Slipkid42 wrote:
In order to say that the Who were at the top of their game, you have to ignore 6 years out of 10 (tho they were still a first rate touring band for much of that time). Not only did the Stones match the Who's early decade output (whomever you want to put first), but they also came up w/ Some Girls before the end of the decade (i'll let TC speak to Black & Blue lol).
Gotta disagree w/ you on Jackson Browne. Those first three albums (you have 2 & 3 reversed, btw) are fabulous. The Pretender, not so much, despite some highlights. I guess fans disagree quite a bit about Running on Empty, but to me it falls measurably short of those first three - it's a fun and pretty cohesive album, the Jackson Browne album for non jackson browne fans, but imo the songwriting doesn't come anywhere near those others.
What I meant w/the Who was that however fabulous they were in the 60's (and they were very much so); they were that much better in the 70's. To me, that merits inclusion in my Top 5. As far as them vs. the Stones, all I've got to say is I REALLY like Quadrephenia & Who's Next (more than I like any Stone's record). The Stones & Zep could just as easily be anywhere my Top 5, though ('cept ahead of the Allman Bros.).
The Pretender is a touch schmaltzy, but no more so than say Steely Dan or Stevie Wonder can be (IMO). The writing is a cut below his earlier stuff, granted; but he still has the forlorn soul angle down pretty good. Sleeps Dark & Silent Gate alone makes it a must have for me (esp like Your Bright Baby Blues & The Only Child & Linda Paloma too). I feel the album was selling out done well. Running On Empty is somewhat unique for a live record, in that none of the stuff was on his earlier work. It is enhanced by the excellent accompaniment of David Lindley. It is a well conceived theme record of life on the road. Overplay has tarnished the luster of some of the songs, but Shaky Town, Rosie, Cocaine & Love Needs A Heart certainly make it worth an occasional listen. I do realize that I rate Jackson Browne higher than the average fan, but I've always dug melody. He's good at that.[/quote]
If you, think Quadrophenia is "class A" Who, then sure, they're a legit pick for the all decade team. I gather that there are a few people here who agree w/ you on that one
, tho i still say that
Who Are You never sees the light of day if the Who's name is not on it.
I love the only child and daddy's tune (see? I like shmaltz too
) and Here Come Those Tears Again is fine when i hear it on the radio. This is totally unfair of me, i know, but i always felt that Sleep's Dark and Silent Gate should have been better, should have been "definitive." Why? 'cause i was young and the world was black & white and jackson browne was a god and he should have been able to figure it all out for me, despite his own pain and mishegas. As it is, i think song for adam is a better take on a similar subject.
You describe
Running on Empty perfectly, espy Lindley's contributions. But I don't (and especially, didn't back then) look to Jackson Browne to make nice glossy professional pop records, even ones w/ neat and well executed concepts. There are plenty of people that do that well, better than he does. Jackson Browne was supposed to touch my heart and reach my soul and help me get through the long nites. I think you'd agree that's not
Running on Empty. Unfair standard? Yep. <shrug>