Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?

Do talk back
User avatar
Count Machuki
BCB Cup Champion 2013
Posts: 36453
Joined: 11 Jun 2005, 15:28
Location: semiosphere

Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?

Postby Count Machuki » 02 Apr 2015, 21:07

The Modernist wrote:Has anyone ever thought he was cool?


Sally Simpson?


In the 70s he was kind of a pin-up, wasn't he?
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
'O'
hounds people off the board
Posts: 12208
Joined: 24 Apr 2007, 23:21

Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?

Postby 'O' » 02 Apr 2015, 21:08

The Modernist wrote:
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?


He looks cooler now! not that that's saying much, but he's well preserved and has a good sense of style for a 70-year-old.
Jimbo wrote:I shake my head here at how pettily you behave, how narrowly you think, at your black and white view of current events

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, 21:19

daltrey the duchess kills BCB


User avatar
yomptepi
BCB thumbscrew of Justice
Posts: 34133
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 17:57
Location: well

Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?

Postby yomptepi » 02 Apr 2015, 21:19

He does look good. he looks all business on the stuff he has done with Wilko.
You don't like me...do you?

User avatar
sloopjohnc
Posts: 58045
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, 21:28

Count Machuki wrote: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?


That was kinda my point. You had enough going on with Townshend and Moon flailing. Daltrey played a nice visual bridge between those two and Entwhistle.
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. . .

User avatar
sloopjohnc
Posts: 58045
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, 21:32

The Modernist wrote:
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.


I think that's interesting - lots of '60s bands went in the same kind of direction. Beatles were starting too, the Stones in theirs, the Kinks more theatrical. What direction should they have gone in? They did Tommy and then Quadrophenia - did you expect more of that or what?

Zeppelin was essentially Page's vision of the Yardbirds on steroids.
Last edited by sloopjohnc on 03 Apr 2015, 03:36, edited 1 time in total.
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. . .

User avatar
Guy E
Posts: 13301
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 23:11
Location: Antalya, Turkey

Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?

Postby Guy E » 02 Apr 2015, 21:55

Count Machuki wrote: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?

Indeed. Live they would have been half the band.

The thing is, Townshend wrote for Daltrey. Pete's demos have everything worked out with his own voice, but he was imagining Roger all along. The WHO would have been a different band as a trio or a quartet with a lead guitarist and Pete as the front man. The material would have evolved along a different path.
Last edited by Guy E on 02 Apr 2015, 21:58, edited 1 time in total.
["Minnie the Stalker"]The first time that we met I knew I was going to make him mine.

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, 21:57

'skope wrote:
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.


well, slope, since you asked Chris Youlden could have been interesting
It's kinda depressing for a music forum to be proud of not knowing musicians.

User avatar
'O'
hounds people off the board
Posts: 12208
Joined: 24 Apr 2007, 23:21

Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?

Postby 'O' » 02 Apr 2015, 22:19

A name we're all familiar with.
Jimbo wrote:I shake my head here at how pettily you behave, how narrowly you think, at your black and white view of current events

User avatar
jimboo
Posts: 6181
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, 22:20

Is he a tennis player ?
Goat Boy wrote:Oh, do fuck off, prog boy.

User avatar
'O'
hounds people off the board
Posts: 12208
Joined: 24 Apr 2007, 23:21

Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?

Postby 'O' » 02 Apr 2015, 22:27

He's seepage's accountant
Jimbo wrote:I shake my head here at how pettily you behave, how narrowly you think, at your black and white view of current events

User avatar
sloopjohnc
Posts: 58045
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, 22:40

SEX ARSE wrote:He's seepage's accountant


:lol: :lol: :lol:

A singing accountant? How novel.
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. . .

User avatar
Jimbo
Posts: 13233
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?

Postby Jimbo » 02 Apr 2015, 22:44

Coincidence. Just yesterday my wife and I were in the kitchen and "My Love Open the Door" came on the shuffler and we talked briefly on just this, that they sounded similar and how Townsend should have carried on without him. But then I didn't know Pete sang so much on Tommy so maybe the similar voice is Pete's actual voice from Tommy. Or then I pictured Peter demonstrating the song for Roger and Roger mimicked Pete.
I love you.

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, 22:48

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

User avatar
pig bodine
Posts: 608
Joined: 22 Jul 2014, 16:39
Location: Upper Baboonasshole

Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?

Postby pig bodine » 02 Apr 2015, 23:00


User avatar
clive gash
Thanks Kate - I love it
Posts: 12193
Joined: 29 Sep 2007, 00:32
Location: standing around, exchanging tales and mischief...

Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?

Postby clive gash » 02 Apr 2015, 23:13

Well, there's one way It's Hard might've been even more appalling.
Diamond Dog wrote:I'd like to say I;d never resort to bombs - but I;m not sure I can ever truly 'walk in those shoes'?


Diamond Dog wrote:I do find the inclusion of women unsavoury, I must confess.



(meme here)

User avatar
The Modernist
Posts: 7644
Joined: 13 Apr 2014, 20:42

Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?

Postby The Modernist » 02 Apr 2015, 23:25

sloopjohnc wrote:
SEX ARSE wrote:He's seepage's accountant


:lol: :lol: :lol:

A singing accountant? How novel.


Confusing though, when he says to you "I've got the new numbers" it could refer to anything.

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 62085
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?

Postby Diamond Dog » 02 Apr 2015, 23:33

Guy E wrote:
Count Machuki wrote: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?

Indeed. Live they would have been half the band.

The thing is, Townshend wrote for Daltrey. Pete's demos have everything worked out with his own voice, but he was imagining Roger all along. The WHO would have been a different band as a trio or a quartet with a lead guitarist and Pete as the front man. The material would have evolved along a different path.



Precisely. Spot on - everything you need to know right here.
Image

User avatar
yomptepi
BCB thumbscrew of Justice
Posts: 34133
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 17:57
Location: well

Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?

Postby yomptepi » 02 Apr 2015, 23:39

Diamond Dog wrote:

Precisely. Spot on - everything you need to know right here.


But it doesn't explain why he sang so many of the songs himself. If he was imagining Daltrey singing the songs, then why not let him sing them?
You don't like me...do you?

User avatar
Count Machuki
BCB Cup Champion 2013
Posts: 36453
Joined: 11 Jun 2005, 15:28
Location: semiosphere

Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?

Postby Count Machuki » 02 Apr 2015, 23:44

yomptepi wrote: If he was imagining Daltrey singing the songs, then why not let him sing them?


Because The Beatles had more than one singer?
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


Return to “Yakety Yak”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests