Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
The Sandbox - HoustonThe Sandbox is a collection of off-topic discussions. Humorous threads, Sports talk, and a wide variety of other topics can be found here. If it's NOT an adult-themed topic, then it belongs here
the big 3 '60's bands, in the lexicon of most Rock observers. almost everybody lists them, in order of excellence, as:
1. the Beatles
2. the Rolling Stones
3. the Who
my votes place the Who at #1.. for these reasons.
origination: the Who stormed out of the gate with "my generation", they established attitude from the start.. the Beatles were crafted pop, and all their early smashes sound the same.. jingly pop tunes, adolescent love songs.. known for their moptops as much as anything else. the Stones ripped off Blues musicians, mostly covers.
musicianship: Townshend, Moon, and Entwistle are masters of their instruemnts. the Beatles started with 3 guitarists strumming pop ditties, granted 2 of them progressed to piano later.. the Stones had a strong rhythm section, but individually they were not in the who's class. songwriting? Townshend dwarfs the other bands writers, except Lennon, but he is clearly superior to even Lennon.
all 3 bands demonstrated musical growth, but.. when the Beatles matured, they also separated as a band.. take the White album.. that is 4 guys doing his own songs, pooling into a "group" album.. McCartney dominated the final 3 albums.. the Stones nailed it with beggar's banquet, but management issues derailed them for 2 years. they stayed strong with the addition of Mick Taylor on guitar, for 2-3 years. but the Who was unstoppable.. Tommy, Who's next, Quadrophenia, not to mention a historically great live album (live at Leeds), and a few great singles sprinkled in. real band efforts.
I play the Who's music 4 times as much as the other 2 bands.. that's my ears telling me, without regard to any intellectual exercise.
I given up rating bands and songs. However, I do agree with a lot of your reasoning. Here's my favorite vid of Entwistle playing bass (who song, no who):
I don't know, the Who are known for a song about a pin ball player, pretty adolescent.
The Beatles - Come Together, Sgt. Pepper, Revolution, Yesterday, Michelle, etc, etc, etc. It doesn't seem other bands have more variety and musicality than that
The way I see it The Who don’t even rate in the same realm as The Stones or The Beatles. Yes the Beatles were poppy in the beginning but they were kicking the doors open if you will. Remember they were putting stuff out a full 3 years before The Who. And by the time Rubber Soul came out you could see the maturity of their direction taking place. And to compare the song writing of Townsend to the likes of Lennon/McCartney or either as a stand alone artist then throw in the genius of George Harrison is ludicrous. And I don’t get how you think the last 3 albums were all McCartney I’m not going to do a track by track list but they were all represented very strongly on all three including Harrison.
Not to mention he doesn’t even come close to Jagger/Richards in the mid sixties til the early eighties for prolific smash you in the teeth rock song writing. Hell they can even do country and make it rock. There is nothing The Who has done that even comes close to something like Exile on Main Street or Let it Bleed. Just to name a couple. I will say that unlike the Beatles crew Jagger/Richards don’t stand up well with out each other but together they are what rock is all about.
For me it’s not who’s better the Beatles or the Stones it’s what do you want to hear at the moment. The Stones are just down right nasty kick your ass rock n roll. And The Beatles are beautiful thought provoking revolutionary music that doesn’t even come around once a generation. And The Who are lucky to be a part of that “Generation”.
Sorry Chung I generally agree with you on most things but I just don’t get the whole Who thing. They are ok but not in the ranks of the other two.
