Jump to content

Talk:The Who/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Reorganised

I reorganized this page into sections because it was getting unmanageable. I did not try to separate the discussions of the histories of the band's name and membership into separate sub-topics, because they are entangled in such a way that it is difficult so figure out who said what and who was replying to whom. (Please get into the habit of indenting replies one level deeper than what you're replying to, and put them after any other same-level replies, and put your signature on each paragraph you write so authorship will remain clear when future replies separate your paragraphs. Also, if you're the author of any orphraned replies on this page, please consider relocating, indenting, and attributing them as appropriate.) — B.Bryant 14:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I suggest leaving the above paragraph and any replies to it on the page for a while, to see whether anyone objects to the reorganization, but then removing the discussion to archive if there hasn't been any outcry. — B.Bryant 14:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Issues

Power Chord not at all distinctive

I disagree that the power chord is a distinctive feature of The Who. Chords most distinctive of The Whe are fourth chords (e.g. CFG) and the major chord on the same base. 193.136.27.135 15:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Marius Amado-Alves

I disagree with your disagreement. Many of The Who's seminal moments feature the distinctive use of powerchords, I Can't Explain, My Generation, Pinball Wizard, Baba O'Riley to name but four. Powerchords can be found found spread brashly across the bands most well known albums incuding Whos Next, Quadrophenia and Live At Leeds. Though Townshend didn't invent the powerchord he was probably the musician who popularised its useage more than any other before.

To remove powerchords from the sound of The Who is to remove an integral element of that sound. To remove powerchords as a distinctive feature on The Who's wikipedia entry is the same form of ignorant vandalism. Arclight heretic 01:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Arclight Heretic.

Autodestructive?

is it really right to call the guitar smashing and explosions autodestructive? its seems to be wrong,because it was the band members that were destroying stuff. Lord revan 16:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, certainly many people would consider the instruments to be part of the band, somehow. But if you want to avoid going into art theoretical interpretations, the second (actually, the original) mentioning of this down in the main text is purely factual:
In the early years, The Who were most famous for smashing their instruments at the end of their concerts, and would often throw the damaged remains into the audience. [...] Townshend cites his art school mentor Gustav Metzger as an influence, who had developed a concept called Auto-Destructive Art.
regards, High on a tree 12:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

List of add/change requests

It would really be nice if someone could come up with the date for the use of Tommy material in March of Dimes fundraising commercials many years ago, and add it as a "However..." sentence after the existing mention of how some fans think the use of certain songs in commercials is a sell-out. — B.Bryant 14:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

IMO, the photo from the cover of The Kids are Alright would make a better group portrait than the cover from Ultimate Collection. However, I'm not going to change it unless someone else agrees. — B.Bryant 14:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I used the cover to the Ultimate Collection because you could see the members better, but The Kids Are Alright picture is more recognizable.~Shiri 02:29, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

I think people would find the EPs an interesting addition to the bibliography, if anyone can dig up the details. — B.Bryant 14:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll work on that, and start to make pages to their more popular ones. ~Shiri
IIRC, there are some notes about one or two early ones in the liner notes to the Delux Edition of My Generation. I remember that there was one with four tracks from Tommy, but I don't have any info on it. I vaguely recally that they released one in Germany, too. Also, it might be worth mentioning the unreleased EP that can be partially reconstructed from Pete's notes on Odds and Sods. — B.Bryant 05:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Need to add By Numbers to the history, and steal the following text about the departure from concept material. — B.Bryant 15:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Need to add famous festival performances to the history section, and possibly mention the Tommy tour and the 1970 live album. — B.Bryant 15:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The history section probably merits a more detailed discussion of their hit singles. Also, was "Pictures of Lily" actually a 'hit'? It seems to me that there were far more important singles that aren't mentioned at all. (And for that matter, is it really psychedelic? I would think "I Can See for Miles" is a far better exemplar of the genre, to say nothing of being a bigger hit.) — B.Bryant 15:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

All Music Guide says it "made the Top Five in the U.K. in mid-1967, but, perhaps hindered by the controversial subject matter, stopped just outside of the Top 50 in the U.S." So it was at least a hit in the UK. However, I agree that it's really not very "psychadelic" - AMG calls it "a straightforward, catchy tune". I have no idea where "one of the most accomplished of all European contributions to psychedelic music" came from, so I removed it. Axlrosen 06:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

A few things: The piped links to years in music (Such as [[1967 in music|1967]]) need to be removed or replaced with something like, in [[1967]] (See [[1967 in music]]). This is standard to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. ~Shiri 03:06, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Also, I think there should be a seperate page for the discography (a la Bob Dylan Discography or The Beatles discography). I think The Who put out enough music over the last four decades to merit another page for it. ~Shiri 03:06, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

OK by me. — B.Bryant 05:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A highly sparse list is here: The Who discography. It needs to be expanded heavily. ~Shiri 06:36, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone object to Template:The Who I've put on various pages? I think it could use a bit of work, myself; it's a bit cumbersome. ~Shiri 03:06, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

It's fine by me, though I don't know know the conventions for such templates. — B.Bryant 05:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

All in all, I think this particular article is well on the way to featured status, and I plan to help with it until it is. ~Shiri 03:06, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

I moved that paragraph to improve the flow of the history, and also to group it with the other paragraph describing some characteristics of the band, but I'm still not happy with it. I think we should have an introductory section that characterizes the band and their music, then the history in its own section. — B.Bryant 05:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Like I say, well on it's way. It could certainly use work. ~Shiri 06:36, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

One more thing; the article needs to talk about who The Who (heh) have influenced with their style in the long run. I know that David Bowie , Green Day, etc. have covered their songs, so perhaps some mention of that. Shiri 05:05, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

We should make an article for some of their songs. I mean, The Beatles have an article for each of their songs, so why can't we make articles for songs like "Magic Bus" or "Substitute"? Also, we should also add "Then and Now" to the list of compilations. I haven't seen it on the list as of yet.

Kudos to whoever fixed the Marshall Stack section. It was so wrong before. I took a wack at correcting it. The new version is vastly superior to my effort. Clashwho 06:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


Images

There is a photo of an ARP ad featuring Pete Townshend at [1], which might be worth including if it falls under the fair use umbrella. — B.Bryant 09:32, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not too clear how that falls under fair use, if you'd like to clarify for me. ~~ Shiri 20:31, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Er...never mind, it's promotional, isn't it? ~~ Shiri 01:29, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Photos — Since the portrait photos were taken at different periods of the band's history, we should add dates to the photo captions if we can determine them accurately. (If not, we should look for replacement photos that we can date.) Also, Keith's pic clips the edge of his face, so it would be good to find another photo to use for him. Finally, it would be nice to decorate the history section with a chronological sequence of period photos. — B.Bryant 00:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Higher resolution: [2]
  • [3] A poster of Townshend smashing stuff up. Probably stands out on his own.
  • [4] Promotional photo of Roger Daltrey in 1975. I can probably get a higher resolution image.

There's more, but I'll put them later this week. I'm off to bed. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 04:40, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Sound samples

I can upload some short sound samples here that are covered by fair use (Most of the featured music articles have a few). Any suggestions as to what songs to use? ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 23:56, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Should we use warhorses, so people will say to themselves "Oh, yeah, I've heard that", or try to feature stuff that people are less likely to have heard? Either way, some variety in time and style would be nice. — B.Bryant 04:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dec. 3rd, 1979

This was a nice edition, but a little NPOV and poorly placed. I have moved it here if anyone wants to tidy it up and put it back in.

"It is incredibly amazing how we missed one performance in particular - Dec. 3, 1979 in Cincinnati. 11 people were killed and several more injured when a stampede occurred outside Cincinnati's Riverfront Coliseum (since renamed). The concert was ticketed as first-come, first-served seating (festival, general admission seating). The doors did not open until the soundcheck inside Riverfront was complete. The crowd thronged outside the arena, hence pressing everyone against the closed doors. When the doors finally opened, the crowd rush inside was too much. People were knocked over as others tried to get inside. VH1 did a nice piece on this tragic concert about five years ago." - MightyMoose22 04:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV issues

The article contained several "recommendations". This is not acceptable per NPOV, however, if these can somehow be made neutral, they could be restored. I also removed horizontal lines and empty sections, as these are nonstandard and look ugly.

The comments in the tables could also use some stylistic/NPOV touch-ups.—Eloquence 00:53, Jan 1, 2004 (UTC)

I find it's sometimes valuable to summarize critical observations about a work of art in an article. For instance, observing the shortcomings of Tommy while recognizing its place in rock history would be valid, or noting the Who songs which are generally considered of historical or groundbreaking import. But I agree that a simple list of recommendations doesn't belong here. -mhr 07:07, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Yes, lots of the stuff you removed was mine, and you did the right thing. I also agree with Michael's comments. — B.Bryant 14:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Discography issues

How come no foriegn albums are listed. I have a double vinyl set from Japan called the Perfect Collection (it seems to be part of a series). Although there is no refernce to a date at all, this stuff would be intersting to a who fan. Though I have to say the mastering job on The Perfect Collection varies highly from song to song. It has a very muddy sound overall.

There are a vast number of Who collections not mentioned in the bibliography. To avoid excessive clutter I only listed the "Period Collections" which are considered by many fans to be classic Who albums. The flood of additional collections started later, as the band became less and less active. — B.Bryant 13:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What does V? stand for?

See the key at the bottom of the table it appears in. — B.Bryant 13:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't there a movie to go along with the Join Together tour album? Or maybe a live broadcast of one of the concerts? — B.Bryant 16:31 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)

Yeah, I have it on VHS. It's called Who/Live Featuring the Rock Opera Tommy. Also, the recent DVD release has that show.

My Generation (song)

Can anyone confirm or deny that on "My Generation" on Live At Leeds Roger Daltrey replaces "Why don't you all f-f-f-fade away" with "Why don't you all f-f-f-fuck off". This point is in dispute at Talk:My Generation (song). Are there any other live recordings of "My Generation" where "fuck off" is used? --Bruce1ee (Talk) 10:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I have always thought "f-f-fade"-part as an early piece of The Who- humour: You would think that Daltrey says "fuck" after prolonged "f" but he just says fade. --84.248.188.215 06:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Patti Smith's "My Generation" is about the most aggressive; can't think of it offhand. May listen to it later tonight.

Merge "popular culture" sections?

I have added tags suggesting merging the "Who songs in popular culture" section of the discography page to the "The Who in popular culture" section here. It seems we've grown some redundancy since last time I checked. Also, the section on the discography page always seemed to me like it should have stayed here when the discography was split out to begin with. – B.Bryant 01:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I've merged them, but together the section is way too big to be on either page, so I've split it off to its own article. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_
11:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds and performances

I'm aware that the new "sounds and performances" section is somewhat redundant with the "history" section, since it includes some timeline elements. However, my intent is for the new section to tell the reader "what they sounded like", in contrast to the history section telling them "what happened". Though some redundancy is unavoidable under that scheme, I think we can minimize it by keeping those two foci in mind, and still have a detailed article that easy to digest. — B.Bryant 09:32, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's only a bit redundant. It's a lovely edit, though, I was thinking that there was an obvious lack of explanation of their stage shows. ~~ Shiri 18:15, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

History of the band

Band's name and membership

The band was once known as The Detours, as well as The Highnumbers and The Who. In fact I think they were The Who twice. Can someone straighten out the history of their names? — B.Bryant 16:31 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)

Also, what was their name when they picked up Keith Moon? Had they already abandoned one or both of their early names? — B.Bryant 16:31 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)

> (Apologies if misformatting; just discovered this site) The first band JAE and PT were in was the Confederates. They bounced to various bands, including the Scorpions and the Aristocrats. Roger Daltrey, guitar player for the Detours and a year older than Pete and John, ran into JAE carrying his homemade bass and said, "I understand you play the bass." Roger asked John to come round to the Detours, which he did, ditching his schoolmate Pete. John eventually persuaded Roger to let Pete join.

At first, a six- or five-piece, they pared down to four with Roger taking over vocals, Doug Sandom on drums. They were the Detours through 1963. In February 1964, they renamed themselves "The Who" on Richard Barnes' suggestion. Sandom got the sack in April 1964, and Moon "sat in" from the Beachcombers in late April.

From July to October 1964, they were the High Numbers. On 3 July, they released I'm The Face/Zoot Suit on Fontana as the High Numbers. In November, as The Who (again), they recorded I Can't Explain, which was their first single as The Who, released 15 January 1965.

Hope this helps clarify the history of the name. --24.118.144.169 05:34, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)litgo (litgo@aol.com) 06:20 - 2004 09 23

BTW, "number" was supposedly Mod slang for "guy" or the like, so The Highnumbers was probably supposed to be an in joke (i.e., "the high guys", in Mod cant). — B.Bryant 16:31 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)

My understanding is that "The High Numbers" was to reflect the music charts, the higher the better. isnt it the lower the better?

Speaking of Keith, were the drummers listed as "members" after him ever actually members of the band? I thought they just worked with the band as glorified session musicians, but were never actually inducted into the band. — B.Bryant 16:31 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)

Kenney Jones (previously of the Faces and the Small Faces) was made full member of the band. The subsequent musicians (drummers: Simon Phillips, Zak Starkey) are just hired hands.

--24.118.144.169 05:34, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)litgo (litgo@aol.com) 06:30 - 2004 09 23

Kenny Jones, Faces and Small Faces drummer, was invited to join the group as a full member. The association lasted two albums, "Face Dances" and "It's Hard". Jones was in the midst of other projects when the Who went back on tour. After the departure of Jones, the Who used a number of excellent drummers including Simon Phillips and Jason Bonham.

> The Who never used Jason Bonham as a drummer. That was probably Led Zeppelin or some derivative. Zak Starkey, the son of Richard Starkey (aka Ringo Starr) is the Who's current drummer. --24.118.144.169 05:34, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)litgo (litgo@aol.com) 06:31 - 2004 09 23

They were certainly The High Numbers during an early moddish phase and they again certainly played under that name for 'suprise' gigs at e.g. The Marquee for the benefit of their intimates and the initiated well into their career as The Who in the '70s (I was there on one occasion!) user:sjc

Another question regarding the band's name: How did the band actually choose the words "The Who" as their name? Could it be something simple like: a band member having said the band's name to someone, who then asked "the...who?" as if to clarify, and the words just stuck? Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Live at Leeds

It's inexcusable that Live at Leeds is not mentioned in the history section. I added mention of it, alluding to its reputation as one of rock's greatest live albums. That is not subjective.Clashwho 04:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not actually disagreeing. But if you add it to the History section you have to chop it from the Performance section. In either case both statements are pushing a hefty POV and wherever it goes it needs to have a {{Fact}} tagged onto it until it's cited. The article is in bad need a citations(at least 50!) Start with that one at least. And sign your posts on the talk page Anger22 03:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see what I can do.Clashwho 04:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure but I have seen lots of references to it being one of, if not, the greatest live albums in Rolling Stone, Q magazine, and some other magazines. --FK65 13:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Pete's hearing loss

Is it really the case that Townshend's hearing loss is primarily due to a Moon prank involving explosives? I've been a Who fan for 15 years and have read quite a bit about them, and this is the first time I've ever heard that theory. However, I've heard it frequently mentioned that his hearing loss is due to playing their music loud on headphones while producing and mixing their albums, and that the other members of the band have suffered similar (though less pronounced) hearing loss. That seems much more plausible to me. Is there written support for the Moon prank theory? -mhr 21:25, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, it's at least a couple of the Who books, although I don't remeber which ones (Richard Barnes's perhaps). And you can actually watch the incident in question in the movie "The Kids Are Alright." It's the Smothers Brothers segment. Moon had apparently bribed whoever was handling the small explosives that were to be set off at the end of the song to really juice them up. After the explosion, you can see Townshend swatting at his left ear. Pete apparently remembered this years later when the Who were watching this footage in "The Kids Are Alright" and started playfully hitting Moon, and saying "that's when it started!" I mean, who really knows where the actual damage occurred, but it's not out of the realm of possibility that this contributed to it.

  • Clarification:

While the Smothers Brothers incident was probably the "beginning" of the permanent damage, Pete has admitted often that it was listening to headphones in his home studio while recording demos -- and while drunk and not judging how loud he had it up -- that caused the most severe damage. For many years, he avoided any stage work involving exposure to significant volume, suffered from tinnitus (still does) and had difficulty hearing the frequency range of children's and women's voices. --24.118.144.169 05:34, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)litgo (litgo@aol.com) 06:24 utc - 2004 09 23

Description of the Mods

I think the sentence explaining who the Mods were is confusing and not well written: "Mods were known as a group of rebels that would usually start fights, listen to underground music, and show what England really was like." First of all, the syntax is terrible. secondly, can someone more familiar with the Mod movement explain what the last part about "what England was really like" is supposed to mean? Isn't what a place "really is" entirely subjective and a matter of outlook? Wouldn't it be more helpful to explain, albeit briefly, what the Mods generally believed England was like? User:Snyrt

Misc

The "mods" versus "rockers" thing reminds me of the movie "A Hard Day's Night", when a reporter asked one of the Beatles (Ringo, I think it was) if he was a mod or a rocker. His response was, "I'm a mocker". soulpatch

I just did a minor overhaul of the page with my friend Brian, a dedicated Who fan who asked to see the entry on the Who when I showed him the Wikipedia and told him what a Wiki was. Mainly we included mention of "Who's Next" in the main article and made the earlier "I Can't Explain" the Who's first hit instead of "The Kids Are Alright". We also added entries for the Lifehouse project and the drummers after Keith Moon. This is in fact one of my first times using a Wiki. Tell me what you think. Nelson

  • Hey, I like it. "Who's Next" is the first Who album I've ever heard (and it's very close to my heart :-) ) and I'm glad to hear you've put a link to it in the main article. About "I Can't Explain," you did the correct thing (but I thought "My Generation" came before "The Kids"). The addition of the drummers was a very good idea; thanx. And finally, about "Lifehouse," it's very helpful. I don't think I'd understand it without the article. Not bad for a first time!!! -The Seeker

"...though other bands, notably Deep Purple, have since taken over that ambiguous honor"- shouldn't that be 'dubious' honor?

I put that change in there. True enough, we would usually use "dubious" in that turn of speech, but it is hard to say something like that in this case, as this "honour" may not be "dubious" in the eyes of some - a term like that would suit an entertainment columnist in the newspaper, not an encyclopedia. Derekwriter 04:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like some guidance on where you think it's most appropriate to post links to streaming audio interviews with members of The Who. I posted one Pete Townshend interview segment (so far) within the External Links category. Is this the most appropriate location? Here's an example of a the types of interviews I'd like to post - *Audio interview with Pete Townshend discussing The Kids Are Alright Classic Rock Central Please advise. Thanks. Azipfel 02:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

How about your personal Who fan page? It sounds snide, but Wikipedia isn't a link farm, and links to streaming audio/video clips of The Who (performance, interview, etc) don't really belong here, unless you're specifically using them as a reference in an article, in which case you can link to it within <ref>reference tags</ref>. —Erik Harris 12:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought it might be an interesting reference for all fans to hear Pete Townshend speak about how certain songs were inspired, or his approach to songwriting. In fact the interview was edited in order to directly correlate with a specific area of historical interest. This is a second example of how the interview was edited to directly approach a specific topic. *This is Pete Townshend speaking about his approach to songwriting, which I believe may be of historical reference. I'd like more than one opinion on this topic before I would consider a proper course of action. Thank you. Azipfel 02:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that it'd be interesting. That doesn't mean it's appropriate for Wikipedia, though. That's a much more appropriate focus for a fan page than an encyclopedia. I could see referring to such an archival page as a reference, but I don't see much merit in the idea of putting that archival page on Wikipedia. —Erik Harris 16:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Live 8 Heads-up

The Who are reportedly scheduled to play at the Live 8 concert, London on Saturday, July 2. It would be nice if people would keep an ear to the ground to take note of who's in the band's line-up, and at least a general idea of what they play, for addition to our history section. — B.Bryant 1 July 2005 08:28 (UTC)

Townshend/LSD????

Did Pete Townshend take LSD or not? I say no, thewho.net says no, and my friend agrees, however people think "Magic Bus" is a clear reference to the drug. Who is right? Also, did Roger Daltrey take any drugs? I have seen pictures of him with a cigarette, but that was the closest thing I've found.

-In many of the liner notes to their reissues (specifically Tommy) it is mentioned that some of Pete's work was inspired by his rejection of the psychadelic drug use of the time. Acid Queen is an example of how disillusioned he was towards much of the movement. However, in the liner notes to "The Kids Are Alright", it explains that their drinks were spiked with LSD at Woodstock.

I've heard an interview with Pete when he talked about deciding after a trans-Altlantic flight that it would be the last time he took LSD. So, based on that, yes. 89.168.7.225 08:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

On a history of drugs on Vh1, Pete described the negative effects of LSD on himself, explaining how it made him want to cut his neck.

ye roger did take drugs he did weed, but it made his throat dry so he didnt do it often and pete did take lsd like the guy above said cause keith was goin through a trip so pete went through it to help him and roger took pills to when they were startin in 1965 and he said it was best thing he had ever taken its in some interview on youtube —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerdaltreyisace (talk • contribs)

Roger Daltrey--hearing problem?

I once checked out "The Who: Live at the Royal Albert Hall" from the library and was looking at the pictures. I noticed that Roger Daltrey had something in his ear that resembled a hearing aid. Is it true that he is suffering from hearing loss, like Pete Townshend?

  • Probably an earpiece monitor. Lots of singers use them so they can hear their own vocals more clearly - the sound engineer sends a mix downplaying the rest of the band with the singers mic channel turned up. exolon 23:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no mention of this DVD on the main page. Is there a reason for this? I would like to read more about this live DVD.

Please take the time to respond to, and see this discussion through to the end before reposting your link(s) AGAIN.

There are a number of reasons why tribute bands' sites are unsuitable for links on Wikipedia.

  1. They're not about the band in question, they're about the tribute band. People follow these links to find out more about The Who, and all they find out from a tribute band site is that a tribute band exists.
  2. You may know everything there is to know about the band, but all the site says is "We know everything there is to know about The Who."
  3. There are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of tribute bands in the world. Should we be linking to every single one of them? If not, where do we draw the line? Who's to say that any one is more/less notable than any other?
  4. If the inclusion of these links is a genuine attempt to share your knowledge with the world, and has nothing to do with vanity and free advertising, then make a site about The Who and link to there.

The list goes on, but I'll leave it at that for now.

If you can give me (a) decent response(s), and convince me that I'm wrong about all of the above points, then I'll let you add all 75 of the tribute bands that play at your local pub every other month. :) - MightMouse22 00:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

And, as always, all comments from all users are welcomed and encouraged. - MightyMoose22 00:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. No tribute bands, please. They aren't about the main band. Hu 00:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I see your point and it is a good one. I now believe, after seeing the reasoning and not just the game play of removal, that to keep the integrity of the wiki page it should reference only links dedicated to just the band. I also believe that Tribute bands (and there are only 4-5 that are strictly dedicated to just The WHO) are a great resource and can provide Q and A feedback about certain topics. I will not post our link to anything other than a page dedicated to the band. - Dpp8 18:28, 17 January 2006 (EST)
There are other links that set a precedent in this avenue. Until our Who only page is up, I think this is a reasonable reference. - Dpp8 02:32 22 January 2006 (EST)
I'm quite happy to keep it as it is at the moment if everyone else is. - MightyMoose22 08:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I have some feedback - I would appreciate leaving the tribute band section as it is. As a last, passing reference. Your point about the dedicated tributes is absolutely true, they are a fantastic resource as to the band's history, and the bands listed here do terrific justice to The Who's legacy. - Whoo Arr Ewe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.249.213.21 (talk)

Yeah, the point I was making is that whilst the tribute band might be a "great resource" if you were to meet them and get into a conversation, their websites rarely are. Especially if it's just a myspace page. - MightyMoose22 00:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy in Reporting

I've been reading this page off and on for a while, and I notice the factual content has declined significantly through the various edits. I don't want to sound snotty, or like I own all the Who knowledge in the world, but if you're not a rabid Who fan and are editing the page, you might want to check references to find information on what you're writing. For example, please identify Shel Talmy more clearly; he is not a record label. This is an error: "(he claims that he got the idea from watching Keith Richards in concert." Instead, Townshend claimed he got the idea watching Richards warm up before a show. Etc. TheWho.net "history" page would be a good place to start checking: http://www.thewho.net/ I also think it's insulting to Zak Starkey to call his work "pseudo-Moon playing." Although Starkey can perform the same artistic function for The Who that Moon did, his playing is much different. Pkeets 05:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


This Who entry is looking better. However, please check the "Line Up" section; note you later say The Who also briefly performed as The High Numbers. I still think it's insulting to say Starkey's drumming is "pseudo-Moon playing"; he plays with his own particular style. Whether or not Moon drove a car into a Holiday Inn swimming pool is open to argument; you may want to say this "may never have happened," rather that stating that it didn't; Roger Daltrey said in a recent interview that he saw the bill for removing it. The last section needs an update, as The Who are now predicting they will release a mini-opera called "The Glass Household" in June, 2006, and a full album later in the fall. 72.161.49.12 01:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Pkeets 01:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Nazi uniform

Which bandmember was it that paraded in a Nazi uniform?

Keith Moon

lineup

in the band infobox, the lineup section is quite misleading. it would be most logical to emphasize the classic lineup they held for fourteen years. Joeyramoney 20:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I REALLY do not like this band line-up addition at all. The Who are Pete Townshend, Roger Daltrey, John Entwistle and Keith Moon. Only Kenney Jones can stake a claim to being a full-fledged member of the rest of those names. I know the addition says that when you read it, but on first glance it makes The Who look worse than Yes or Deep Purple in terms of ever-changing line-ups. It's very misleading. Clashwho 00:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

We should do it the way it was done for The Kinks. Clashwho 17:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a shot at updating/upgrading the lineup section in my sandbox, take a look and let me know, and feel free to make any edits to it that you think will help. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 02:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
As for the infobox, I agree that it should be set out more like the Who template, wherein the classic lineup is emphasised and the other members (both past & present alike) are listed below, but in an infobox the only options are current members and former members, so it's not as easy as that. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 02:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Scott Halpin

Why does Scott Halpin redirect to this page without mentioning his replacement of a passed-out Keith Moon at a 1973 show anywhere in the article? It's trivial, sure, but I wanted to know more about the guy and had to look it up elsewhere. 207.191.23.51 04:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Cream

Did The Who really influence Cream all that much? Cream, at least to me, sounds much more blues oriented and has a much heavier guitar than The Who did/does. Flyerhell 20:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Which part of the article are you referring to? In terms of style - no, they didn't influence them that much, but the article doesn't claim they did. In terms of lineup (the power trio formation) - again, probably not really, but all the article says (maybe a little ambiguously) is that The Who did it first and Cream did it later. In terms of Amplification - yes, very much so. - MightyMoose22 14:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Keith Moon was somehow influenced by Cream drummer, Ginger Baker. They had a conversation where Baker mentioned ordering a double-bass drum set from the U.S. Moon simply took 2 (probably with other drum sizes)drum sets and put them together.203.111.236.48 09:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Article length

This article is really long.. some condensing might be nice.

Influence

Obviously The Who have influenced a hell of a lot of bands, that's the point of the section, but we can't list all of them. We need to decide who to include and who not to (and how to cover those not mentioned).

I've taken out U2 and Queen as they're already mentioned just below, within the same paragraph.

I also think Nirvana and Sleater-Kinney are covered under the phrase "nearly all punk and grunge bands", and so shouldn't be named explicitly. Any thoughts? Is there any specific reason they should each be named?

Any other ideas? MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 12:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


Nirvana and Sleater-Kinney will be named because they are significant enough to be listed seperately. A lot of "minor" bands are captured under "punk" and "grunge", but just as you wouldn't list Led Zeppelin and Cream under the rhubric of "several rock bands," we don't need to overlook Nirvana and Sleater-Kinney. Srsrsr 15:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There are dozens of bands that are "significant enough", but we're not listing them. Is there any specific reason they should each be named? MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 15:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
And while we're at it, what exactly makes them more "significant" than Rush... MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 15:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
...who you keep consistently removing to make room for Nirvana & S-K? And actually, my comment about the power trio edit was in reference to when the phrase "power trio" was taken out. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 20:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Nearly any rock critic you consult will certainly enlighten you to the fact that both Nirvana and S-K have made a greater contribution (ie, better music) to rock and roll than Rush. At least, if you insist upon including Rush in the list, there's no reason not to include Nirvana and S-K as well. Srsrsr 21:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't insist on including Rush at all, I was just wondering why you insist on removing them. Your reason is highly speculative and EXTREMELY POV. I'll remove Rush if you remove Nirvana & S-K. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 21:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't care about Rush's contribution to rock or lack thereof. The important thing is that Rush is one of the most Who influenced bands that there is. Geddy Lee was enormously influenced by John Entwistle, Neil Peart by Keith Moon and Alex Lifeson by Pete Townshend. Their early sound was primarily influenced by Led Zeppelin and Live at Leeds era Who, they then moved on to Who-style rock operas and synthesizer experimentation. Rush belongs in the article as a Who influenced band more than Nirvana does. Clashwho 21:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm very knowledgable about Who history and The Who's influence on various rock artists. Many of the quotations and almost all of the cites in the article come from me. I don't see why Nirvana and Sleater-Kinney deserve special mention beyond the "most grunge and punk bands" statement. If there is a quote from them that places considerable importance on The Who, as the quotes from U2 and Queen do, then we can add them to that section. I'm going to add some significant David Bowie and Pearl Jam quotes to that segment. Clashwho 20:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added a quote from Carrie Brownstein on Pete Townshend. And since she's talking about his work with The Who, and not his solo work, the quote belongs in this article. Hopefully that clears up any confusion. Srsrsr 21:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I moved the Carrie Brownstein quote to the bottom of that paragraph, because it's simply not as important as the preceding artist quotes. It also ought to be edited. It's a bit long. Clashwho 21:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

STOP REMOVING RUSH. And Van Halen. Especially WITHOUT GIVING A SINGLE REASON WHY. I already backed up Rush's inclusion. Van Halen's inclusion is obvious as well. Clashwho 22:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone edited out the RELEVANT part of the Carrie Brownstein quote. The part where she says she strives to emulate his playing. That's the only part that's relevant. This section is about artists INFLUENCED by The Who, not artists who are merely fans. Clashwho 22:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that was probably me, but if it was it was a mistake. A by-product of confusing and disruptive edit conflicts. Now that I notice it, though, it does quickly turn into an "I can do this" quote. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 22:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice job with the quote section! It's much cleaner looking, now. I fixed the Brian May quote. I took it directly from my recording of Brian May being interviewed by Tony Iommi on Planet Rock Radio. Clashwho 22:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Hopefully now we've reached a viable solution that's considered agreeable to all involved, nes pas? MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 22:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Srsrsr 14:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Current Members of The Who

Outside of Pete Townshend and Roger Daltrey, is there any official documentation that can state that the other members of the band listed in this article, are indeed members of The Who, and not musicians that collaborate with The Who? Just Curious. Tkd73 01:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope. The only official living members of The Who are Pete Townshend and Roger Daltrey. The others are employees. Clashwho 21:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

And what about Zak Starkey? your site says he is a current member already... shouldn't you ad him in your infobox on the right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.61.254.83 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC).
See the Zak Starkey's Membership section on this very talk page. His membership evidently hasn't been concerned. You say "your site says he is a current member" - whose site are you referring to (or are you referring to the note in the Wikipedia article)? -Erik Harris 16:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Worldwide Record Sales

I don't know who is adding these figures for worldwide sales. First someone claimed 150 million worldwide sales and I put a ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] next to it. Nobody gave it a citation after about a week, so I deleted the claim. Now someone has just added a 210 million worldwide sales figure. I'm not even bothering asking for a citation. I just deleted it. If anyone has an actual legitimate cite for The Who's worldwide sales, please bring it to our attention. Until then, please avoid the sheer speculation on how many albums they have sold worldwide. The Who's biggest market is by far the American market, and the RIAA has them listed at 20 million as of 1993 or so. Of course, it's really more than that, but we're not in the business of speculation. Thank you. Clashwho 22:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

clashwho your always commenting on youtube you hi 5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerdaltreyisace (talk • contribs)

Format

Shouldn't song titles be in quotes and album titles in italics? Right now, everything is in italics. That might be a little confusing. Clashwho 02:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The short answer - yes. This needs sorting. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 14:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I went through and fixed most of them, if not all. I wonder who thought they were being so helpful by putting everything in italics. Clashwho 07:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort. I'd imagine that with an article this long, about a band this prolific, it can't have been easy. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 22:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an excellent, comprehensive article. One of the regular contributors or a Wikipedia administrator who may have been tracking it should nominate it for Featured article candidacy. I won't do do myself since I'm not sure the main authors consider it complete and stable.--StN 05:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is pretty locked in, now. I don't know how to nominate it, though. But I am quite proud of it. Clashwho 01:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Just browsing through...thought I'd pass along a couple of quick comments to help out. The article isn't too bad but has a long ways to go yet. 3 quick points that'll probably come up if a peer review is requested: A) It's very(stress VERY) long - B) there are about 32 cites...there should/could be about 32 more and - C) The citations all need to be footnoted. Just to compare to other FA's...look at Rush and Pink Floyd...which are both excellent music articles. Hope that helps! Good luck! Fair Deal

Here's something interesting...

In the official programme for the current tour, Pete's written a couple of pages about what the words "The Who" mean to various people. Including...

"...The Who is of course a brand with some historical spin and massive time lapses. Our Wikipaedia [sic] entry - for example - changes every few minutes as various editors add their own view..."

He also writes that "...The Who of today is a song-writer and guitarist called Pete Townshend and a rock singer called Roger Daltrey. There are two of us. And some friends...", confirming that they are considered (by Pete, at least - and what more do you need?) to be the only official members these days.
And in case you're wondering, they were fantastic and I can't wait for the new stuff to be released. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 22:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article

Does anyone think The Who article would make a good featured article? It is well writen and gives a lot of information, and with the tour going on as we speak it would be a good featured article.

DK08 September 15th, 2006 21:45

CSI theme songs

Shouldn't this article give information about all three CSI series using The Who songs as theme songs? -- Imladros 22:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Definitely shouldTOYOTA COROLLA OUTFITTED WITH A FERRARI V12 20:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Misspellings

I really don't appreciate it when I go through and fix the spellings of band members' names and some idiot changes them back to the erroneous spellings. It's Zak Starkey and John "Rabbit" Bundrick. What kind of a moron do you have to be to think "Rabbit" has two 't's? Clashwho 05:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Eddie Rabbitt

Live at Leeds (mk. 2) tickets

I removed the sentence "Tickets to this particular show were sold in person only from the Leeds University Union, with sales limited to two tickets per person.[5]" because, whatever that website says, I bought four tickets over the phone from Livenation for the gig. The presale wasn't publicised much (if at all) but it definitely happened! Sven945 21:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Is that a ticket broker? If that's a ticket broker, it doesn't mean anything. Clashwho 05:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by a "ticket broker"... They aren't a dodgy company who buy tickets in person then sell them on for huge amounts. Live Nation (a part of Clear Channel) were the promoters for the gig.Sven945 09:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to delete it again (and potentially get into an edit war with Anger22), but I assure you I bought tickets over the telephone for this gig, from Live Nation! There presumably won't be any record of it on the Live Nation website anymore (since the gig was a few months ago), there was no email confirmation since I bought over the phone, but I'll do my best to find a website that confirms that you could buy tickets over the phone and online. Sven945 14:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Second paragraph

What the heck is 'art-influenced music'? Sounds like a nonsense, pedantic, elitist term to me, like 'synergy' or 'corporate malfeasence'. Chris 15:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hell, I don't know. BabuBhatt 22:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it's referring to Townshend's efforts to incorporate his art school background into The Who's music. Interviews with Townshend in The Who's early years were replete with this theme.Clashwho 14:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Leadership

I see some squabbling looming over whether PT or RD was the "leader" of the Who, in the opening discussion. I think the question is moot -- Townshend was the main writer, Daltrey to a large extent controlled the direction of the stage production. I've removed the clause as irrelevant. Sturgeonslawyer 23:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

i am going to speak to pete townsend about this and see what he says ... you might be a fan who keeps editing this stuff ... but towsnd was anti one dimensionality ... and his art encouraged others to fight for their individuality ...

  • Thats discrimination against dyslexic people my friend of which i am one ... Townshend ... can i speak to him now ... or do you wish to continue to give a demonstration of your acerbic wit perchance ... i care about humanity ... and The Who's music is a popular cutural phenomena that stands for freedom ... what do you stand for my friend ... what do you do for humanity ...

The Cardinal singer, and guitarist, with English punk rock band The Blood identifies The Who's live performance at Charlton Athletic Football Club, in the early seventies, as the moment that changed his life. As he walked through the streets of Charlton, his home town, he heard the chorus 'Im free, and freedom tastes of reality' resonating from The Valley where The Who were performing live on stage.The point that The Cardinal argues is that popular cultural phenomenon can drastically change, influence, move an individual's life trajectory.

The Cardinal singer with punk band The Blood argues that, at this point in his life, the religious-education he was being formerly schooled with was forcing him down a pathway toward one-dimesional fundamentalism such a kind of ideology that can lead to facism. The Guiness Book of Records later identified this gig as the loudest rock concert ever recorded in history.

I would argue that the above should be under the influence page but can see why it is located as trivia ... the point is it is a historical reality ... after leaving school at 13 fighting to sing, play and write, about freedom for each and for all became a life long voyage, and still is ... the influence, and power, of the aesthetic style of popular cultural phenomena gave me something to hold on to as i ducked and dived to survive in london's urban-underground ... The point that The Cardinal argues is that popular cultural phenomenon can drastically change, influence, move an individual's life trajectory .. if you ask an artist if this is one of the nuances that they wish to be fruitful in/of their works they will identify it as this ... e —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.103.215.158 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It belongs on the Cardinal's article, not The Who, and he doesn't need italic emphasis. Further, Talk page comments are signed with four tildes ~~~~ for time-date-ID stamp. Hu 09:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The Guinness record is already mentioned in the 1970s section of the main article. I see no reason for a trivia section, considering what's currently in it. If you want a trivia section, put something worthwhile in it. Clashwho 02:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Who's Daniel Tossone?

In the first paragraph of the 60's section of the main article it said

"For the next 14 years The Who would be Roger Daltrey on lead vocals, Pete Townshend on guitar, John Entwistle on bass guitar, Daniel Tassone on rhythm guitar and Keith Moon on drums."

I'm pretty sure that there never was a member of the Who name "Daniel Tossone", whoever he is (unless some sort of invisible 5th member who nobody knows or cares about). I assumed it was vandalism and removed it, I'm sure there is no problem with my correction.--Bappzannigan 16:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Zak Starkey's Membership

Has Zak Starkey gained status as an official member of the Who like Pete and Roger? I read that he had been offered the position (on Pete Townshend's website). I also heard that he was leaving the Who to join Oasis full time (which I doubt). If he has been offered the position, and accepted, it would probably be good to note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bappzannigan (talk • contribs)

There seems to be a big question mark on this one. There's a note on Pete Townshend's page, but it's a reproduced interview, and it's unclear whether the editorial note about Zak is part of the published interview, or editorializing from Pete's site's staff. If it's the former, it could very well be an error. I'm not sure that there's been any confirmation of the claim that he was offered membership. -Erik Harris 18:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
This has now been clarified on Pete Townshend's diary. Zak was offered permanent membership in The Who, but he declined. -Erik Harris 22:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Kenney Jones

I would love to know why Kenney Jones stopped playing in the band. Did townshend kick him out? Did they just start using Simon? Why was this descion made? I am a huge fan and have never read anything about him stating he didn't want to play anymore or anything, has anything ever been written re: this?

Alex —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AM1234 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

  • You can get some of the story in Amazing Journey: The Life of Pete Townshend by Mark Wilkerson. You can get it at Amazon.com. From what I remember from various interviews in magazines, basically, Roger Daltrey never thought Kenney Jones was right for the band and refused to tour in 1989 with Jones as the drummer. Townshend held out but then got annoyed with Jones during a series of phone calls and decided Jones was out. Kenney Jones certainly wanted to remain in The Who. The gist of the phone calls was that Kenney Jones was complaining about Face Dances and It's Hard, saying that they are not good Who albums and that he deserves to make a great album with The Who. Townshend thought something like, "No, that's wrong. You came in at the end. I have a right to make a great album with The Who. Roger and John have a right to make a great album with The Who. You don't." Something like that. Clashwho 18:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

GA

  • Solo years generally shouldn't be wikilinked, ex 1983. If the year is significant to the band link it to 19xx in music.
  • White space at the start of the article
  • Lead work
The Who are on a world tour as of June 2006 which will last into 2007., this is trivial remove it
The next 2 'paragraphs' are one sentence each and don't summarize the article
  • Headings generally shouldn't just be called '1960s', breaking up each album era and naming the years, like My Generation (1964-1967) would be better
  • Too many one sentence paragraphs throughout the article
  • By the end of 1983, however, Townshend , remove however
  • 100 Greatest Artists of All Time external link in the middle of text
  • Images don't have fair use rationale
  • Too many fair use images, the discography should be made into a list or table
  • Move all the quote to wikiquote and move the wikiquote box at the top of external links
  • References are just links, you need to mention publisher, date of retrieval etc, check {{cite web}} for more info
  • Too many external links, also fan sites shouldn't be there
  • 'See also' should be removed, its only got 1 link and it should be before references and external links
  • Not required but editors like it if you Alphabetize categories
  • Article is also too big, and should be shortened where possible

M3tal H3ad 10:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your input, but I don't understand why you don't just go ahead and make some of those very minor changes yourself. What's so difficult about removing the word "however" from a sentence, for example? Is that really such an Earth-shaking change that it actually needs to be discussed on the Talk Page? Clashwho 04:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is not well-written. It is too long! I think it is well-researched and has great material. Someone needs to rewrite the article completely. If you are not a Who fan, this article must be excruciating to read. I am a fan and would love to see a featured article. I agree with previous user.75Janice 04:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)75Janice 7 January 2007

Needs Featured Article status

If Genesis, a mediocre progressive rock band, can get featured article status, then it is necessary for The Who to also get featured article status.Fistful of Questions 23:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care about that. I'd rather know who the dipstick was that put a ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] after this sentence: "The Who were easily one of the most influential groups in rock music as a whole." Because needing a citation for that is hilarious. I hope the Encyclopedia Brittanica is good enough. Clashwho 06:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Genres

Is there a reason British Invasion and Mod have been removed (twice now) from the genre list? --fauxcouture<T> 08:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Point taken; but I think it should be noted somewhere that they are considered part of the British Invasion movement/genre/what-have-you since they are noted as a prominent member on the BI page. --fauxcouture<T> 21:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Also keep in mind the fact that even though The Who are considered a "Mod" band(by everyone except Mods). As The Who they rarely made Mod music. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.214.9.213 (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Flag

Any objection if I remove the flag? I don't think it is adding anything to the article. --Guinnog 18:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed it and reverted an anon restoration of it. One main problem I see with it is why should it be an England flag rather than a UK flag? It adds little and potentially causes hassle. See also WP:FLAG for more reasons why I think a flag is totally inappropriate here. Finally, please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music on this issue. --Guinnog 19:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Unless a consensus develops to have the flag, either here or at the centralised discussion, I will remove it again. --Guinnog 20:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Quotes citations

I don't know how to cite the quotes. The quotes from Bowie, Vedder and Crow are from the liner notes to the tribute album Substitute - The Songs of The Who. The Bono quote is from his speech inducting The Who into the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame. The May quote is from a UK radio program that I have a copy of on my computer. I don't know where the Brownstein quote is from. I didn't add it. Clashwho 10:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Equipment, Performance, and In The Studio sections

Can someone please move these sections to their own pages, or perhaps all to one page? It is these sections that are making the article too long. I think the History and Influence sections are plenty. I'd do it if I knew how. Thanks. Clashwho 04:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Bill Curbishley

...seems to be a fairly important figure in The Whos' history, and is currently a redlink, if any Who fan could oblige... --kingboyk 19:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Singles

The list of singles at the bottom of the page is incomplete. It appears to be only UK singles. How can that be edited? Clashwho 05:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"Greatest Rock Band" tag

I have changed this line to "possibly the greatest live band ever." This is quoted directly from the Rolling Stone cite. The other cites that were listed for "considered one of the greatest rock bands of all time" don't work; the BBC link went to a page on using audio and video, and the link to the Time article is broken. Ckessler 17:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I will return the perfectly factual "greatest" and "influential" tags to the opening. Backed up with sources, although I really don't think it's necessary. This is The Who we're talking about. Where are the cites for the claims that Jimi Hendrix is influential? The Encyclopedia Britannica just flat-out calls The Who one of rock's most influential bands. The Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame, Newsweek, Time Magazine, etc. all call The Who either the greatest or one of the greatest rock bands of them all. Why are we making this an issue? Clashwho 23:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm making this an issue because statements need to be cited before they can be considered fact. That's the guideline set forth for every article that exists on Wikipedia. Got a cite for "greatest" and "influential"? You can add it. I'm not disagreeing on the fact that The Who are an influence on many other bands, but it still needs a cite, because this is a reference, not a fan site. Ckessler 23:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I added cites backing up the "greatest" and "influential" tags. They include the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and the Encyclopedia Britannica, among others. Cites that were there to begin with, by the way.Clashwho 23:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I readded the EB cite. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is not an acceptable source, per WP:RS. Ckessler 00:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is absolutely an acceptable source with an enormously knowledgable, respected and accomplished curatorial staff. Clashwho 00:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Changes

This article has seen a lot of big changes lately that have not been discussed on this page at all. Most of the introductory material was removed with no explanation given. All of the quotes were removed as well, when all the peer review said was to cite them, not remove them. Who are these people that are deleting the work of others? I don't appreciate it. Clashwho 23:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Changes AGAIN

More big changes with ZERO discussion beforehand. WHO ARE YOU? Why are you making these changes? Among other things, why are you changing the section on what The Who's display at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame says? There is zero mention of Tommy and Quadrophenia in that statement at the Rock Hall. I am changing it back to what it actually says. Leave it alone. And that's not all you're just plain factually wrong about. In your revision you claimed that John Entwistle died of a drug overdose. Wrong. He died of a heart attack in which a modest amount of cocaine in his system was a contributing factor. Do not edit this page if you are not adequately informed on the subject. Also, the statement you added on when The Who's musical peak was is your opinion. I happen to agree with it, but an encyclopedic article is not the place for editors' opinions. Others could hold the perfectly legitimate opinion that The Who's musical peak was 1965 to 1968. I am removing your opinionated statement. Clashwho 06:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoever you are, you are still messing this up. Why are you not posting here? Now you're saying that The Who began talking about the possibility of reforming in 2000, but Entwistle's 2002 death temporarily dogged plans to reform. What are you talking about? The Who had already reformed. They reformed in 1999 and toured through 2000. Heck, they reformed in 1989 and 1996/1997, too. Perhaps you mean their attempts to record a new album. I'll make changes to reflect that. Clashwho 01:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Clash Who, you couldn't be more right. I am sick and tired of people editing this page with no factual knowledge or experinece and the vandalism that happens on a regular basis. Also, I think we need to agree on the genres as a group and not be editing them every 10 minutes. The page has gotten better but still needs work. User:TheWho822 03:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This article was recently deleted. A deletion review is currently underway. -- Stbalbach 14:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this article still being edited actively?

If there are still people interested in editing & cleaning up this article, I'm willing to help. It seems the "to-do-list" is outdated, without being finished. I'm new to Wikipedia, so don't know how to tell if it's being worked on. I'm interested in re-doing the 2nd paragraph (starts w/ Moon's death) to make it more concise and with better prose to meet standards. Any other interested parties? Either post reply here, or email me. Bishop of R'n'R 20:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Session Drummer

There are multiple "session drummer" references throughout The Who page. It says he was in between original drummer Doug Sandom and drummer Keith Moon. Due to the lack of proof, it seems as if he never existed. Please list the drummers name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.88.206.118 (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

  • I don't see any "session drummer" references.Clashwho 20:25, 12 March 2007 (UCT)

Pete Huntington was drummer on endless wire album —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.151.107 (talk)

Peter Huntington was drummed on parts of Endless Wire. —Erik Harris 12:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What genre do all those acoustic songs fall under?

The Who have a LOAD of light acoustic songs, and I don't think rock, pop, or hard rock describe them very well. I've tried adding soft rock and classic rock to describe them, but both times they've been deleted. So if neither of those are accurate, what is the correct categorization for those light songs? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rock Soldier (talk • contribs) 20:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Is that supposed to be a serious question? Even The Who's most mellow tracks have more balls than anything Nickelback ever released. Soft rock??? That's Barry Manilow. The Who started out writing crafty little pop numbers...just like all the other British Invasion bands. And then expanded their plate into Rock and Hard rock, while always maintaining their smart pop craftmanship. Rock and Hard rock along with Pop cover them quite well. No other genres required. Fair Deal 21:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, all right then. If you're so sure that the infobox has it all, what genre would you say all those acoustic numbers are? They're definately too light to be rock, and they're definately not pop. But they're not ballads either. So what are they? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rock Soldier (talk • contribs) 22:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
It's a safe guess from that last statement that the real life "Rock Soldier" is far from legal age to actually join the military. The user's edit history shows an obvious inexperience when it come to Rock, Hard rock and Heavy metal genres. Mr. Soldier, an acoustic song can still be a Rock song. As far as The Who goes, you're talking about a band that, even in their 60s, still rock harder than any heavy metal band that has emerged in the last 15 years. They are led by Pete Townshend...the man who basically invented the heavy metal power chord. And his most sentimental, acoustic love songs...still have teeth, and are more Rock than most of the rock music on the radio today. It could be said(although it would be wrong) that The Who leaned a little towards progressive rock. But only in their composition of concept albums, which is a very prog rock thing to do> Thing is The Who didn't actually play "prog" style when they did it. So even that genre is wrong. definitely no soft rock in their discography either. Peter Fleet 23:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
My username's a reference to an Ace Frehley song. But that's irrelevant and unimportant.
I'm well aware that acoustic songs can still be rock songs, and I'm well aware just how great The Who are. Indeed they are more rock than most of the rock music on the radio today, but I still feel like some of their acoustic songs are too light to be rock. The ones that have no drums in them, like "Sunrise", or "Welcome", or "A Man in a Purple Dress", etc. You know what I mean?
But if you insist, I'll leave it at this. - Rock Soldier
There aren't enough light acoustic songs in The Who canon to justify adding to the genres list. Their most well known acoustic songs: "Substitute", "Magic Bus" and "Love Ain't For Keeping", are straight up rock.Clashwho 19:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Genres

Why is Art Rock not listed as a genre for The Who? The Rock 'n' Roll History textbook I used at university even placed their write-up on The Who in the Art Rock section, due primarily to the band's pioneering of, and popularization of, the rock opera.Clashwho 19:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

A question

As there is a fixed policy on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Policy saying that the Beatles has to be written with a lowercase 't', I wonder what your thoughts are about using that policy for this page, and if you would agree or disagree. I thank you. andreasegde 16:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think The Who is the one band where the "T" must be capitalized.Clashwho 06:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Psychedelic Rock

Could the Who also be classified as psychedelic rock? Or is it better leaving it in the broader category of rock?

The band is "genre'd" enough. anymore just becomes overkill. BTW, Which album released by the band would fall under psychedelic? 156.34.222.50 10:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The Who Sell Out is as psychedelic as they got and "Armenia, City in the Sky" is as psychedelic as psychedelic rock gets. Clashwho 23:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

i say pop rock should be rreeplaced(and will be replaced) with proto metal because the have an undeniable influence on the metal genre. and they are not art rock.Zakkman (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The topic has been beat to death. The non-consensus changes "demanded" above have been reverted back to what has already been discussed WAY too much. 156.34.236.222 (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"possibly the greatest live band ever."

The Who are an English rock band who first emerged in 1964 and grew to be considered one of the greatest[1] and most influential[2] rock bands of all time, in addition to being "possibly the greatest live band ever."[3].

Yeah that is totally not Wikipedia worth content, I will remove it. --Jeff Bongi 01:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I put it back. It's sourced and The Who's live reputation is an integral part of their history, mentioned in nearly every encyclopedic article on the band that I've seen.Clashwho 05:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Bob Pridden

I found this article about a fellow whose only claim to fame seems to be his involvement with The Who, apparently as sound engineer. I'm proposing that whatever material may be merged here. The article is unsourced but says his name appears in credits such as Live at Leeds. --Tony Sidaway 04:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Too extraneous. If anything, it should be merged with this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Who%27s_Influence_on_Sound Clashwho 05:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't merge. Have someone clean it, expand and leave alone as separate article. Just put the stub thingy in the meanwhile.--dalegrett 16:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't merge. Bob Pridden is notable enough to deserve his own article, but it should be written about him, not The Who. His article needs serious revision. Pkeets 04:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I tidied up a bit. Pkeets 04:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I believe that the article should be merged, because the article Bob Pridden is not very informational. However, I also agree that if more information is added to the article and it is cleaned up; it will be able to be a separate article. Well, my final decision is that it shouldn't be merged. Thanks, Meldshal42 22:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

In the studio

This looks, no offence, like fancruft. It certainly needs references if it is to stay. --John 16:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think that section is pointless and non-encyclopedic and should be deleted.Clashwho 04:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

picture

can we change the picutre to when it was all of them.

It has to be a picture that can be used here legally, but I agree that it ought to be a picture of all four of the principle members. Clashwho 19:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Folk genre?

I've not long ago purchased and listened to their newest album, Endless Wire, and some of its songs are quite folkish. I was just wondering if folk should be added to their genre?

We like to limit genres to just the essentials, otherwise bands like The Who, the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, and so on, end up with ridiculously long genre lists. You're right, though, the new album does have songs on it that could be classed as folk. Clashwho 19:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The Guess Who

There are unfortunately a large amount of not too familiar fans who confuse "The Who" with "The Guess Who". Do you think that a link should be placed at the top of the page "For the band The Guess Who click here" and vise versa? Canking 15:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that, and will add the {{confused}} template to the top of each article. Sasha Callahan 16:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The stature of the two bands doesn't warrant it, particularly the more elevated stature of The Who. True, these pages are used to inform the ignorant, but they do that on their own. They obviously distinguish between an English rock act from the British Invasion and a Canadian rock band. People unaware of the difference will figure it out pretty quickly without being led by the nose. The "confused" template in this case is unnecessary clutter and insulting to the stature of these two bands. Clashwho 17:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like to re-iterate the claim that they be placed at the top. Yes the Guess Who aren't as big as the Who but they have many big hits and looking on the internet (and in downloading programs) and they are often confused. Can we please have some more opinions on this Canking 16:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Art rock

I'm adding Art rock to The Who's genre list. They invented and popularized the rock opera. That's as Art rock as it gets. Do not revert without explaining your rationale here. Clashwho 21:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Invented?? Citation for that personal pov? Plus, the term is "rock" opera, not "art rock" opera. There is no rule stating that the 2 have to be connected. Art rock, akin, to prog rock, has been broached in discussion already here. Neither apply. 142.167.93.132 23:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The earliest example of rock opera is The Who's "A Quick One While He's Away" from 1966. That's not personal pov. That's fact. My citation for it is the album A Quick One from 1966. The term "rock opera" was also coined by The Who. Your view that art rock is prog rock is erroneous. That's like saying a coin is a nickel and always a nickel. My Rock 'n' Roll college level text book even placed their write-up on The Who in the Art Rock chapter. Art rock is going back in The Who's genre list. Clashwho 04:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop reverting. The Who are Art Rock. You want a cite? Here you go: Stuessy, Joe. Rock and Roll: Its History and Stylistic Development, 5th ed., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2003. [ISBN 0-13-099370-0]

