The Beatles versus The Who

Guzzman wrote: chopper wrote: Apple don't generally licence Beatles songs, this is why you don't find them on 60s compilations or adverts etc. Quite true, Chopper, but it has been done nevertheless : 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.

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.

???

Abbey Road is the Beatles third best album.

MHDTV wrote: Abbey Road is the Beatles third best album.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - August 14 2007 at 23:53

THE KINKS:

fuxi wrote: 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???

Well said.

mrcozdude wrote: wasnt helter skelter mcartney trying to rival the who,not sure where i heard that

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!

ClashWho wrote: 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.

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!

jimidom wrote: ClashWho wrote: 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. 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.

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.

chopper wrote: 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!

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.