Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?
- yomptepi
- BCB thumbscrew of Justice
- Posts: 36415
- Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 17:57
- Location: well
Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?
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?
- Sneelock
- Posts: 14077
- Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
- Location: Lincoln Head City
Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?
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.
uggy poopy doody.
- The Modernist
- 2018 BCB Cup Champ!
- Posts: 13843
- Joined: 13 Apr 2014, 20:42
Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?
Any number of front men from more obscure sixties bands would have been as good and probably better.
- Quaco
- F R double E
- Posts: 47384
- Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 19:41
Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?
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.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- pcqgod
- Posts: 19970
- Joined: 11 Apr 2010, 07:23
- Location: Ohio
Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?
Someone had to carry the equipment before they were successful enough to hire roadies.
Where would rock 'n' roll be without feedback?
-
- Posts: 63925
- Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 20:12
Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?
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.
Don't fake the funk on a nasty dunk!
- Quaco
- F R double E
- Posts: 47384
- Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 19:41
Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?
Biut Townshend's voice could move you. Daltrey rarely did. But certainly, the contrast was part of it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- yomptepi
- BCB thumbscrew of Justice
- Posts: 36415
- Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 17:57
- Location: well
Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?
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?
- '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?
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.
- der nister
- Posts: 15564
- Joined: 30 Sep 2008, 18:42
Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?
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.
- '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?
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.
- Count Machuki
- BCB Cup Champion 2013
- Posts: 39534
- Joined: 11 Jun 2005, 15:28
- Location: HAIL, ATLANTA!
Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?
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
Then it follows that ∀ k ∈ K: K ∈ U ⇒ k ∉ D
- Zeeba Neighba
- Posts: 32
- Joined: 31 Mar 2015, 15:27
- Location: Louisiana
Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?
'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".
- jimboo
- Posts: 7316
- Joined: 29 Dec 2005, 17:43
- Location: taking a foxy kind of stand
Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?
The Who at their peak and pomp needed every member.
If I jerk- the handle jerk- the handle you'll thrill me and thrill me
- Snarfyguy
- Dominated by the Obscure
- Posts: 53502
- Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
- Location: New York
Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?
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.
GoogaMooga wrote: The further away from home you go, the greater the risk of getting stuck there.
- jimboo
- Posts: 7316
- Joined: 29 Dec 2005, 17:43
- Location: taking a foxy kind of stand
Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?
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.
If I jerk- the handle jerk- the handle you'll thrill me and thrill me
- The Modernist
- 2018 BCB Cup Champ!
- Posts: 13843
- Joined: 13 Apr 2014, 20:42
Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?
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.
- jimboo
- Posts: 7316
- Joined: 29 Dec 2005, 17:43
- Location: taking a foxy kind of stand
Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?
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 .
If I jerk- the handle jerk- the handle you'll thrill me and thrill me
- The Modernist
- 2018 BCB Cup Champ!
- Posts: 13843
- Joined: 13 Apr 2014, 20:42
Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?
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?
- Quaco
- F R double E
- Posts: 47384
- Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 19:41
Re: Was Roger Daltrey really needed in the Who?
In the early days, Marriott was the guy doing what Daltrey was trying to do.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -