The Beatles versus The Who - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

aspinosa

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 16 2006
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 153

Topic: The Beatles versus The Who
Posted: August 05 2007 at 13:30

Two of the most important proto prog bands , What is the best? Why?

aspinosa

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 16 2006
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 153

Posted: August 05 2007 at 13:31

It´s very difficult but I choose The Who.

GoldenSpiral View Drop Down

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!

http://www.myspace.com/altaic
ALTAIC

"Oceans Down You'll Lie"
coming soon

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???

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!

Frippertron View Drop Down

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

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.

ClassicRocker View Drop Down

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.

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

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"?

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

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".

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

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.

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

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.

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 14:56

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 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

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!

MHDTV