| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
chopper 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 20030
|
 Posted: August 05 2007 at 16:09 |
 MHDTV wrote:
Walker wrote:
John, Paul, and George were better songwriters and more influential than the who could ever hope to be.
|
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. |
Just three words in response to that - "Tomorrow Never Knows".
|
 |
MHDTV
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 19 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 144
|
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
|
|
Walker
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 20 2005
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Points: 824
|
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!
|
|
Walker
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 20 2005
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Points: 824
|
Posted: August 05 2007 at 15:17 |
MHDTV wrote:
And I'm saying that's absolutely ridiculous. So I can't compare Primus to King Crimson? Explain your reasoning. |
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?
Edited by Walker - August 05 2007 at 15:20
|
|
MHDTV
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 19 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 144
|
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
|
|
Walker
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 20 2005
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Points: 824
|
Posted: August 05 2007 at 14:54 |
MHDTV wrote:
Walker wrote:
MHDTV wrote:
Walker wrote:
John, Paul, and George were better songwriters and more influential than the who could ever hope to be.
|
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. |
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".
|
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). |
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.
|
|
MHDTV
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 19 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 144
|
Posted: August 05 2007 at 14:48 |
Walker wrote:
MHDTV wrote:
Walker wrote:
John, Paul, and George were better songwriters and more influential than the who could ever hope to be.
|
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. |
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".
|
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
|
|
MHDTV
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 19 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 144
|
Posted: August 05 2007 at 14:44 |
fuxi wrote:
MHDTV wrote:
Of course Townshend never wrote anything as pretty as Blackbird, or something that could match the eccentrity of Come Together. |
I don't agree, I'm afraid. Have you heard "Sunrise"? And how about "Dogs"? |
I'm afraid I disagree, neither really come close.
|
|
Freak yo' swerve
|
|
Walker
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 20 2005
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Points: 824
|
Posted: August 05 2007 at 14:43 |
MHDTV wrote:
Walker wrote:
John, Paul, and George were better songwriters and more influential than the who could ever hope to be.
|
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. |
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".
|
|
fuxi
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 08 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2459
|
Posted: August 05 2007 at 14:41 |
MHDTV wrote:
Of course Townshend never wrote anything as pretty as Blackbird, or something that could match the eccentrity of Come Together. |
I don't agree, I'm afraid. Have you heard "Sunrise"? And how about "Dogs"?
|
|
MHDTV
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 19 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 144
|
Posted: August 05 2007 at 14:14 |
Walker wrote:
John, Paul, and George were better songwriters and more influential than the who could ever hope to be.
|
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
|
|
ClassicRocker
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 02 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 894
|
Posted: August 05 2007 at 14:06 |
Walker wrote:
John, Paul, and George were better songwriters and more influential than the who could ever hope to be.
|
|
|
|
|
Walker
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 20 2005
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Points: 824
|
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.
|
|
Frippertron
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 09 2005
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 387
|
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
|
|
ProgBagel
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2819
|
Posted: August 05 2007 at 13:43 |
GoldenSpiral wrote:
I know it's overrated to say "overrated".... but the freakin Beatles are overrated.and the Who rule.Who FTW!
|
|
|
fuxi
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 08 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2459
|
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???
|
|
GoldenSpiral
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3839
|
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!
|
|
|
|
aspinosa
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 16 2006
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 153
|
Posted: August 05 2007 at 13:31 |
|
Itīs very difficult but I choose The Who.
|
|
aspinosa
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 16 2006
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 153
|
Posted: August 05 2007 at 13:30 |
Two of the most important proto prog bands , What is the best? Why?
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The Beatles versus The Who
