Forum Home Forum Home > Other music related lounges > Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The Beatles versus The Who
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedThe Beatles versus The Who

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 7>
Poll Question: What is the best?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
54 [58.06%]
39 [41.94%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Message
aspinosa View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: May 16 2006
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 153
Direct Link To This Post 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?

Back to Top
aspinosa View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: May 16 2006
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 153
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 05 2007 at 13:31
Itīs very difficult but I choose The Who.
Back to Top
GoldenSpiral View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3839
Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
fuxi View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: March 08 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2459
Direct Link To This Post 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???
Back to Top
ProgBagel View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: May 13 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2819
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 05 2007 at 13:43
Originally posted by GoldenSpiral GoldenSpiral wrote:

I know it's overrated to say "overrated".... but the freakin Beatles are overrated.and the Who rule.Who FTW!
Back to Top
Frippertron View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 09 2005
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 387
Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
Walker View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 20 2005
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Points: 824
Direct Link To This Post 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.

Back to Top
ClassicRocker View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 02 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 894
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 05 2007 at 14:06
Originally posted by Walker Walker wrote:

John, Paul, and George were better songwriters and more influential than the who could ever hope to be.

Back to Top
MHDTV View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 19 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 144
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 05 2007 at 14:14
Originally posted by Walker 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
Back to Top
fuxi View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: March 08 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2459
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 05 2007 at 14:41
Originally posted by MHDTV 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"?
Back to Top
Walker View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 20 2005
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Points: 824
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 05 2007 at 14:43
Originally posted by MHDTV MHDTV wrote:

Originally posted by Walker 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".
 
Back to Top
MHDTV View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 19 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 144
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 05 2007 at 14:44
Originally posted by fuxi fuxi wrote:

Originally posted by MHDTV 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
Back to Top
MHDTV View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 19 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 144
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 05 2007 at 14:48
Originally posted by Walker Walker wrote:

Originally posted by MHDTV MHDTV wrote:

Originally posted by Walker 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
Back to Top
Walker View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 20 2005
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Points: 824
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 05 2007 at 14:54
Originally posted by MHDTV MHDTV wrote:

Originally posted by Walker Walker wrote:

Originally posted by MHDTV MHDTV wrote:

Originally posted by Walker 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.
 
Back to Top
MHDTV View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 19 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 144
Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
Walker View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 20 2005
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Points: 824
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 05 2007 at 15:17
Originally posted by MHDTV 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
Back to Top
Walker View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 20 2005
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Points: 824
Direct Link To This Post 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!
Back to Top
MHDTV View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 19 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 144
Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
chopper View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 20023
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 05 2007 at 16:09
Originally posted by MHDTV MHDTV wrote:

Originally posted by Walker 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".
Back to Top
Walker View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 20 2005
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Points: 824
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 05 2007 at 16:14
^ good point! Clap
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 7>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.