The Who - "Tommy" 2 xVinyl, LP, Album, 1969 (Decca)

I was 15 years old when I purchased the "Tommy" album.  Oddly enough, considering that I'm a huge Who fan (with Keith Moon/John Entwistle) now, then, I just liked the idea that they smashed their instruments after each performance.  But at 15 I got caught up on the grand aspects of pop music, and when I heard that Pete Townshend was working on an 'opera,' well, this was going to be my first Who purchase.   I admired the Townshend scope and ambition.  Also in publications like Rolling Stone, it was reported that he worked on this project for a long time.  Once I heard it, I knew it was a masterpiece, in fact, I knew so, because being a media child at the time, it was written that "Tommy" is an iconic album.   The truth is, I played the album a few times and forgot about it.  For god sake for one, they were not The Kinks!

Within decades I avoided any album by The Who after "Tommy," but over time, and with great patience, I purchased and listened to Who records that led to their 'opera.'   As a 63-year-old man, I consider that there is no such bad thing as a bad Who album or song before "Tommy."  I lost my "Tommy" album when I made the massive switch from vinyl to CD, during the digital revolution and never replaced it as I did with the earlier Who recordings.

Last March I was on a 9-hour flight from Tokyo to Los Angeles, and in that numb state of mind, I watched the current version of The Who do "Tommy."  I loved it. Not sure if it was due to the boredom of a long plane flight and being trapped in a confining coach seat on the airline, or that I just appreciated the entertainment wherever I can find it.   But it stayed with me until I went to a local record store.  It was a week ago that I bought a used copy of "Tommy" to re-introduce myself to the record without the cultural baggage that came with the rock n' roll opera.   It brought back my memory of being 15, and now I recall why I didn't like the album that much.

The music itself is brilliant.   There is not one bad tune on the entire album.  And I even love the Keith Moon song "Tommy's Holiday Camp" as well as the always brilliant composition by Entwistle "Do You Think It's Alright?"   What I do not like is the actual sound of the album itself.  My cultural hero Kit Lambert failed The Who in the sonic department.   The recording strikes me as a demo more than a finished recorded work.  A sketch when it needed a full oil-paint on a canvas.   Keep in mind that I love Lambert's production on all Who recordings that he worked on, except for the iconic "Tommy."    If I were a total lunatic, I would collect every recording of "Tommy" possible, and I may go down that dark and slippery slope shortly, but meanwhile, I think the best version of "Tommy" is the live recordings such as the longer version of "Live at Leeds."

The big primary question is "Tommy" good for rock n' roll or pop?  I don't have an answer for that.  For one, I have always seen the album as a work that is one whole and not separated by individual song tracks. Of course, this is not always the case by the artists in question.  Still, this is how I look at albums.  I rarely look at an album and go "that's a great song, but the rest...." I take the entire work as if it is (or was) a narrative novel.   There are economic reasons why albums exist, and the difference between the 45 rpm single and the 33 1/3 long player.   But when I play an album, I'm embracing the huge world that this 12" represents to me.   "Tommy" may be one of the first albums for me (as a teenager) that led to the bigger picture of how one approaches the album.  That, and "Sgt. Pepper" of course.