HawkeyeKane
353 posts
Nov 01, 2011
1:01 PM
|
Does anyone else here enjoy his harp playing? I know that it wasn't too prevalent in the later years of The Who, but back in their early years (including when they were known as The High Numbers), they performed several blues tunes like The Young Man Blues, and in the early seventies, they rearranged My Generation into a blues rendition. Roger was pretty darn good in my opinion! Mainly asking because The Who is pretty much my favorite rock band of all time. lol
----------
Hawkeye Kane
Last Edited by on Nov 01, 2011 1:11 PM
|
LSC
103 posts
Nov 01, 2011
8:40 PM
|
I would absolutely agree with The Who being arguably the greatest rock band of all time, especially live. The Who Live at Leeds is IMO the best live rock album ever there was or ever will be. I've had the pleasure of seeing The Who 4 times, all of which were some of my greatest musical memories. However, Daltry is a crap harmonica player. I wish it wasn't so but there you go.
----------
LSC
|
didjcripey
150 posts
Nov 01, 2011
10:49 PM
|
Yes,I agree, he was a great musician, but what little I have heard of him on harp suggested he was a beginner who hadn't put much time in on the instrument.
----------
Lucky Lester
|
Oisin
886 posts
Nov 01, 2011
10:57 PM
|
He's up there with Mick Jagger. You know that Keith Richards in his autobiography states that Mick Jagger was as good a harp player as Little Walter. If ever you needed proof of the effect that drugs have had on Richards that statement is all the evidence you need.
----------
Oisin
|
didjcripey
151 posts
Nov 01, 2011
11:20 PM
|
Actually, listen to Jagger with BB on 'Payin the cost to be the boss' on BB's Deuces wild album; nothing real fancy, but does the job. Certainly no Little Walter, but a bit more proficient than Daltrey in my opinion
----------
Lucky Lester
|
Steamrollin Stan
152 posts
Nov 02, 2011
2:08 AM
|
@Oisin, i also know that many many players sound crappy and rely on all the fancy effects to sound 'right' but did Mick Jagger say he was better than LW, no, its observations from others that get things out of context, Jagger just picked up some simple stuff and did his job.
Last Edited by on Nov 02, 2011 2:10 AM
|
Oisin
887 posts
Nov 02, 2011
6:22 AM
|
Stan and cripey...I'm basing my judgement on the few youtube vids I've seen Jagger play on and I've got to say I can play better than him on those ones and I would discribe my self as a lower intermediate player. As I said above, that was keith's opinion of Jagger and I agree with you that those opinions get taken out of context.
----------
Oisin
|
Rhartt1234
28 posts
Nov 02, 2011
8:08 AM
|
I'm no fan of less than skilled harmonica players but I've always liked Daltrey's playing on live versions of Baba O'Riley
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCNeVHv3Mlg
|
HawkeyeKane
359 posts
Nov 02, 2011
8:23 AM
|
Jagger is about as good a harp player as Richards is a guitarist. Flop. It really is a shame that the triumverate of the British Invasion (Beatles, Who, and Stones) all had novice harp players. But out of Daltrey, Jagger, and Lennon, I think Daltrey was the best of them, and I think that if he'd nurtured his harp skills a bit more in the early days, he'd be a great rock player today.
@Rhartt
I agree with you on Baba. Probably his greatest harp achievement.
----------
Hawkeye Kane
|
LSC
104 posts
Nov 02, 2011
10:17 AM
|
There's the thing about all art being subjective. One person's Bach is another's white noise.
I cringe at Daltry's harp on Baba O'Riley, especially live. It's just the worst out of time chord chugging. And I would agree that it is doubtful he's put any time into the instrument.
Jagger on the other hand has obviously put time into the instrument, which if you know something about the history of the Stones makes sense. Those guys were obsessed with the blues, as were a lot of British guys of that generation. And if you didn't know your stuff your ass was on the curb. Keith Richards knowledge is extraordinary. Jagger is a pretty good harp player, not great, but pretty good. To imply that Jagger is not a decent harp player by suggesting that Richards is not a good guitar player is in my view just plain silly. As my good friend and former bassist with Stan Webb's Chicken Shack once said, "To those who say that rhythm guitar is not important I have just two words, Keith Richards." Keith has been declared by more than one music journalist as the greatest rhythm guitar player in the history of rock and roll. All one has to do is look at his body of work and the influence it has had on generations of guitar players to know that statement is hard to argue with.
----------
LSC
|
groyster1
1543 posts
Nov 02, 2011
10:35 AM
|
the stones would fold without richards IMHO
|
HawkeyeKane
363 posts
Nov 02, 2011
10:40 AM
|
@LSC
Richards' rhythm work is good, his soloing however...
He uses the same phrasing, song in and song out. Rolling Stone naming him the 10th greatest guitarist of all time is a stretch of the first order, especially placing him above the likes of Jeff Beck, and George Harrison, and Carlos Santana. That's always gotten me miffed.
And I'm not saying that Jagger isn't a decent harp player. He is. I'm saying that Jagger's style was very repetative, just like Richards' solo work. If you look at The Who's early stuff, doing blues as a mod band, Daltrey's blues harp is quite tasty for what the popular tunes were at the time.
----------
Hawkeye Kane
|
LSC
106 posts
Nov 02, 2011
2:29 PM
|
@HawkeyeKane
Compiling a list of "The Greatest" of anything of course necessitates a criteria. What criteria Rolling Stone used I don't know. However, if influence on succeeding players or guitar playing beyond single note soloing are any kind of factors, I'd say Richards is without question a top 10.
As far as soloing, that's not his game. Never has been. To try to make a direct comparison with Beck, Harrison, or Santana is comparing apples and oranges.
"If you look at The Who's early stuff, doing blues as a mod band, Daltrey's blues harp is quite tasty for what the popular tunes were at the time."
Exactly, early days The Who were a mod band playing, in essence, pop with some RnB (ex. the Bo Diddly beat of Magic Bus) and rock and roll influences(ex. Eddie Cochran's Summertime Blues). The early Stones were a straight ahead RnB band doing blues and RnB covers. Examples from their first album, songs by Willie Dixon, Jimmy Reed, Slim Harpo, etc.
Just think about the respective band names. One is certainly a pop band the other is taken from a Muddy Waters tune. Which is likely to have more blues influence in their music and consequently to have put more study into the form when learning an instrument?
But make no mistake, I have been a huge fan of The Who forever. I once saw them open for Herman and The Hermits, one of the most hilarious examples of incompetent booking ever. The review in the LA Free Press described it, "Trying to follow The Who is like trying to follow World War Three and the Second Coming." At Monterey, Hendrix wanted no part of it. Having lost the coin toss, the guitar burning was about the only thing left.
----------
LSC
|
