Artists/bands that were once quite popular, yet nowadays are mostly ignored in canonical history books

it's a shame mick ralphs didn't just go solo and do a lo-fi power pop project

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zto_iABiJD0

Lobby Loyde /?
(after listening to G.O.D. my perception may be distorted)

Oh my I like that demo so much more than the hit. It's got that Mott sneery good nature that I never get from Bad Company.

Does anyone rate Country Joe and the Fish anymore? Every hippie I knew had their records, fish cheer was one of the classic moments of the Woodstock film, but I feel like the Dead, Airplane, Doors, even Quicksilver tower over them in the memory banks. I just listened to their debut for the first time ever, way more psych organ jams than I was expecting.

I remember John Peel being very fond of them, particularly the guitar playing of Barry "The Fish" Melton. Seemed very anachronistic even then.

Byron Coley always repped for them too iirc

The Fish often appeared in docs about the 60s but I rarely hear them on the radio

And i think most people would guess they were sort of a novelty act

[first name] and the [plural noun] band names have taken on a jokey feel, but CJ&TF must have been one of the first satirical uses of the formula.

Not sure this is exactly on topic, but I've been thinking about The Who lately with regards to their legacy. They aren't that far down the list quite yet, but I feel like in another 15-20 years, should things stay the course, they are going to be relegated to minor supporting players when compared against their popular peak. It just seems like that's a band that fades away a little more with each passing year.

I'm not sure if it's because they haven't been as aggressive with reissue campaigns as, say, Zeppelin and Pink Floyd, or because they still trickle out new material infrequently enough to not have that "career overview" angle, but it seems like they don't get written or talked about nearly as much as most of their contemporaries. I mean, they had a brand new album last year that seemed to get a tiny fraction of the digital ink that yet another Stones reissue is getting.

The member everybody liked (or liked to write about) has been dead for over 40 years. Daltrey isn't a very interesting interview subject, and Townsend is a fucking creep.

Fair point, but I feel like that statement could almost be literally mapped on to, say, members of Zeppelin and it still wouldn't explain the difference in cultural cachet between the two bands.

I’ve come around to appreciating most of the iconic 60s bands I was too cool to like in my 20s, but I’ve hated The Who relentlessly. My guess is it’s because they suck.

Fair point, but I feel like that statement could almost be literally mapped on to, say, members of Zeppelin and it still wouldn't explain the difference in cultural cachet between the two bands.

It's absolutely a valid point; Plant is all "let's talk about my new album instead" and Page won't talk to anyone about anything, so it's weird that LZ have retained their status. I think it's because the Who were ultimately seen by the public/history as a singles band, not an album act, despite putting out Tommy and Quadrophenia. So when their singles don't get airplay anymore, they fade away. (Plus, as MatthewK points out, they kinda sucked. Not as much as the Kinks, but pretty bad.)

Plant is much more interesting than Daltrey, while Page is a bigger creep than Townshend, swings and roundabouts.

In the early 80s, The Who were talked about as precursors to punk (the early singles) and new wave (the synths, the power pop) and even U2s anthem rock. They felt very much in the contemporary mix. To some extent that history has been rewritten, with the Velvets and Kraftwerk and the Stooges. But the stodgy reunion tours and Tommy on broadway and all that did as much self-inflicted damage.

Are used to truly love that band, but yeah, a notch down every year is accurate.

John Paul Jones vs John Entwistle though, hmmm

albums vs singles is a fair point too - when i was checking out these bands for the first time in high school, it was clear and widely broadcast that Zeppelin IV is a Great Album, that coincidentally enough had like 4-5 huge and very accessible CR radio staples. perfect gateway especially if you're new to appreciating guitar solos or whatever. Who's Next is the closest The Who had, and I found it a lot harder to get into at 17! and then Tommy, which I knew was "important," is a *double* album with one song you might already know. i ended up with a garage sale copy of Who's Better, Who's Best and was content with that for a lonnng time.

