Taking Sides: The Who vs The Rolling Stones

the who have maybe five good songs: a genuinely great drummer carrying three part-timer makeweights (ok eight good songs)

Who.

http://freewebz.com/buttrocker87

Also, the Who win because they have a bass player--a stone deaf bass player, but a bass player. The Stones have not had a bass player for ten years, yet they continue to claim that they are a rock band. The Who don't have a drummer, but who needs drummers?

i dunno. i think the stones do it for me personally. 3 amazing albums that blow anything the who put out. Beggers Banquet is really close to what i consider a perfect album.

If the Rolling Stones had been all about Mick Jagger, they would have collapsed some time after Exile. But Mick has always had Keith (and before that, Brian) to keep him in check. I think all of their albums are uneven - even the classic ones - but as a whole, their output has held up better than the Who's.

BTW, don't agree w/ Douglas abt 'Rock'n'Roll Circus' - sure The Who are at their unbeatable best, but The Stones sound fine too, and the version of 'No Expectations' (w/some v. nice slide from Brian) is one of the best things they've ever done.

YOU ARE FORGIVEN!

I just realised I changed my vote. Who who who who who who [etc]: since they only have five good songs they left room for the rest of us.

1) Walked into a record store last week and heard something fantastic. Asked the clerk "Who's this really good band playing right now that's totally trying to be the Who?" It was one of the bonus tracks from _Sell Out_, it turns out. ("Glittering Girl.")

2) The Who even have good solo albums--well, two of them (_Scoop_ and _Another Scoop_, and when is somebody going to get wise and cover "Politician"?), plus I don't mind a couple of Daltrey solo songs, and actually the English Beat cover Townshend did on _Deep End Live_ is pretty ace.

3) I will take "pretentious and uneven" over "you'll take it and like it" any day.

QED of everything I said x a million + infinity

Which shows that, while I think the Stones win out because of the aforementioned spree of classic albums, Pete Townsend is pretty clearly the coolest man involved with either band. Followed by Keef when he does those weird interviews where laughs maniacally-to-the- point-of-wheezing at his own jokes.

Whilst I agree that Townshend's pomposity often got out of hand post 66, I'd rather have him shoot for a flawed idea like 'Who Sell Out'(which is only around 75% brilliant) than flounder around copping a bit of Dylan here, a bit of Beatles there ('ere Keef let's do somefing a bit Psychedelic).

Live? Live at Leeds vs Got Live if You Want It. No contest.

The only period where the Stones even compete is say 69-72, with the alright-ish Sticky Fingers and Let It Bleed and the very, very good Exile. (The *country* numbers from this period like the horrific Country Honk are embarrassingly bad, it's worth remembering)I'm not a huge fan of Who's Next, as I've said here before.

Post 1972 it was pretty much all over for both groups.

This promises to be a good thread - I hope I can get online and follow it from the USA next week!

David Q's thoughts were great; Dr C was very convincing.

I don't know, though - you're still underrating the power of the Stones. I'm thinking 'The Last Time','JJ Flash', 'SF Man', just to state the obvious. Let alone 'Fatcory Girl'.

But maybe the Who are strong enough, after all, to stand up even to that barrage. I feel like giving it to them just cos compared to the Stones they're the underdogs.

Beggars Banquet-Exile on Main Street=greatest sequence of rock albums ever.

Whereas the Who didn't make one (studio) album that doesn't have something unlistenable on it.

Get Your Ya Yas Out > Live at Leeds

Gimme Shelter/Cocksucker Blues vs uh... Tommy: Two classic rock movies vs. one ridiculous mess that can be blamed for rock "operas" in general

Pete Townsend responsible for far more pretentious lyrics than Jagger/Richards (not to mention a book of poetry too)

The Who more shameless about pretending to break up then returning for one "last" tour

At least Keef doesn't need a plexiglass wall when he plays live

Roger Daltrey has always been a terrible singer

I mean, the Who did some good tunes and all, but they're mid-table in the grand scheme of rock mythology...

This was for VH1, I believe. As for it ever airing, I dunno. VH1 doesn't air in Canada. But I remember Saturday Night Live doing parodies of those commercials.

Tying into the Classic Rock thread, I've always considered myself a HUGE fan of both groups, but I know little of their non-singles output before 1967. Being raised on 70s rock LPs, that's the period of both I know best.

Maybe we should go to the second-tier tracks to debate? I mean, on the high-tide albums, even Stones throwaways like Jigsaw Puzzle and Monkeyman steamroll the Who's stuff.

While "The Who Sing My Generation" and "The Who Sell Out" are masterful, pretty much everything else in the whouvre suffers by comparison. "A Quick One / Happy Jack" is at best inconsistent, what with the Keith Moon and (ugh) Roger Daltrey compositions; "Tommy" is one disc too long and a silly concept too heavy; "Who's Next" suffers from self-importance and a few real stinkers (someone mentioned "Getting in Tune," I believe); "Quadrophenia" suffers from the weaknesses of "Tommy" and "Who's Next" combined, with the additional horror of orchestral accompaniment . . . need I even mention "Who By Numbers" or "Who Are You"? And they're not even the same band after Keith Moon's death; not necessarily worse, just qualitatively different.

The Stones, on the other hand, had a run of albums that are absolutely astonishing, beginning with "Aftermath" and ending with "Exile on Main Street," there's not a clinker in the bunch, and I don't care what anybody says about "Satanic Majesties," it's fantastic.

I was a teenage Who nut, and actually have the holy grail - a personally autographed birthday glossy from the Beak. However, as much as I believe PT to be a much sweller and smarter guy than either Keef or Mick (and there's no doubt I'd rather hang out with Townshend), I think the Glimmmer Twins win out due to the consistency.

Anyway, I agree with whoever said that the Kinks cut them both.

-Jay

(nice one, Robin)

I have found very few tracks by the Stones that I think are even tolerable, let alone like.* And the Who are among my favorite bands evah, so there's really not even a contest here.

*Ironically the bands that shamelessly try to rip off the Stones in one form or another, like the New York Dolls or Royal Trux, I end up liking. Go figure.

Am I right in thinking that I remember you from alt.fan.momus?

evidence: would still go to see the Stones live (such as they are), whereas you couldn't force me at gunpoint to see the Who live at this point.

Ben Williams said " The Who didn't make one studio album which doesn't have something unlistenable on it".

Exactly. All the the best + most interesting albums bowl you a googly when you're expecting a leg-break. Who wants boring *perfection*?

The Stones are just consistent. No rock operas, no ridiculous soloing, just good songs and more good songs and a bunch of good, but unspectacular albums.

I'd rather listen to the best Who stuff, but would literally do anything to avoid listening to everything else.

Ned's right, the Kinks kick both of their asses.

On the other hand, the Stones were the greatest rock 'n' roll band the world has ever seen.

Who's Next is great, but it doesn't come close.

Are you woman, are you man?
I'm your biggest, funked up fan!

So rock me
And roll me
'Til I'm sick!

Who.

everyone always says this, but how many actual "rock operas" are there, aside from the who's?

stones > kinks > beatles > who

I am listening to THE WHO now! It is an 'ALT' version of 'Won't Get Fooled Again'.

I think they must be THE GREATEST BRITISH ROCK BAND, if we can agree to stress the ROCK and to call the Stones an R'n'B band for a minute to get them out of the picture.

I found this an impossible battle of the titans (see above) and it has occasionally recurred in my thoughts in the last 13 years.

But THE WHO are the big pop act for me at the moment and today I will answer: THE WHO.