Beatles vs. The Who!

It's only cool if no one's heard of it.

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Jackpot
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 11:57 am UTC
Location: University o' Teesside
Contact:

Re: Beatles vs. The Who!

Postby Jackpot » Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:55 pm UTC

Motown.

early sixties were a let down in music, with led zepplin being one of the new that were as good as later sixtes/early seventies. Before the 60's, we had jazz music and musical innovation. after the 60's, rock music finally found itself as a non - pop (pop is not used to mean popular. management)based musical genre with quality and innovation.

Oh, and traditionally, it's meant to be elvis vs beatles. whom both sucked. (Django, mofo, you ever heard of him?)

EDIT : Pre-emptive defence. I also like pop music, such as cake and the presidents of the united states of america. I also like fantomas (spaz metal), Secret chiefs 3 (indian/middle eastern music mixed with rock) and many others.
Last edited by Jackpot on Sun Feb 01, 2009 8:15 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Even though I walk through the valley of the humourless nerds, I fear no evil, for escape and perspective is with me; my experience and love, they comfort me.

sje46
Posts: 4730
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:41 am UTC
Location: New Hampshire

Re: Beatles vs. The Who!

Postby sje46 » Sun Feb 01, 2009 8:11 pm UTC

I refuse to take any poster seriously who hasn't mastered the art of BBCode yet.
;)
You just all-out say that the beatles sucked. But what about them? Is their music grating to your ears? Were they not at all innovative? Were they terrible songwriters? Are all their songs too easy to play? OR are they simply over-rated? You have to define your terms here. Most people agree that their songs are at least pleasant to listen to, even if it isn't their thing, that they were indeed innovative to at least some extent, that they were good song-writers, and that although many of their songs are easy to play, many are hard as well, but the thing that makes the Beatles a good band isn't how technically difficult their songs are, but how good the song-writing is.

Also the fact that I can hardly read your post. It's kinda messy.

And it's "who sucked". Although I'd say that Elvis' music isn't really my thing, and I don't like his voice at all, I can admit that he's a darn good singer.
General_Norris: Taking pride in your nation is taking pride in the division of humanity.
Pirate.Bondage: Let's get married. Right now.

User avatar
Jackpot
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 11:57 am UTC
Location: University o' Teesside
Contact:

Re: Beatles vs. The Who!

Postby Jackpot » Sun Feb 01, 2009 8:25 pm UTC

sje46 wrote:You just all-out say that the beatles sucked. But what about them?


sje46 wrote:Is their music grating to your ears?
their lyrics generally are, with some execptions (maxwell's silver hammer). Too cheesy, lovey dovey and ready for mass consumption.

EDIT : Even "I look at all the lonely people". 1) most of the composition is in the backing quarted, composed by someone else 2) It's not about him being lonely, it's about other people that are lonely.

sje46 wrote:Were they not at all innovative?
Yes. I listen to jazz, classical music, prog rock/metal and fusion music. An envelope would have been moved further if it was placed next to an iceberg.

sje46 wrote:Were they terrible songwriters?
Partially. george harris was probably the only compatent musician amongst them. This would also explain why he bothered to learn the sitar.(Ringo starr had to be replaced for at least one song, Lennon was an acid head, and McCartney showed his true colours (namely a twat) after the beatles.)

sje46 wrote:Are all their songs too easy to play?
Yes. Certain musicians like Vic Wooten can make an awesome version of a beatles song, but when you hear the original, it always fails to measure.

sje46 wrote:OR are they simply over-rated?
extremely. For everything they have done, many bands have done better either before, or since.

Bear in mind, I have an offer to every beatles fan. Give me a beatles album, that will disprove this. One that can measure up to :

Franz Liszt
King Crimson
Django Reinhart
Cream
Jimi hendrix
Black Sabbath
Jefferson Airplane
Rush
Greatful Dead
Led Zepplin (NB : I have enjoyed most of what I've heard from them. I do not claim to be well versed in LZ)
Les Paul
All the unsung heroes of Jazz and Blues
Bulgarian Folk music

Because they seem to be such great composers, yet have always failed to deliver to what great figure that has been built up for them. I have heard Sergent Pepper's Lonely hearts club band, and I was not impressed.
Even though I walk through the valley of the humourless nerds, I fear no evil, for escape and perspective is with me; my experience and love, they comfort me.

sje46
Posts: 4730
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:41 am UTC
Location: New Hampshire

Re: Beatles vs. The Who!

Postby sje46 » Sun Feb 01, 2009 9:08 pm UTC

Jackpot wrote:
sje46 wrote:Is their music grating to your ears?
their lyrics generally are, with some execptions (maxwell's silver hammer). Too cheesy, lovey dovey and ready for mass consumption.

EDIT : Even "I look at all the lonely people". 1) most of the composition is in the backing quarted, composed by someone else 2) It's not about him being lonely, it's about other people that are lonely.

sje46 wrote:Were they not at all innovative?
Yes. I listen to jazz, classical music, prog rock/metal and fusion music. An envelope would have been moved further if it was placed next to an iceberg.

sje46 wrote:Were they terrible songwriters?
Partially. george harris was probably the only compatent musician amongst them. This would also explain why he bothered to learn the sitar.(Ringo starr had to be replaced for at least one song, Lennon was an acid head, and McCartney showed his true colours (namely a twat) after the beatles.)

sje46 wrote:Are all their songs too easy to play?
Yes. Certain musicians like Vic Wooten can make an awesome version of a beatles song, but when you hear the original, it always fails to measure.

sje46 wrote:OR are they simply over-rated?
extremely. For everything they have done, many bands have done better either before, or since.
Because they seem to be such great composers, yet have always failed to deliver to what great figure that has been built up for them. I have heard Sergent Pepper's Lonely hearts club band, and I was not impressed.

Right. I asked if the music is grating, not the lyrics. I don't think that their words are sublime, but that the songwriting is. However, there are songs that have good lyric writing, including Across the Universe, Lucy, Octopus' Garden, even, A Day in the Life, She's Leaving Home, Within You Without you, Tomorrow Never Knows, HEre There, Norweigian Wood, Penny LAne, Hey Jude, and many more which I think have good lyrics. But if you want lyrics, I suggest Dylan, not the Beatles. They wrote a lot of nonsense for the sake of nonsense, or even for just the sound of it (Bathroom window). Sometimes that is the attraction to their music.
I don't understand the bolded, at all. Ringo was replaced because he left the group briefly because he couldn't stand the bickering. Lennon did acid. Allright. So? All of them did, as well as many other musicians in the 60s. IT doesn't make you a bad writer. In fact, Lennon was writing trippy stuff long before he tried acid. And maybe Paul was a douche, but Lennon was a bigger one. Either way, I don't see how all of this means they are bad musicians.

And do you think that soungs like Strawberry Fields Forever were made for mass consumption? Although I have to agree that it kinda takes away from Eleanor Rigby that it was written about someone else by someone who never experienced real eotion, I think. Lennon was a much more personal songwriter than PAul, which makes Lennon awesome.

Beatles were plenty innovative. They brought the Indian sound, tape loops, backwards recording etc. There may have been bands that have done some of the things before, but who do you think influenced music more, the Beatles or some obscure band? Who do you think developed it more, integrated it well with their music, made it accessable to the public?

Yes, a lot of their songs are apparently easy to play :)
General_Norris: Taking pride in your nation is taking pride in the division of humanity.
Pirate.Bondage: Let's get married. Right now.

Guiro
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 4:18 am UTC

Re: Beatles vs. The Who!

Postby Guiro » Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:50 pm UTC

The Beatles by far, but The Who was also a good band.

User avatar
Various Varieties
Posts: 505
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:24 pm UTC

Re: Beatles vs. The Who!

Postby Various Varieties » Sun Feb 01, 2009 11:43 pm UTC

sje46 wrote:Is their music grating to your ears?
their lyrics generally are, with some execptions (maxwell's silver hammer). Too cheesy, lovey dovey and ready for mass consumption.

Maxwell's Silver Hammer as an example of a song that's not cheesy? :shock:

2) It's not about him being lonely, it's about other people that are lonely.

I don't see how that's a problem. It's a story told from the point of view of a dispassionate observer.

george harris was probably the only compatent musician amongst them. This would also explain why he bothered to learn the sitar.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but judging by some of the names in your list (and your post in the song rankings topic), you seem to be rating virtuoso technical ability on an instrument as the most important factor when judging music. I would completely disagree with that - some of the catchiest, most energetic music has been made by pop groups just starting out. It's possible to like punk and prog, y'know!

Also, although the Beatles weren't virtuosos, their compositions have still received interest from Serious Academic Musicologists: it started with Times music critic William Mann's infamous 1963 article, and led right up to Walter Everett's two-volume The Beatles as Musicians, Alan W Pollack's online "Notes On..." articles and Dominic Pedler's The Songwriting Secrets of The Beatles.

My point is that people who obviously appreciate the complex music theory ideas in classical and jazz music can also find things of interest in the pop music of a relatively clumsy guitarist like John Lennon.

Bear in mind, I have an offer to every beatles fan. Give me a beatles album, that will disprove this.

Revolver. Done! :P

(Here's where someone focuses on your choice of the term "disprove", and we get drawn into a very boring debate about the idea of objectively judging quality in music. Let's skip that bit, please!)

Because they seem to be such great composers, yet have always failed to deliver to what great figure that has been built up for them. I have heard Sergent Pepper's Lonely hearts club band, and I was not impressed.

Their massive reputation is indeed a problem for people trying to get into them now, especially with Sgt Pepper. It's very much like being let down when you first watch The Godfather, Casablanca or Citizen Kane after years of reading film critics gushing about them.

User avatar
Jackpot
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 11:57 am UTC
Location: University o' Teesside
Contact:

Re: Beatles vs. The Who!

Postby Jackpot » Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:19 pm UTC

NB : this is getting sidetracked. please split off the sections not about the beatles being fuckawesome.
underlined : quote.
Response to Various Varieties


Maxwell's Silver Hammer as an example of a song that's not cheesy? :shock:

It's a song about brutalising people over the head with a hammer, and a young man in love with a biologist.

2) It's not about him being lonely, it's about other people that are lonely.

I don't see how that's a problem. It's a story told from the point of view of a dispassionate observer.

okeydoke.


you seem to be rating virtuoso technical ability on an instrument as the most important factor when judging music.
partly. they have to be able to at least put some flair to music. Think of a christmas tree. Then think of a christmas tree with ornaments. I like music with ornaments.

I would completely disagree with that - some of the catchiest, most energetic music has been made by pop groups just starting out. It's possible to like punk and prog, y'know!
Oh boy, patronising! If I say the same thing over and over again, it will get into your brain, especially if musical. There's a reason why almost every pop song has a chorus. And it explains the recent trend in music turning into :

"THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST "
or

"Womanniser woman wommanise, Womanniser woman wommanise, Womanniser woman wommanise, Womanniser woman wommanise, Womanniser woman wommanise, Womanniser woman wommanise. "

I like punk music, but the newer, minimally ornamental ones like rancid and offspring.

I also like certain pop(not popular) music like Cake or Stolen babies.

Also, although the Beatles weren't virtuosos, their compositions have still received interest from Serious Academic Musicologists: it started with Times music critic William Mann's infamous 1963 article, and led right up to Walter Everett's two-volume The Beatles as Musicians, Alan W Pollack's online "Notes On..." articles and Dominic Pedler's The Songwriting Secrets of The Beatles.
fucking apologists. they wouldn't have to apologise for anything (disclaimer : did not read articles reccomended)

ALSO : I've had people I respect more than some random musical academic. Two or most (I think) of my favorite band's guitarist and bassist are massive fans of the beatles. They are also musical academics.

My point is that people who obviously appreciate the complex music theory ideas in classical and jazz music can also find things of interest in the pop music of a relatively clumsy guitarist like John Lennon.
Humans are weak, fleshy beings. animation students can also praise cartoons with god awful writing just due to nostalgia.

Bear in mind, I have an offer to every beatles fan. Give me a beatles album, that will disprove this.

Revolver. Done! :P

I have revolver in my hand. no, serously, I am not going to buy it or pirate it without someone directly giving me the music.

Their massive reputation is indeed a problem for people trying to get into them now, especially with Sgt Pepper. It's very much like being let down when you first watch The Godfather, Casablanca or Citizen Kane after years of reading film critics gushing about them.

I agree. This has happened with Frank Zappa, but his associates are Steve Vai , Jimmy Hendrix and Terry Bozzio, who are actually talented. The beatles are associated with... people attempting to make popular music(, who along with the beatles will cite ABBA and various creators of "stuck in head" music. And also, thousands of nostalgia people and these :

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SL8MsovP0 ... re=related

I don't think these are fully grown, mature women. Or a valid opinion on music.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SblO1yVkl0k

Modern versions of the same girls.

Please tell me that you at least don't blame me for letting my sceptism get the best of me when I am presented with the evidence I have recieved.

_____________________

Right. I asked if the music is grating, not the lyrics. I don't think that their words are sublime, but that the songwriting is. However, there are songs that have good lyric writing, including Across the Universe, Lucy, Octopus' Garden, even, A Day in the Life, She's Leaving Home, Within You Without you, Tomorrow Never Knows, HEre There, Norweigian Wood, Penny LAne, Hey Jude, and many more which I think have good lyrics.
shove them in my hand, I may or may not agree.