IOW, maybe they sort of awkwardly straddle the era of "LPs with songs on them" and capital-A "Albums," y'know? i don't care about that, but it might slow down uptake for kids in dorm rooms or w/e. though, you'd think the albums/singles thing might be slightly less important in the streaming age (has there been a thread about, like, spotify's impact on ways rockism is passed on to the next generation?).

in terms of radio play, imho The Who's biggest disadvantage is that their first few singles, which are fucking incredible and mind-blowing as performances, were at best middlingly-well-recorded at the time, and only sound thinner and tinnier as years go by and they're competing with these booming, FM-ready 70s tracks. so it would be easy to just not realize how dynamic and insane Keith Moon was - you can barely hear him! (might be recapitulating the TS: Moon vs Bonham thread here...). meanwhile, mid-60s rock singles have been really wiped out as CR has advanced forward in time, so that's a big part of their narrative washed away, in a way Zep hasn't had to contend with. or take the Stones - they still "work" as a titanic rock act if you only know them from Beggars Banquet forward and have never heard "Satisfaction" (bizarre though that might seem) --- not sure the equivalent holds true if you start The Who at Tommy and don't have "I Can't Explain" etc.....

my dad’s friend told me that my high school band sounded like Country Joe and The Fish, I was honored

you should be, they kicked ass

Pretty sure The Who would still be able to sell out stadiums and headline festivals pretty much anywhere. They may not be the most fashionable act to cite but they remain a gigantic draw.

(and obviously this is different from being ignored in the canon! i feel like there's another thread i can't think of for artists who are / recently have undergone major declines in their canonicity...)

I don't know about stadiums, The Who's 2019 fall tour was booked at the same type of summer sheds that the reunited Black Crowes were also playing.

Although I see they did play Fenway Park, so I guess it varied.

Black Crowes were probably over-estimating their draw.

I'm most certainly sure they were. It was just the first comparison for last summer that came to mind. I'm sure the UK draw would be different for The Who, but in Chicago they played the same shitty shed an hour south of the city that everyone plays. The Stones played Soldier Field twice and Dead & Company played Wrigley Field twice, I don't think The Who would have been able to play either of those.

someone posted Ticketmaster screen grabs of available seating from the Black Crowed tour, they had literally sold like a few hundred at some of the dates

Not surprising. Especially since the Robinson brothers couldn't find anyone from any of the old Crowes lineups willing to play with them again. Though I was very surprised they got Isiah Mitchell from Earthless to agree to that ill-fated tour.

thread I was thinking of, for the broader case of shifting opinions/status even for acts that are not ignored in canonical history books: shifts in popular opinion you have noticed

also: Keith Moon vs. John Bonham POLL

i feel like the byrds have reached this point, was gonna say cream too but idk

I would struggle to find anyone under the age of 45 who could name a single song by Cream, IRL of course, not counting you weirdos.

Everybody's heard 'Moonshine of Your Nerve'.

"Sunshine of Your Love" is still far from obscure ime but it's not the radio staple it used to be. I think Cream's place in history books is p safe, though.xp

I just checked three popular music history textbooks (Covach, Starr/Waterman, Garofalo): Cream is discussed thoroughly in all of them; Covach and Starr/Waterman both give listening guide analyses for Cream songs - the "Crossroads" cover in Starr/Waterman and "Sunshine" in Covach.

I think plenty would recognise Sunshine of Your Love, maybe even a few others, but doubt they would be able to name the band.

The Who get extensive coverage in Covach and Garofalo, in multiple chapters of each, although they are left out of Starr/Waterman, surprisingly to me. Tbf, the Starr/Waterman book is titled American Popular Music and has an explicitly American focus but that obv doesn't stop them from spending a lot of time on Cream (or Led Zeppelin).

amusing flex from Sund4r

I'm trying to actually address the thread question! I'm not sure what I'm flexing, other than I used to have a job.