You can even look it up on Amazon.com and look at the table of contents. Hope this helps. Clashwho 19:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read earlier discussion and concensus on this topic. 142.167.82.143 21:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Once source may say they fall under the art rock genre, but no one else does. Sasha Callahan 21:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Multiple sources put both rock opera and The Who under the Art rock umbrella. The Who are the definitive rock opera band. The Art rock designation ought to stay. Here's a little quote from your concensus link: "Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind." This is one of those times. Clashwho 22:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Perusing the discussion above, I do not see this apparently mythical consensus on Art Rock as pertains to The Who. Please point it out for me. I have backed up my assertion with appropriate references that two editors have chosen to ignore. Here is another reference that backs up my claim that rock opera falls under the Art rock umbrella and deserves proper mention in The Who's genre list: [6]

Again, I have provided sources. The other two editors have provided nothing but their opinions. One has decided to threaten me with banning on my talk page for reverting. I say they are guilty under the three revert rule. Not me. Clashwho 23:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't need to be established on a talk page, in this case, it was established by the fact it never was added to the page. As for your sources, see WP:V. Sasha Callahan 23:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
What precisely is not verifiable about my sources? You can even find the college level textbook I'm citing on Amazon.com and peruse its table of contents. It's perfectly verifiable. I find your definition of "consensus" ludicrous, particularly since I broached this topic on the talk page months ago and received zero replies. It's also ludicrous because I and others have been adding Art rock to the genre list for months only to see it continually deleted by the ill-informed.Clashwho 23:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Seeing that the source you cited uses the term Progressive Rock, I will add that. Sasha Callahan 23:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That source uses Art rock and Progressive rock interchangeably. Art rock is the more appropriate designation per Stuessy, Joe. Rock and Roll: Its History and Stylistic Development, 5th ed., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2003. [ISBN 0-13-099370-0]. Clashwho 23:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
If I had the book, I would be able to check it. But I don't. Plus, the uk.real.com source indicates the progressive roc the more commonly used term (The idea of Progressive Rock came out of the Psychedelic boom of the late '60s when the desire to experiment led musicians to incorporate classical elements and intellectual attitude in their music. Also referred to as Art Rock because of its desire to view individual tracks as pieces of a larger composition) Sasha Callahan 23:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Here is the book, where you can peruse its table of contents which state very clearly that Rock Opera falls under the Art Rock umbrella: Rock and Roll: Its History and Stylistic Development (3rd Edition) Clashwho 00:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I can confirm that the chapter "Rock Operas and Theatrical Works" falls under the section on "Art Rock". That's all . I suggest you check WP:SYN before carrying on this discussion. Sasha Callahan 00:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:SYN does not apply to me because I am not using A and B to advance position C. I am using A (The Who falls under Art Rock, per Stuessy) and A (The Who falls under Art Rock, per uk.real.com) to advance position A (The Who falls under Art Rock). This is not original research. I do not know why you are persisting. You can see very clearly that the textbook places Rock Opera under the Art Rock umbrella. The Who are the single most definitive example of a rock opera band. So what's the problem? Clashwho 00:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Power pop

Do we have to do this again? Power pop is a far more accurate genre for The Who than Pop music. Just read the respective articles. There are hardly any "pop" songs The Who ever did that aren't more accurately categorized as power pop, from "Substitute" to "You Better, You Bet". Do not revert. Clashwho 17:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You really need to read WP:OWN and WP:CON. This has already been discussed. In Pete Townshend's own words he has said many times that Tommy grew out of his desire to do something other than 2 minute 50 Pop songs. At one time Pop was an artform(unlike today) and The Beatles, The Kinks, The Who, The Dave Clark Five, The Hollies etc etc etc were all Pop bands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.142.158 (talk) 17:58, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
You want Pete Townshend's own words? Here you go: "Power pop is what we play." - Pete Townshend[7]. Where exactly has this already been discussed? Not on this page as far as I can see. So, let's discuss it.Clashwho 18:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is Power pop being removed from The Who's genre list? Read the article on Power pop here on wikipedia or in any other publication. It's an important genre for The Who that deserves mention. Clashwho 16:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Clashwho 03:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Power Pop is an accurate term, and I think that the plain "pop" description should be removed. It would be acceptable to describe their early works as such, but later material is definitely hard rock (let's pretend It's Hard never existed). How about describing them as pop (early years) when they were part of the mod culture? Arkyopterix 17:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not necessary to break the genres down by era. As long as they played the genre for a significant portion of their career, it's properly mentioned in their genre list. The gentleman above is correct that the Beatles, Kinks, Who, etcetera, were properly categorized as Pop bands in the sixties, even though the designation seems odd today. Hard rock is also properly included in their genre list as that is the genre they fit into most neatly for the albums of their peak of popularity in the USA, as well as being a hard rock band in live performance for pretty much their entire career. Tweaking the order of the genres to reflect order of accuracy or importance may be appropriate. Clashwho 18:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Plus... adding years to infobox fields is frowned upon by the music project guidelines. Read the template infobox musical artist rules... be brief, be specific, no superfluity. Details such as years, instruments played, 'deceased' etc(all the inappropriate bits that pop up frequently) are to be detailed in the content of the article itself... not the infobox. 156.34.214.115 02:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I've noticed you've been keeping an eye on the infobox and fully support your edits. Clashwho 18:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject: The Who

Anyone interested in starting one with me? -MichiganCharms 19:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm here to help. Clashwho 03:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Here it is... I'm not so good at templates and things but hopefully additional members can help with that stuff. Wikipedia:WikiProject The Who —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichiganCharms (talk • contribs) 12:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved everything except "History" and "Influence" to their own articles. Clashwho 18:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Instrument destruction

I added a paragraph with citations to the Early History section, covering Pete Townshend smashing his first guitar. It's amazing that it took so long for such an important event in Who history, and in rock history, to be added to this article! Clashwho 20:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Genres

Hopefully we can reach some kind of consensus on the order of the genres. I propose the following order: Rock (the most basic genre other than Pop, but more descriptive/accurate than Pop) Hard rock (a genre they helped pioneer, one that typified them on record through the seventies and throughout nearly their entire career as a live act) Progressive rock (or Art rock, the genre that their extensive use of the rock opera form falls under) Pop (the sixties designation that has largely fallen out of favor in describing bands like The Who. See: [8]) Power pop (the most accurate and self-identified description of their sixties singles sound, returned to on a few later singles like "Squeeze Box" and "You Better, You Bet") Rock & Roll (Their roots. Also used, perhaps inappropriately, as an umbrella term) R&B (their original genre, elements of which appeared on their first album and infrequently thereafter)

Comments? Clashwho 18:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My only comment would be.. based on Townshends own words when he said that he wrote A Quick Onewhich you consider to be Art Rock because he was "tired of writing Pop songs that were 2 minutes fifty". Shouldn't Pop come before Art rock... since that was how they began along with every other British Invasion band. As stated earlier... modern Pop has negative connotations (boy bands!). In the 60s, bands like The Who, The Beatles, The Kinks etc showed everyone that Pop could be an artform. 156.34.142.110 19:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me. Thanks for weighing in. Clashwho 21:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Too many empty headers

It seems reasonable to remove the sections from "Equipment" to "Personnel". There's no actual content there, so it's nothing more than clutter. If no one objects I'll move them to a "see also". Theamazingzeno 07:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Clashwho 06:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Cluttered Infobox

User:MichiganCharms and I have been discussing the rather cluttered look of the Infobox as it currently stands. We're questioning whether a one-off performance in 1985 and the recording of a single track for an Elton John/Bernie Taupin tribute album in 1991 really constitutes being "active". If we decide they do, then we might as well add their one-off performances in 1988 and 1990 for their BPI Lifetime Achievement Award and induction into the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame, respectively. Then we would have a span of years going from 1988 - 1991 as an active stretch when they really weren't active, other than the 1989 tour. Perhaps we should reserve "active" years for something more substantial. In the meantime, I'll tweak it reflecting the current "If they did something, they were active" mindset.

Additionally, there's the current seven listed genres for The Who. User:MichiganCharms thinks there should be three at most: Rock, Hard rock and Power pop, or just Rock and Hard rock. I think there should be four and would add Progressive rock (or Art rock) to that list. I also like User:RattleandHum's idea of Rock, Hard rock, Progressive rock and Protopunk. Whatever we decide, I do think the limit ought to be four genres, simply for the sake of a cleaner looking infobox. I'm still skeptical of including Pop simply because it's a designation that had a different meaning in the sixties than it does today. Have a look at the Grammy Hall of Fame webpage to see what sort of recordings they list as "Pop" and which they list as "Rock": [9] User:MichiganCharms has also suggested limiting the number of labels listed. Clashwho 17:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going to go ahead and limit the years active in the infobox to just the years of major activity. Clashwho 20:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Same problem here that we had with Pink Floyd. See my discussion there. I think "years active" needs to be done away with and replaced with "Duration", because "years active" is simply causing too much confusion with bands that have long periods of inactivity like The Who, Pink Floyd, Fleetwood Mac, Van Halen, etc. Just because a band is not active doesn't mean that their not together. For example, Townshend officially disbanded The Who in 1983, but people keep stating 1982 since that was the last year they were "Active". Granted, The Who is a very hard band to describe here, doing several one-off reunions and reunion tours since their "breakup" but is there any documenation from the Tommy reunion onward on the status of the band? If they were disbanded, what is listed is fine. If they were inactive, but not disbanded, then it could read something like (1964-1983, 1988-present). I'll leave it be and not change how it is currently set, just my two cents. Tkd73, 11:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Atco

Were The Who ever on Atco? I know Pete Townshend was, but I'm not sure about The Who. Clashwho 19:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Genres redux

