Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?

Do talk back
User avatar
yomptepi
BCB thumbscrew of Justice
Posts: 34358
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 17:57
Location: well

Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?

Postby yomptepi » 02 Apr 2015, 19:47

I have been playing Sliders Who set of late, and reading up on the records on Wiki as they play. I am astonished how many of the songs are sung by Townshend. Playing Tommy this afternoon, I noticed that Daltrey only sings solo on six of the songs. Was he badly thought of? Was Townshend trying to tell him something? Could the Who have been as great as a three piece band? I wonder if Daltrey was really of any value to the Who. Certainly up to Tommy. I know he sings a lot more on Quadrophenia, Who's Next and Who by Numbers. He must have felt like a spare prick at a Jewish wedding most of the time.
You don't like me...do you?

User avatar
Sneelock
Posts: 9777
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?

Postby Sneelock » 02 Apr 2015, 19:54

I say yes. Pete is fine on some songs but he lacks the oomph of Daltrey's best stuff. I like my Who with oomph.
"You can bet your last money it’s ALL gonna be a stone-gas, honey!"

User avatar
The Modernist
Posts: 8704
Joined: 13 Apr 2014, 20:42

Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?

Postby The Modernist » 02 Apr 2015, 19:56

Any number of front men from more obscure sixties bands would have been as good and probably better.

User avatar
Quaco
F R double E
Posts: 45785
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 19:41

Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?

Postby Quaco » 02 Apr 2015, 19:59

I think to a large extent it was his band. Even though PT was clearly the leader and Moon was the star, it was probably Daltrey who made everybody come to work in the morning, so to speak. So I don't think we'd have a Who without him. But so often you realize he was the weak link, as you did -- their instrumental stuff was transcendent, he often bellowed when he could have tried something subtler, PT sings a lot of the greatest songs, he wasn't much of a creative thinker, etc. Still, on balance, I think a Daltrey-less Who would have been the smuggest bunch of jerks, and I'm glad he was there as a straight man. Made Townshend and Moon much funnier.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

User avatar
pcqgod
Posts: 15652
Joined: 11 Apr 2010, 07:23
Location: Texas

Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?

Postby pcqgod » 02 Apr 2015, 20:12

Someone had to carry the equipment before they were successful enough to hire roadies.
Where would rock 'n' roll be without feedback?

User avatar
sloopjohnc
Posts: 59659
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 20:12
Location: One quake away from beachfront property
Contact:

Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?

Postby sloopjohnc » 02 Apr 2015, 20:24

Quacoan wrote:he often bellowed when he could have tried something subtler


Agree, somewhat. I think you had to have someone with the power of his voice to stay with Townshend, Moon, and to a degree, Entwhistle.

I think those three would've gone off the rails without Daltrey.

I'm not as sold on he bellowed instead of being subtler. I think there are plenty of times he chooses the right tone.

I think he was a much better singer than Townshend. I think Townshend's voice is pretty weedy and thin and lacks substantial power.
Bride Of Sea Of Tunes wrote:I for one wouldn't want to know what memories and deep and dark forces drive Ed Sheeran, Coldplay, or Radiohead, for certain.

User avatar
Quaco
F R double E
Posts: 45785
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 19:41

Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?

Postby Quaco » 02 Apr 2015, 20:30

Biut Townshend's voice could move you. Daltrey rarely did. But certainly, the contrast was part of it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

User avatar
yomptepi
BCB thumbscrew of Justice
Posts: 34358
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 17:57
Location: well

Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?

Postby yomptepi » 02 Apr 2015, 20:31

sloopjohnc wrote:
Quacoan wrote:he often bellowed when he could have tried something subtler


Agree, somewhat. I think you had to have someone with the power of his voice to stay with Townshend, Moon, and to a degree, Entwhistle.

I think those three would've gone off the rails without Daltrey.

I'm not as sold on he bellowed instead of being subtler. I think there are plenty of times he chooses the right tone.

I think he was a much better singer than Townshend. I think Townshend's voice is pretty weedy and thin and lacks substantial power.


I agree. Although tonally they are very similar. i think it is a fair point that Daltrey was the least creative of the four.But those big songs are masterclasses in rock singing. 5.15, Won't get fooled again, and Baba O'Reilly would be feeble if Townshend had sung them.

It is unusual to have such a great singer in the group, and yet use him so sparingly though
You don't like me...do you?

User avatar
'skope
BCB poster of the year 2014
Posts: 6248
Joined: 07 Jun 2014, 13:19
Location: on diamond dog's ignore list

Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?

Postby 'skope » 02 Apr 2015, 20:36

yomptepi wrote:I have been playing Sliders Who set of late, and reading up on the records on Wiki as they play. I am astonished how many of the songs are sung by Townshend. Playing Tommy this afternoon, I noticed that Daltrey only sings solo on six of the songs. Was he badly thought of? Was Townshend trying to tell him something? Could the Who have been as great as a three piece band? I wonder if Daltrey was really of any value to the Who. Certainly up to Tommy. I know he sings a lot more on Quadrophenia, Who's Next and Who by Numbers. He must have felt like a spare prick at a Jewish wedding most of the time.


it's a fair point, mikel. i have little interest in the who post 'tommy', so can't comment on the albums that followed.

i absolutely love townshend's voice, but daltrey's was rawer and more working-class, which lent itself better to the who's pop-art years.

