a new bass overdub only served to sap the power out of the song, though it was fun to hear.)

They attempted a correction on the Sell Out remix, and I think they were largely successful. The placement's the same but the drums are a lot louder.

PS I found my mint copy of the original US mono "Miles" at a flea market in Paris in 1976. Cost me $10.

 

Wow, look at this clip!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_yy9eziiEg

Shot on 13 June 2002. This was Day four of WHO rehearsals for their 2002 U.S. Tour. Thunderfingers/The OX (aka John Entwistle) would pass away a few weeks later [27 June 2002

 

It just sounds too much like a half a**ed rehearsal/Pete home demo featuring Keith and Roger to me. I actually miss John on these two tracks. A live take of "Under My Thumb" with all four would probably have been killer. Agree on Pete's solo, and that it would be great to hear them tackle more Stones material. If I'm ever hard on The Who, it's just because I love them so much.

 

The 1998 expanded re-issue features an "inferior" alternate take without Pete's stinging guitar solo.

 

Is it an alt take? I just assumed that when they did the stereo remix, they didn't have to guitar track. Why did they do this? I guess you have to have Who's Missing or Two's Missing, which ever its on, or an original 45....

 

Rarities Vol 1
Two's Missing

The '98 "version" clocks in about 8 sec longer at 2:44. I gave it a listen and the vocals sound a bit different.

 

There are 5 main mixes of the original "I Can See For Miles" recording -

1. Original 45 mono - http://www.mediafire.com/?jn2hqjizzqz
2. LP mono - similar to LP stereo, except more compressed
3. LP Stereo - http://www.mediafire.com/?iikkmynild0
4. BBC - similar to LP stereo, except with very loud bass overdub (found on many compilations, including TKAA)
5. Remix - http://www.mediafire.com/?qyyzydjyrxc

 

It's not just the solo that's missing, it's the lead guitar (playing the riff) throughout the entire song. As far as I can tell it sounds like the same take as the original version though, just missing the guitar overdub. The vocals sound the same to me. The longer time of the remixed version is accounted for by a two-second count-in at the beginning, and a longer fade at the end.

Boy, of all the crummy mistakes in the various Who reissues, Under My Thumb is the worst. That blistering solo is what makes the song. How anyone could have failed to notice it was missing is amazing. Anyone who's only heard that crummy version hasn't really heard the song.

 

Pete in action: "I Can See For Miles"

 

When I saw the Who at the Cow Palace in the Fall of 1967, they played I Can See For Miles... amazing. It was the same set as Montery, with Miles replacing Can't Explain

 

Hard to top your experience glea.

Here is a nice vintage video that perhaps captures the moment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5ELMtVleI8

 

andmilesandmilesandmilesandmilesandmiles ....

I Can See For Miles was one of those first Who tracks that opened my mind up as to what massive import fine rock music could have on one's perceptions of reality, being overrated and all.... as heard on Meaty, Beaty, Big, and Bouncy...

 

Thanks for everyone's insight about the various versions of ICSFM. I've never heard the BBC version. I have to find that one. Any links out there?

 

What's weird about that is they use the LP version to lip-sync/pretend to play.

But they don't use the version they were there to sell...the 45 single version with John's bass guitar!

No wonder he looks even more bored and disinterested than usual. Just like on the basic backing track for the song, prior to overdubbing, he's just constantly strumming his bass to match Keith's kicks on the bass drum pedal...

 

FWIW, you're not missing out on anything.

It's like the 45 single version, but not half as good.

John's bass completely overwhelms the mix, making it sound quite lame/goofy...

 

glea,
Are those photographs that you have or are those just video stills?

 

Snapshots...

 

Would those have been engineered by Chris Huston?