I'm not going to lie, you have valid points Hank. I'm not backing away either.. Exile is a strong album (noted when I said Mick Taylor was a fine addition), but Let it Bleed, IMO, is overrated.. that "country" version of Honky Tonk Women that is on that album makes my skin crawl. Sticky Fingers is uneven, and pales next to Who's Next.
true, George Harrison had a few strong numbers late, for the Beatles, and I grant you that Abbey Road is better than the Stones or the Who.. but that is one album.. McCartney's output was much more prolific at the end (cough, "the End", for example), "get back", "long and winding road", "hey Jude" "Let it Be" "lady Madonna".. Lennon was background music from the time he got smitten with Yoko. and back to Harrison.. the Beatles had to bring in Eric Clapton to play "while my guitar gently weeps", can you imagine Townshend picking up the phone and asking Jeff Beck to play "won't get fooled again"?
shall we talk about "live" performance? the Who is unparalleled. the Beatles had so many screaming Teenyboppers you couldn't hear their pop ditties, and quit altogether in 1966.. that diminishes them when I consider top band rankings, while taking in the whole picture.. that said, I would have killed to be on that APPLE rooftop in the "Let it Be" scene. the Stones brought it live, and interestingly both bands still play live today, more than 50 years after the Beatles played their last concert. notwithstanding that McCartney is a road rat. Daltrey's voice has held up much better than Jaggar's.
all 3 bands have had a notable rock and roll death.. Brian Jones mysterious drowning, Lennon murdered by a fan, shot dead in cold blood.. Entwistle blowing Coke while a Hooker blew him. and Moon choking on his vomit after getting shit-faced.
the Who is even more exciting in death than the other two
I was fortunate to see Paul McCartney (what’s left of the Beatles), The Rolling Stones and The Who live at a single concert in 2016. Two more performers at the same concert, Bob Dylan and Neil Young are as great as the other three. All have withstood the test of time and, for me, there is no “One Greatest”. I would put Led Zeppelin in the same category. It’s too bad they no longer perform together.
When they put some of these bands together at the Coachella music festival, they charge $ 9,000 for the close up tickets. Counterculture music seems to be a lost world. Same thing happened to sporting events.
the appetite for Classic Rock has been nothing short of incredible.. moneyed Baby Boomers will fly across the Country, shell out thousands to re-live their youth.. if you had told me 30 years ago, that the Who, Neil Young, Paul McCartney, Dylan, Aerosmith, etc., would be touring today, drawing large crowds.. I would have said "no fucking way"!
but these guys are starting to drop like flies, no intention to be mean.. Lemmy, Bowie, Petty, Glen Frey.. in 10 more years the Classic Rock gravy train will be history. cd sales dried up a few years ago, concert ticket sales will follow, and everyone will stay home and click on Spotify.
The concert was Desert Trip, in Indio, Ca., same place as Coachella. Paid $1700 for great seats for the three day concert. Mick Jagger joked that it was the "See Us Before We Croak Festival". I had not seen any of them Live before and I'd do it again if they have another one.
The Beatles no question. I have their discography. Every song they ever made though not all were hits. Hope I don't lose my street cred over this revelation. ;-)
The only thing I give The Who is that Pete Townshend was a great songwriter who wrote most of their catalog, along with being the greatest guitar smasher in rock history.
The concert was Desert Trip, in Indio, Ca., same place as Coachella. Paid $1700 for great seats for the three day concert. Mick Jagger joked that it was the "See Us Before We Croak Festival". I had not seen any of them Live before and I'd do it again if they have another one.
I have seen all 5 of those, 4 of them more than once.. if I was like you, and had never seen any of them?
I would have come up with $1,700 and gone.. no brainer, as the kids say.
shall we talk about "live" performance? the Who is unparalleled. the Beatles had so many screaming Teenyboppers you couldn't hear their pop ditties, and quit altogether in 1966..
That wasn't the Beatles fault. You have to remember PA systems in the early 60's were not up to par.
Matter of fact "Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band " was recorded after the Beatles experience at Shea Stadium.
the big 3 '60's bands, in the lexicon of most Rock observers. almost everybody lists them, in order of excellence, as:
1. the Beatles
2. the Rolling Stones
3. the Who
my votes place the Who at #1.. for these reasons....
any agreement? disagreement? post your reasoning.
The Beatles. Nothing against the Who, the Stones, or anyone else mentioned here, but the Beatles transformation from the mid-60's and into what they became makes them at the top of the list.
Also, I know this means absolutely nothing here but just now thought of it, what channel is the Who and the Stones on XM radio?
the Beatles, the Stones, the Who...