User avatar
der nister
Posts: 15564
Joined: 30 Sep 2008, 18:42

Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?

Postby der nister » 02 Apr 2015, 20:37

The Modernist wrote:Any number of front men from more obscure sixties bands would have been as good and probably better.


Like?
It's kinda depressing for a music forum to be proud of not knowing musicians.

User avatar
'skope
BCB poster of the year 2014
Posts: 6248
Joined: 07 Jun 2014, 13:19
Location: on diamond dog's ignore list

Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?

Postby 'skope » 02 Apr 2015, 20:39

der nister wrote:
The Modernist wrote:Any number of front men from more obscure sixties bands would have been as good and probably better.


Like?


google is your friend, seepage. YOU tell us, like you normally do.

User avatar
Count Machuki
BCB Cup Champion 2013
Posts: 37299
Joined: 11 Jun 2005, 15:28
Location: 22,300 miles above the Earth

Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?

Postby Count Machuki » 02 Apr 2015, 20:41

I don't think Townshend could have sustained a whole set of early Who stuff. How could he have been heard over that sheer volume, much less done all the windmills and scissor kicks and auto-destruction stuff?
Let U be the set of all united sets, K be the set of the kids and D be the set of things divided.
Then it follows that ∀ k ∈ K: K ∈ U ⇒ k ∉ D

User avatar
Zeeba Neighba
Posts: 32
Joined: 31 Mar 2015, 15:27
Location: Louisiana

Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?

Postby Zeeba Neighba » 02 Apr 2015, 20:42

'skope wrote:i absolutely love townshend's voice, but daltrey's was rawer and more working-class, which lent itself better to the who's pop-art years.


Agreed - I can't even imagine Pete punching out songs like "Love Reign O'er Me", "Won't Get Fooled Again", "5:15", or "Bargain"(most of the song) much less "My Generation". I think Townsend realized how much Daltry could convey that power in the songs too. Granted Townshend, Entwistle, and Moon were, at the time, among the top players of their instrument, so Daltry as a vocalist is always gonna pale in comparison. Still, I think he was indeed "really needed".

User avatar
jimboo
Posts: 6293
Joined: 29 Dec 2005, 17:43
Location: taking a foxy kind of stand

Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?

Postby jimboo » 02 Apr 2015, 20:48

The Who at their peak and pomp needed every member.
Goat Boy wrote:Oh, do fuck off, prog boy.

User avatar
Snarfyguy
Dominated by the Obscure
Posts: 51939
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
Location: New York

Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?

Postby Snarfyguy » 02 Apr 2015, 20:50

Townsend and Daltrey always seemed to me like they disliked each other quite a bit, and that tension is part of the unique chemistry that made them the band they were.
Jimbo wrote:In some ways, personality-wise, Trump and I are similar.

User avatar
jimboo
Posts: 6293
Joined: 29 Dec 2005, 17:43
Location: taking a foxy kind of stand

Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?

Postby jimboo » 02 Apr 2015, 20:57

Maybe Snarf ,but there only ever was one Who. I am not so sure there is that much tension. I mean Pete has had his issues over the years and I think Rog has been a rock in his life . I would describe them as having a marriage of sorts. I believe they have been a successful unit . Great question by the way.
Goat Boy wrote:Oh, do fuck off, prog boy.

User avatar
The Modernist
Posts: 8704
Joined: 13 Apr 2014, 20:42

Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?

Postby The Modernist » 02 Apr 2015, 20:57

der nister wrote:
The Modernist wrote:Any number of front men from more obscure sixties bands would have been as good and probably better.


Like?


The names aren't really important, though if you want some - Reg King, Kenny Pickett, Art Wood etc.
The point is Daltrey's vocals were pretty run of the mill for the time. And then there are the seventies to be held against him.

User avatar
jimboo
Posts: 6293
Joined: 29 Dec 2005, 17:43
Location: taking a foxy kind of stand

Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?

Postby jimboo » 02 Apr 2015, 21:01

Nah Moddy , wouldn't be the same band , any bass player would have done as well? Why have a loony on drums chucking fills and thrills when you could have had a million others , listening to the Who is an experience because of the clash and character of them involved .
Goat Boy wrote:Oh, do fuck off, prog boy.

User avatar
The Modernist
Posts: 8704
Joined: 13 Apr 2014, 20:42

Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?

Postby The Modernist » 02 Apr 2015, 21:05

jimboo wrote:Nah Moddy , wouldn't be the same band , any bass player would have done as well? Why have a loony on drums chucking fills and thrills when you could have had a million others , listening to the Who is an experience because of the clash and character of them involved .


Well that's true. He probably was a vital part of the chemistry, but on a strictly musical criteria I'm not sure he was that great.
He always looked a bit uncomfortable in the mod clothing at the beginning too. Has anyone ever thought he was cool?

User avatar
Quaco
F R double E
Posts: 45785
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 19:41

Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?

Postby Quaco » 02 Apr 2015, 21:06

In the early days, Marriott was the guy doing what Daltrey was trying to do.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -