The Beatles versus The Who
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
Forum Description: Discuss bands and albums classified as Proto-Prog and Prog-Related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=40595
Printed Date: December 01 2024 at 22:33
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The Beatles versus The Who
Posted By: aspinosa
Subject: The Beatles versus The Who
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 13:30
|
Two of the most important proto prog bands , What is the best? Why? |
Replies:
Posted By: aspinosa
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 13:31
| It´s very difficult but I choose The Who. |
Posted By: GoldenSpiral
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 13:33
|
I know it's overrated to say "overrated".... but the freakin Beatles are overrated. and the Who rule. Who FTW! ------------- http://www.myspace.com/altaic" rel="nofollow - http://www.myspace.com/altaic ALTAIC "Oceans Down You'll Lie" coming soon |
Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 13:36
| Here we go again. What on earth does "the best" mean? Are the Beatles "better" than the Stones? Is (or was) Yes "better" than Genesis? Was Van Gogh "better" than Picasso? Was Dante "better" than Shakespeare? How on earth can you tell? And who really cares??? |
Posted By: ProgBagel
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 13:43
|
GoldenSpiral wrote:Posted By: Frippertron
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 13:51
|
Arrgghhh! You cannot do this!!! Sacrilige whichever I pick.. The Beatles are a local band to me (I am from Merseyside) whilst The Who are a great rock band that I adore.
Evil prog poll! ------------- The Cheerful Insanity of Prog Rock |
Posted By: Walker
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 14:04
|
John, Paul, and George were better songwriters and more influential than the who could ever hope to be. |
Posted By: ClassicRocker
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 14:06
------------- 
|
Posted By: MHDTV
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 14:14
I know, Pete Townshend never wrote anything comparable to Taxman  .
let's compare the musical talents: Vocals: Roger Daltrey>All the Beatles Guitar: Pete Townshend>George Harrison Bass: John Enwhistle>>>The Beatles Rhythm Guitarists, John and Paul Drums: Keith Moon>>>Ringo Starr Of course Townshend never wrote anything as pretty as Blackbird, or something that could match the eccentrity of Come Together. But the Beatles never wrote a song as groundbreaking as Baba O'Riley, or a rock opera as amazing as Tommy or Quadrophenia. The Beatles are geater, influence, record sales, etc. al., but the Who are far more talented. ------------- Freak yo' swerve |
Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 14:41
I don't agree, I'm afraid. Have you heard "Sunrise"? And how about "Dogs"? |
Posted By: Walker
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 14:43
You'll notice that I didn't say that the Beatles were better musicians than The Who. What I said was that they wrote better songs and were more influential. Most of the works that you mention were written and recorded by the Who in the seventies after the Beatles broke up. I was comparing the Who's sixties work against the Beatles. I agree that Who's Next and Quadrophenia are great albums, but who is to say what the Beatles would have done had they stayed together? You can't go by the solo albums because the Beatles were always greater than the sum of their parts. Anyway, I would put All Things Must Pass up against Tommy any day of the week. Try comparing the Sixties albums:
Rubber Soul >>> The Who Sings My Generation
Revolver >>> A Quick One
Sgt. Pepper >>> The Who Sell Out
Abbey Road = Tommy
Anyway, this is all academic, as there is no way to scientifically say who is "best".
|
Posted By: MHDTV
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 14:44
I'm afraid I disagree, neither really come close. ------------- Freak yo' swerve |
Posted By: MHDTV
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 14:48
That arguement is so ridiculious. "They would have been better if they hadn't split up." Tommy>>>Abbey Road, Who's Next>Sgt. Peppers(Barely), Quadrophenia<Revolver(Barely). ------------- Freak yo' swerve |
Posted By: Walker
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 14:54
That wasn't my argument. Your "quote" above never appeared in my statement. You took one line out of my paragraph and misrepresented it. All I'm saying is that you can't compare the Who's seventies work against the Beatles sixties work because they are two totally different eras.
|
Posted By: MHDTV
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 14:56
|
And I'm saying that's absolutely ridiculous. So I can't compare Primus to King Crimson? Explain your reasoning. ------------- Freak yo' swerve |
Posted By: Walker
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 15:17
Were you around back then? I'd guess not.
1. You mentioned Baba O'riley. That song using synthesizers and sequencers as a main feature. Those things weren't available when the Beatles recorded their albums.
2. The Who benefited in the seventies from 24 track recording studios as compared to 4 or 8 track for the beatles.
3. The Who had 2 years between albums during the seventies, so that they had plenty of time to hone their songwriting skills and pick out the best ones. During the sixties, the Who put out one album per year. The Beatles put out 2 albums per year during the same time, with better songs than the Who.
4. A large part of the Who's reputation is built on their live shows, and deservedly so. But those shows were during the seventies. A Spectacle like that with 3 hour shows with lasers and drum solos wasn't possible in the sixties.
Anyway... it's useles to go on because we're going to disagree no matter what I say, and thats ok. If we all thought the same way this would be a boring world, no?
|
Posted By: Walker
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 15:18
| Anyone else want to chime in here? What do you all think abou t this issue? We want to know! |
Posted By: MHDTV
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 15:19
|
I see what you're saying, but what matters to me is the actual output. Agree to disagree. ------------- Freak yo' swerve |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 16:09
Just three words in response to that - "Tomorrow Never Knows". |
Posted By: Walker
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 16:14
^ good point! 
|
Posted By: MHDTV
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 16:24
|
I'd consider Baba O'Riley more groundbreaking, and more influential. ------------- Freak yo' swerve |
Posted By: Walker
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 16:57
OK, now YOU are the one being ridiculous!
 |
Posted By: MHDTV
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 16:58
|
Oh really? What did Tomorrow Never Knows influence? ------------- Freak yo' swerve |
Posted By: Walker
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 17:25
Only the entire psychedelic movement of the late sixties.
|
Posted By: MHDTV
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 17:27
|
Hmmm, let's see what Baba O'Riley influenced? A short lived musical movement, or an entire musical style that's still commonly used. ------------- Freak yo' swerve |
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 17:28
|
You guys are hilarious... Anyway I vote The Beatles. ------------- "PA's own GI Joe!" 
|
Posted By: R o V e R
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 17:33
|
The Beatles
|
Posted By: Walker
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 17:33
If you are referring to hard rock, that style was already in place, although its a fine example of it. If you are referring to another style, please, do tell.
|
Posted By: MHDTV
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 17:37
|
Synthesizer style. Not genre or sub-genre. ------------- Freak yo' swerve |
Posted By: Walker
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 17:41
So let's see if I've got this straight..
Tomorrow Never Knows influenced a whole genre of music
Baba O'Riley influenced a particular way of playing a synthesizer
Yes, I can see that I was totally wrong and bow to your superior knowledge..
 |
Posted By: MHDTV
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 17:47
|
A genre that lasted, what, a few years? ------------- Freak yo' swerve |
Posted By: Walker
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 17:53
It gradually merged with some other genres to become prog.
And by the way, I've been sitting here trying to think of any other great songs that have a repetitive sequencer based synthesizer line playing the same thing over and over again throughtout a whole song and can't think of a single one besides Won't Get Fooled Again. Maybe some dance bands or electronica?
|
Posted By: MHDTV
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 17:55
|
Come to think of it, I'd say most Dance and Elctronica bands use synthesizers. I believe Rush and a few other prog bands usd them as well. But I think this is getting pretty off-topic now. ------------- Freak yo' swerve |
Posted By: Walker
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 17:58
yes, you are right, we are getting off topic... sorry.
|
Posted By: MHDTV
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 17:59
|
I'd put both bands in the top 5 of all time. ------------- Freak yo' swerve |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 18:07
|
The Beatles - The Who continued what The Beatles started. ------------- What? |
Posted By: MHDTV
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 18:08
|
The Who are completaly different. ------------- Freak yo' swerve |
Posted By: Walker
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 18:34
Keith Emerson was using synths before the Who, and more prog bands were influenced by his style of playing rather than the style in Baba O'Riley.
|
Posted By: MHDTV
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 18:35
Keith Emerson isn't the point of the arguement, so it doesn't matter if he was more influential. ------------- Freak yo' swerve |
Posted By: Walker
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 18:38
The point was who was more influential, and I have yet to see how the Who was more influential than the Beatles.
|
Posted By: mrcozdude
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 18:43
|
they both f**king awesome but the who always had their style (not motown rips offs) so the who wins ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/cozfunkel/" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Walker
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 18:45
The Who recorded Heat Wave..... if that isn't a Motown ripoff then I don't know what is.
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 19:02
it was the only song Moon could compose  by the way..... can anyone here actually admit to buying a copy of Moon's solo album.  ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Walker
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 19:23
^^^ DUDE!... was it really necessary to post that pic! 
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 19:25
what better way to describe the album . Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words hahhaha.------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Walker
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 19:26
A thousand words better left unsaid if you ask me! 
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 19:27
yeah.... maybe I should have left that album out of the conversation hahhaha. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: mrcozdude
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 19:36
well the beatles started their career as a motown rip off then where as the who were r&b ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/cozfunkel/" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 19:44
In the early 1960's Motown was an R&B label - both The Beatles and The Who where Beat groups. ------------- What? |
Posted By: MHDTV
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 19:53
|
At the beginning of their career's the Who were way better. I'm talking Please Please Me, Beatles For Sale era here. ------------- Freak yo' swerve |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 20:05
|
The Beatles were recording their 5th album when The Who released My Generation, even by 1965 standards things had moved on considerably since Please Please Me and Beatles for Sale. You simple cannot compare their early careers - The Who were already benefiting from the influence of both the Beatles and the Stones and trailing in the wake of the Kinks and the Yardbirds. It wasn't until Revolver & Sgt Pepper did the Who themselves change direction and start bringing the Art-school thinking into pop music. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Walker
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 20:12
To each his own
|
Posted By: Walker
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 20:14
The majority of the world didn't think so... witness the sales figures for proof.
|
Posted By: MHDTV
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 20:17
|
Michael Jackson is more popular than Led Zeppelin...Go figure. ------------- Freak yo' swerve |
Posted By: Walker
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 20:22
good point there!
this doesn't mean I'm conceding the argument though! LOL
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 20:26
But they are not selling to the same audience - however, the Beatles and the Who were so their numbers are valid.  ------------- What? |
Posted By: MHDTV
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 20:26
|
You're wrong on that. Thriller is marketed to the same audience as a song like Please Please Me. ------------- Freak yo' swerve |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 20:32
And when did Led Zeppelin record Please Please Me? You compared Zeppelin and Jackson - not Jackson and the Beatles. ------------- What? |
Posted By: MHDTV
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 20:35
|
Oh, true...Anyway, I'd say the Beatles were a lot better marketed than the Who, and far more mainstream. They knew how to ride their success better(Or their producers did anyway). ------------- Freak yo' swerve |
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: August 06 2007 at 01:43
|
I prefer the Who. I love the Beatles and they are amazing, but I feel more connected to the Who. The songs stick with me better (lyrically and musically) and I've tried learning more Who songs than Beatles which I guess is somewhat relevant. |
Posted By: Guzzman
Date Posted: August 06 2007 at 08:13
|
The Beatles broke down walls (metaphorically speaking) and The Who pi**ed against a wall (Who's Next). (Just in case: Yes, I know that that's a concrete block and not a wall.) The Who might not have been able to do what they did hadn't The Beatles cleared the way. That doesn't mean that there weren't others who could have done the same for the history of music. Nobody will ever know, what The Beatles might have recorded or written had they stayed together. But what would have happened to masterpieces like Tommy or Quadrophenia if The Who had stayed The Detours, had not written and recorded My Generation or I Can't Explain? I will not vote in this poll, because it's useless to say The Beatles or The Who is the best. Just take a look at the biography on the Progarchives-page for The Who, because there is the answer: "Much of the Who's fame rests as mighty gods of destroyed hotel rooms, exploding drum kits, destroyed guitars, swinging microphones, and power chords galore, but the real importance lies in how The Who, along with the Beatles, expanded what could be done in rock music and laid the groundwork for the merging of the intellectual and the artistic with the power of rock and roll." ------------- "We've got to get in to get out" |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: August 06 2007 at 16:44
(huge bump, but this has been niggling me all day - sorry
 )It would be a nice thought, because it is a great song, but unfortunately it is neither.
Baba O'Riley marries two of Townsend's influences Meher Baba and Terry Riley - the arpeggio 'synthesizer' motive is a musical reference to Terry Riley's repetitive minimalist music and is played on neither a Synthesizer or a Sequencer, but a home electronic organ (A Lowrey TBO-1 set to Marimba Beat http://yami.com/whotabs/equip-baba.htm - apparently ).
The electronic bands of the late 60's and early 70's, such as Tonto, Kraftwerk and Tangerine Dream were not influenced by The Who in general or this song in particular. However, it is accepted, (but not proven), that Tangerine Dream took their name from a missheard line from Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds, eventhough there is no direct Beatles influence in their music (beyond Revolution 9 anyway  ). Those bands were experimenting with tape-loops years before Baba O'Riley and adopted the technology of the Sequencer and Arpeggiator as soon as it was available in the early 70's. The later Synth-pop bands of the 80's and the EBM/Trance acts of the 90's all cite these early German electronic bands as influences - but not The Who and Baba O'Riley.------------- What? |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: August 06 2007 at 16:51
|
The Beatles by soooo much.
------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: R o V e R
Date Posted: August 06 2007 at 17:13
Please.,.. Noooooooo
|
Posted By: Walker
Date Posted: August 06 2007 at 22:01
|
(In response to Guzzman's post above^^)
I totally agree that it is useless to say one band is "better" than another. It's an entirely subjective OPINION. In my defense for arguing so intently, I was was trying to say that I thought the Beatles were more -influential- than the Who, not that they were -better-.
|
Posted By: meinmatrix
Date Posted: August 07 2007 at 03:44
Well, in today's standards, how many "Beatles songs" you can hear in CSI or any other favourite television show?  ------------- 
|
Posted By: Guzzman
Date Posted: August 07 2007 at 06:49
|
That Who songs are used for tv-serials doesn't make them better than Beatles tunes, does it? Nor does it make Beatles songs better that they have been (mis)used in commercials over the years, but it shows their popularity. I just say that both, The Beatles and The Who, are two of the greatest bands - ever. ------------- "We've got to get in to get out" |
Posted By: mrcozdude
Date Posted: August 07 2007 at 09:25
|
get the who 7 more votes to call it equals the way it should be! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/cozfunkel/" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Walker
Date Posted: August 07 2007 at 19:59
"Who Are You" was chosen for CSI because the message fit the theme of the show, not to mention its a great song in its own right. Another factor is that maybe the owners of the publishing were more open to license the rights out. None of which means that the Who were more influential.
|
Posted By: Walker
Date Posted: August 07 2007 at 20:41
you need 8 more now
 |
Posted By: mrcozdude
Date Posted: August 08 2007 at 10:42
Bugger! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/cozfunkel/" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: August 08 2007 at 11:22
Apple don't generally licence Beatles songs, this is why you don't find them on 60s compilations or adverts etc.
|
Posted By: Evans
Date Posted: August 08 2007 at 11:28
And Keith Moon's contribution to A quick one was "Cobwebs and strange" . Sooo.... ------------- 
'Let's give it another fifteen seconds..' |
Posted By: Walker
Date Posted: August 08 2007 at 19:37
^^ True... I was way too hasty in my reply that said it was a ripoff 
my apologies.
|
Posted By: Guzzman
Date Posted: August 10 2007 at 03:55
 : Ford used "Help" (the original recording) in 1985 with Apple reacting by enforcing a strict "No Beatles tunes in commercials"-policy. Yet in 1987 "Revolution" was used in a Nike-spot (original version again) and the company got sued by Apple (I don't know about the outcome). Philips used a part of "Getting Better" (although not the original Beatles-recording) to sell consumer electronics. In the USA "Come Together" was used by Nortel Network, Joe Cockers version of "With A Little Help From My Friens" was in a Gateway Computers campaign. Sad, but true.------------- "We've got to get in to get out" |
Posted By: Progger
Date Posted: August 12 2007 at 08:36
Rubbish! Lennon and Mcartney could only write great songs as a duo, Townsend does it on his own.
The Who were far better musicians and better performers than the Beatles.
The Who winds hands down!
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: August 12 2007 at 09:15
There are two common missconceptions regarding Lennon & McCartney, the first is that they only wrote as a duo, and the other is that they wrote seperately and only creditted each other to share the royalties. The truth is both are true, some songs they wrote as a duo and some individually. There is much contention (even within the Beatles) as to who wrote what, but often whoever sang the words probably wrote them. ------------- What? |
Posted By: bryson
Date Posted: August 14 2007 at 21:25
Imagine, while not written while Lennon was part of the Beatles, is one of the greatest songs of all time and proof that Lennon could write without Paul's help. Paul on the other hand wrote yesterday and let it be without john. i love the who, they are one of my favorite bands, but to say that Pete is a better songwriter than John Lennon is a bit of a stretch. ------------- All you need is love. |
Posted By: 1800iareyay
Date Posted: August 14 2007 at 21:33
| Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison could all write on their own, but IMO just about all of Harrison's tunes are their best written with the only exception of the masterful A Day in the Life. Townsend is the better lyricist. I'd rank him only behind Bob Dylan in terms of greatest rock lyricists, though those three would come immediately afterwards. Who cares? They both are gods and rock would never have become such a rich genre without them. |
Posted By: proghairfunk
Date Posted: August 14 2007 at 23:09
|
Tommy And Quadrophenia vs. Sgt Pepper and The White Album. Beatles, but tough. |
Posted By: MHDTV
Date Posted: August 14 2007 at 23:12
|
More like Who's Next and Quadrophenia<Sgt. Peppers and Revolver. ------------- Freak yo' swerve |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 14 2007 at 23:15
of course..... because Michael Jackson bought the rights to the Beatles back catalog and that's when you started seeing those songs in commercials. That was... not by coincidence why you never saw Paul and Jack-O mugging it up in MTV videos again. They had a total falling out... Apple might have sued... but if I recall correctly...they had no say. Michael Jackson owned the rights to them. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: August 14 2007 at 23:28
|
Posted By: MHDTV
Date Posted: August 14 2007 at 23:30
|
??? ------------- Freak yo' swerve |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: August 14 2007 at 23:36
|
I don't dare to say one is better than the other because this is too subjective.
As a band I prefer The Who, their albums are more consistent and even.
I couldn't care less for the Lollypop music of the Beatles, Please Please Me, A Ticket to Ride, etc mean nothing to me.
But Abbey Road is a great album, I'm not sure if The Who did something at that level.
Only my opinion.
Iván ------------- 
|
Posted By: MHDTV
Date Posted: August 14 2007 at 23:37
|
Abbey Road is the Beatles third best album. ------------- Freak yo' swerve |
Posted By: Drew
Date Posted: August 14 2007 at 23:43
|
I prefer the Who by a mile. Both great bands ------------- |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: August 14 2007 at 23:52
That's also subjective my friend, for some is Rubber Soul, for others Revolver, for the most Sgt Peppers, but for me it's Abbey Road.
There's music for everybody.
Iván
BTW: Welcome to the Forum.  -------------
|
Posted By: MHDTV
Date Posted: August 15 2007 at 00:02
|
Thanks. Can we just leave the whole it's just an opinion thing out for once? ------------- Freak yo' swerve |
Posted By: Mandrakeroot
Date Posted: August 16 2007 at 04:48
THE KINKS: ------------- 
|
Posted By: mrcozdude
Date Posted: August 26 2007 at 02:16
|
wasnt helter skelter mcartney trying to rival the who,not sure where i heard that ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/cozfunkel/" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Badger
Date Posted: August 31 2007 at 01:01
Well said. |
Posted By: ClashWho
Date Posted: September 18 2007 at 04:43
| I'll go with The Who, but I'm obviously biased. For me, they're both terrific studio rock bands, but The Who could absolutely blow the Beatles off the stage in live performance. That's the clincher for me. Just watch "The Kids Are Alright" and their mind-blowing performance at the Concert for New York City. |
Posted By: ClashWho
Date Posted: September 18 2007 at 04:46
Yeah, he was trying to top "I Can See For Miles" after hearing a review describing it as the heaviest, hardest hitting, grittiest rock song ever, or something like that. He hadn't even heard the song yet, and he was trying to top it! |
Posted By: jimidom
Date Posted: September 18 2007 at 15:43
Watch the rooftop performance of "I've Got a Feeling" from Let It Be, and it might change your mind about the Beatles as a live band.  ------------- "The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." - HST |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: September 18 2007 at 15:47
I'd have to agree with that, The Who can blast most other bands off the stage (apart from Led Zep). But bear in mind that, even at Candlestick Park, The Beatles had no real PA and just used their Vox amps. The reason they gave up playing live was that they couldn't hear themselves play! |
Posted By: jimidom
Date Posted: September 18 2007 at 16:04
That is why the rooftop concert was so indicative of just how good the Beatles really were live. They had a real PA but just a couple of small Fender combo amps for the guitars. Sure there were some bum notes, and John's guitar came in early toward the end of "Dig a Pony", but they were so incredibly in the pocket on "I've Got a Feeling" not to mention Paul was in top form vocally. The Who would have still bested them, but the Beatles would have given them a run for their money. ------------- "The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." - HST |
Posted By: ClashWho
Date Posted: September 18 2007 at 18:37
Sure, that's a fine performance, but have you seen The Kids Are Alright? The performances of "A Quick One While He's Away", "See Me, Feel Me", "Won't Get Fooled Again", and so on, are cataclysmic. If The Who and the Beatles had ever shared a bill at their respective peaks, with identical soundsystems, I don't think it would be much different from watching the contrast between The Who and Macca at The Concert for New York City. I highly recommend that film. It's an incredible document and The Who's set is the very definition of blowing the roof off a place. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: September 18 2007 at 18:41
I know you.... Welcome to PA's. Thank me for adding the Who... we never agreed politics.. but always saw the genius of the Who. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: ClashWho
Date Posted: September 18 2007 at 18:51
I think Led Zeppelin are a tremendously overrated live rock band in some quarters. Yes, I have the Led Zeppelin DVD and I have seen The Song Remains the Same. I'm not saying Led Zeppelin aren't a very good live band, but when they're placed on a level with The Who by some, then I just don't hear it or see it. At all. I think The Who were a stronger and more dynamic live rock band across the board, with the sole exception of Page being technically better at solos than Townshend in the seventies. Versions of "No Quarter", "Moby Dick" and "Dazed and Confused" extending to thirty or even forty minutes isn't my cup of tea. That's certainly more in the vein of progressive rock than The Who bashing out "I Can't Explain", though. |