In the interest of cleaning up the rather cluttered look of the infobox, I'd like to arrive at a consensus on what four key genres best represent The Who. We probably all agree that rock and hard rock are musts. For the next two, I'd suggest progressive rock due to the importance of the rock opera in their ouvre, and then either power pop for their sixties studio sound or protopunk for their sixties live sound. Clashwho 02:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Pop... it's been beat to death already. Power pop has too many modern negative connotations to stand alone(Sum41 and Green Day are Power pop bands) and Protopunk is one of those retarded genres that teenage Wiki-editors invent(like proto-metal) because they aren't old enough to know when genres actually originated. The Beatles are Pop, The Kinks are Pop, there shouldn't be some sort of insult to be grouped in with acts like that should there? Don't aim low. 156.34.221.175 03:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I see your point, however, I'm looking at this page and seeing which honorees they define as Pop and which they define as Rock, and I'm coming to the conclusion that Pop may not be a crucial genre for The Who. What significant songs did The Who release that are more accurately classified as Pop than Rock? "The Kids Are Alright"? "You Better, You Bet"? "Athena"? Beatles songs like "Eleanor Rigby" and "Let it Be" are classified as Pop on the Grammy Hall of Fame page, but songs like "I Want to Hold Your Hand" and "Hey Jude" are classified as Rock. I know it was all called Pop in the mid-sixties, but, currently, it looks to me like Pop means a softer sound than all but a handful of The Who's songs. I'm far from having made up my mind, though. Clashwho 07:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Pop has far more negative connotations then power pop... classing them as just pop is painting them with a brush so broad that they'd be classed with Britney Spears, Justin Timberlake, etc. Power pop, at least according to it's Wiki article, is a much more acceptable definition for that (brief) period in The Who's career. Also, I'm against putting derivative genres in the infobox unless the band is explicitly associated with it, so protopunk is out. Certainly a band as successful and long lasting as this will touch on many genres throughout their career, but we can't label them with Dance music just because Face Dances had some dance songs on it. -MichiganCharms 05:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, I'm going to go ahead and knock the genres down to four while we hash this out. Nothing is written in stone. Clashwho 07:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well in the context of the 60's, pop wasn't a real genre. It was a description. So classing songs like "Substitute" or "I Can't Explain" as pop is technically wrong because it didn't emerge as a genre until the mid- 70's. After the mid 70's The Who had a very brief poppy period in the early 80's. But the pop was still clearly rock based and if I'm correct Townshend himself used the description 'power pop' in that period. It would be easy to apply the same tag retroactively to the mid 60's. -MichiganCharms 22:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Mid 70s??? Pop has been a known genre for decades. Frank Sinatra was a Pop star in the 40s and 50s. And Pete Townshend himself described the band as a Pop band... it's why he wrote Tommy... so that The Who wouldn't be just a Pop band anymore. And to that... technically... Tommy is a Rock Opera that's constructed out of a whole bunch of short Pop songs. And A Quick One is certainly just a 10+ minute song built out of several 2.5 minute Pop songs... Townshend even said that's what it was. 156.34.212.88 23:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Define the pop genre that Frank Sinatra belonged to... you can't because the genre was swing, Tin Pan Alley. Pop meant literally music that is popular. The Supremes were called a pop group, so were The Yardbirds. Tell me what's common about those two groups music, especially with Sinatra. Pop in the context of the 60's means something different to the genre that emerged bearing the same name. -MichiganCharms 01:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Record Labels

Ok we could probably cut the list down to MCA, Polydor, Warner Brothers, Track and Brunswick. Also we could eliminate the US/UK tags as the distinctions are made in the article (or at least should be). Also we should order them with breaks between then so they form a list. - MichiganCharms 22:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Someone just tweaked the "years active" section to include everything, so I tweaked it again to be more accurate. But I still think we should limit it to years of major activity for the stuff between 1982 and 1999, namely just the tours of 1989 and 1996-1997. Clashwho 02:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Edits

I made some edits to the infobox to bring it more inline with the discussions we've had here. I kept the 3 non major dates of activity, and also added Thunderclap Newman to associated acts... I got rid of the labels who only released compilations (I'm looking at you Geffen) or some other one off thing. -MichiganCharms 19:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that Thunderclap Newman should be considered as an associated act. The only connection is that Pete Townshend played bass on (under a pseudonym) and produced one of their albums. Therefore, they are only related to Townshend, as no other member of the band was associated with that act. Yes, John Keen (who was the Who's roadie) was the drummer in Thunderclap, but otherwise there are no connections to the Who. John Entwistle used Jimmy McCulloch on Whistle Rymes, and Pete Townshend co-wrote a song with Andy Newman on All the Best Cowboys Have Chinese Eyes, but there is only one connection to the Who - Townshend's role in their album. DaltreyEntwistleMoonTownshend (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Labels Redux

For one, The Who were never on Atco. With that out of the way, Geffen released a single compilation album and Reaction one single. Neither of those really deserve to be listed with the labels. On top of that, the distinctions between US and UK are not necessary... they just clutter it with info available in the main article, it's akin to listing years for band members and I've never even seen it on another article. -MichiganCharms 06:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Discography

I made the discog into its own section. I do a lot of research here on WP, and this is the only article I've come across lately, where the discog didn't show up in the table of contents - which is what I most often need to find. It's kind of a pain to have to scroll through this long article for it. -Freekee 04:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I put it back where it was. Chapters should have more content than just a link to another page. That's why it's in the "See Also" section. 74.77.222.188 07:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I Can See for Miles

Why is it that they never performed "I Can See for Miles" live? 75pickup (talk · contribs) 04:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

They did play it live, just rarely. I've seen footage of them playing it live in 1979 and 1989. The complex backing vocal harmonies are one reason why it appears infrequently in their set lists. 74.77.222.188 01:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

R&G in Genre(s) on infobox

This article states that when the band started out they were "...initially playing mostly rhythm and blues" and that "They became one of the most popular bands among the British mods, a 1960s subculture involving cutting-edge fashions, scooters and music genres such as rhythm and blues, soul, and beat music."

The band also released the career covering compilation album Thirty Years of Maximum R&B, which implies the band regarded themselves at that time atleast as R&B. Surely R&B should be included as a genre in the infobox. I admit that R&B is a vastly different genre now than it was when The Who were recording R&B however their music does fit into the original definition of R&B, that being Ryhthm and Blues, to which Rock music developed from, after The Who formed. 82.12.227.132 (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

An album title is not a reliable source, as it is often whimsical or humorous (especially in this area of music). To paraphrase my edit comment: The Who Sell Out is not a reliable source for describing The Who as sell-outs, nor can I Can See for Miles be relied upon for diagnosing Pete Townshend with hyperopia. See also 20 Jazz Funk Greats.
And: It is entirely possible (however, until now, still not proven) that with this title The Who wanted to make a point that they still saw their music as "R&B in spirit" (maybe as a gesture to pay respect to the pioneers of that genre who influenced them in their own musical youth?). But such an statement would be more of a personal, philosophical nature and less a precise musicological description of the music style that they are actually known for.
So, please find other sources for that classificaton.
Regards, High on a tree (talk) 06:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The box set title Thirty Years of Maximum R&B is just a nod to their original billing. They abandoned R&B very early in their career and became a full-blooded rock band. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 07:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I had hoped that you would read all of my comment rather than simply concentrating on the section about Thirty Years of Maximum R&B. Yes this is part of my argument, but if you are denying that the who were at one point in their career R&B then you should remove the sections I quoted in the first section of my comment. Both of you have admitted in your comments that the Who were at one point in their career an R&B band, surely the Genre(s) section should include all of the genres they have made music in throughout their career. Here is a reference from Encyclopaedia Britannica about Rhythm and blues that mentions the who originally billed themselves as "Maximum R&B", and here is another reference stating "They exploded conventional rhythm and blues structures". 82.12.227.132 (talk) 10:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Listing every genre The Who ever dabbled in would be ridiculous. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a topic that's been beat to death numerous times in the past. The four genres that are list were agreed on by consensus... which is how Wikipedia works. 156.34.216.38 (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide Sales

Saying The Who have sold at least 20 million albums worldwide is so far off the mark as to be ridiculous. They have sold at least that many in the USA alone as of fifteen years ago. Putting in such an outdated and geographically limited statistic for "world sales" is nothing more than damning them with faint praise. Leave it out. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 07:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

So RIAA is now a bad source? That would condemn most acticles on here to be inaccurate. To leave it out will only open the floodgates for folk to put in 120, 150 etc etc. Put it back until a better source is found (maybe you know one?).--Egghead06 (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
It's a bad source for worldwide sales because the RIAA is not worldwide. It's also a figure that is fifteen years old. I'm deleting it. And if people type in 100 million or whatever, I'll delete that too. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 07:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Why not just find a good source for a figure you do believe? Too hard I guess!?? Much easier to trash others attempts at finding referenced data!!--Egghead06 (talk) 07:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
This dispute still seems to be rumbling on, I notice. Is is possible to use the RIAA, but put it in a clarifying context? Alai (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Bias of Fandom

Various sections of the article are seemingly written by an adoring fan - the opening two lines "The Who are an English rock band that first formed in 1964 and grew to be considered one of the greatest and most influential bands in the world. They are also famed for their prowess as a live band - winning awards and being described as "possibly the greatest live band ever."" are more heavy on praise than information. Can we try to give this article a more factual, academic tone?

Metareality (talk) 05:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that's a pretty awful intro.-Wafulz (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Good fix.74.77.222.188 (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Who/Archive_1&oldid=1182055926"