I think plenty would recognise Sunshine of Your Love, maybe even a few others, but doubt they would be able to name the band.

They might actually be an example of a band whose place in canonical history books is out of proportion with their actual popularity, then.

I'm not sure what I'm flexing, other than I used to have a job.

Sad lol.

I do agree that most zoomers and millennials are unfamiliar with the name 'Cream' even though they've heard 'Sunshine of Your Love'. Fwiw this was me until I made my way backwards after getting into Hendrix and Zep and Sabbath.

Amusing inasmuch as ppl saying "history books" itt are probably speaking vaguely metaphorically, thinking of imaginary future books, or general-audience pop-culture writing, so coming in with literal history books is a :D disjunct.

I'd think the Brian Howe version of Bad Company, which did sell some tapes/cds etc. probably eroded the band name a bit.

I think if you take in music Paul R./Simon Kirke did in Free and Mick Ralphs did with Mott, how good they really were is a perhaps more evident. The Bad Company debut is really, really good - maybe as good as say Mott or Fire and Water, but each later BC LP was not as rockin' and memorable - some singles notwithstanding. (Oh yeah, got to give a shoutout to Bozz (RIP) for being in same company with Greg Lake and John Wetton as former bassist/vocalist of King Crimson.

I'd figure Isaiah Mitchell took the BC's gig because it paid well and would get a whole bunch of people to know his band. Unless you got your own cash and some other gig, you get a good paying gig as a guitarist, you take it these days. Maybe they are raking it in, but as much as I like their music, I can't see Earthless as being a big payday full time job type band.

xpost - "Chapter 19: The Great Canadian Indie-Rock Collective Invasion of The Mid-Aughts"

I'd figure Isaiah Mitchell took the BC's gig because it paid well and would get a whole bunch of people to know his band. Unless you got your own cash and some other gig, you get a good paying gig as a guitarist, you take it these days. Maybe they are raking it in, but as much as I like their music, I can't see Earthless as being a big payday full time job type band.

Totally fair, I'm not knocking Mitchell for taking the gig in the least. It was more of a surprise that he was one of the last people I'd expect to see popping up as even a touring member of the Crowes.

The 1989 tour did irreparable damage to the Who’s standing, stature, reputation, etc. It was hugely successful in terms of sellout crowds and such, and the shows were fun, but I believe there are fewer than 10 people on earth who look back fondly on that tour.

When they reunited again in ‘96, it was significantly better (largely due to Zak Starkey), but the damage was done, and they played to a few half-empty arenas in ‘96-‘97. When they toured with a five-pice lineup in ‘99-‘00 (for the first time since ‘82), it should’ve been bigger news than it was, though they still sold out the shed and arena circuit.

But ultimately, no one in the Who — least of all Townshend — gave/gives a shit what their standing is, which is why reissues and tours and new albums have been haphazardly planned and marketed, and why Townshend lets TV shows and commercials use his songs. He never gave a shit about the mystique of his band. The idea of mystique wouldn’t make any sense anyway, since he saw himself from the beginning as having been given a commission by the audience (working class London mods, initially) to speak to and for and through them (and to listen to them, obviously). “Mystique” wouldn’t serve any purpose in that relationship, other than to shut off communication. The end result — and this goes for their whole career — is something far more gawky and awkward and therefore (for me, anyway) far more exciting and relatable.

Oh haha yeah xp to sic

This is a weird conversation. I've never known The Who as anything other than one of "THE IMPORTANT©" bands of the classic rock era. People still know 'Baba O'Riley' and 'Won't Get Fooled Again' (maybe the latter only as a meme, but it's still known nonetheless).

The 1989 tour did irreparable damage to the Who’s standing, stature, reputation, etc.

Which is why no one has heard of them now

I've never known The Who as anything other than one of "THE IMPORTANT©" bands of the classic rock era. People still know 'Baba O'Riley'

My experience as well. That my dad was never a huge fan probably contributed to my ignorance of their music.