But if you want lyrics, I suggest Dylan, not the Beatles.
Dylan was an activist and a poet. But his singing is so bad it's awesome. (so agreement *thumb up*)

Lennon did acid. Allright. So? All of them did, as well as many other musicians in the 60s. IT doesn't make you a bad writer. In fact, Lennon was writing trippy stuff long before he tried acid. And maybe Paul was a douche, but Lennon was a bigger one. Either way, I don't see how all of this means they are bad musicians.
I meant acid head as in obsessed with acid, not LSD user. I apologise. If it makes up for it, I like the greatful dead, jefferson airplane and Hunter S Thompson.

And do you think that soungs like Strawberry Fields Forever were made for mass consumption?
Heard it before. UUUUUuuuuuuuu strawberrry fields forever. Generic psychedelic music.

Beatles were plenty innovative. They brought the Indian sound, tape loops, backwards recording etc. There may have been bands that have done some of the things before, but who do you think influenced music more, the Beatles or some obscure band? Who do you think developed it more, integrated it well with their music, made it accessable to the public?


Yea, I agree. I think the Red hot chilli peppers were the most important figure in funk music, because by combining with rock music, they made it accessable to the public. Who cares about Schmoes like James Brow, Earth Wind and fire, Kool and the gang and the Ohio players? fuck them, we have the red hot chilli peppers instead. Psychadelica wasn't obscure.
Last edited by Jackpot on Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:37 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Even though I walk through the valley of the humourless nerds, I fear no evil, for escape and perspective is with me; my experience and love, they comfort me.

sje46
Posts: 4730
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:41 am UTC
Location: New Hampshire

Re: Beatles vs. The Who!

Postby sje46 » Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:29 pm UTC

But the Beatles R awwsume!
I WANNA HOLD YOU HAND I WANNA HOLD YOUR HAND!!!
I WNAAA HOLD YOU RHAAAAND I WANNA HOLD YOU HAAA-AAA-AAAND!
When I look at you i get this felling, deep inside
i so happy when i look at you that i get hi
i get hi!
i get hi!
Now you
got that sumthing
umm .. .
I wanna hold your HAAAA-AAA-AAAND
<3 beatles
george is so hott.
EDIT: You just dismissed those good sources as apologists, implying that they don't know what they are talking about simply because they like the Beatles. Huh.
General_Norris: Taking pride in your nation is taking pride in the division of humanity.
Pirate.Bondage: Let's get married. Right now.

User avatar
Various Varieties
Posts: 505
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:24 pm UTC

Re: Beatles vs. The Who!

Postby Various Varieties » Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:40 am UTC

Jackpot wrote:Oh boy, patronising!

:( I'm sorry you interpreted my "punk and prog" comment that way. It was intended to be tongue-in-cheek and lighthearted.

fucking apologists. they wouldn't have to apologise for anything

Yes, they're apologists in that they're defending the band's songs. But they discuss them in the hope that people with an interest in music theory can learn from their analyses and find new things to appreciate, so I think it's a productive thing to do.

Also, the book I've recommended a lot in recent Beatles threads, Revolution in the Head by (random academic!) Ian MacDonald, while providing comprehensive reasons why the Beatles were worthwhile and innovative musicians, certainly doesn't ignore or apologise for the band's lesser moments, or their shortcomings as guitarists/pianists. In fact he's critical of their music in some often surprising places. Check it out. If that book can't persuade you of their merits, I definitely can't!

Humans are weak, fleshy beings. animation students can also praise cartoons with god awful writing just due to nostalgia.

You one of those John K acolytes? :wink:

If I say the same thing over and over again, it will get into your brain, especially if musical.
...
people attempting to make popular music(, who along with the beatles will cite ABBA and various creators of "stuck in head" music. And also, thousands of nostalgia people

When you mentioned nostalgia and posted links to screaming girl fans, the thing that came to mind for me was the thousands of grown women flocking to concerts by the reformed Take That after being fans as teenagers. I don't like that band. But I wouldn't try to persuade those people to try to take a step back from their memories of that music in the hope they'll stop liking it and move onto "worthier" things.

Nostalgia, familiarity and catchiness are far from the only reasons for getting enjoyment out of music, but they're perfectly valid. I think that dismissing them entirely comes across as snobbish.

Gotta quote Stephen Fry here: "There is simply no limit to the tyrannical snobbery that otherwise decent people can descend into when it comes to music." :) Love that line; it applies to so many subjects on the Internet!

sje46 wrote:But the Beatles R awwsume!
I WANNA HOLD YOU HAND I WANNA HOLD YOUR HAND!!!
I WNAAA HOLD YOU RHAAAAND I WANNA HOLD YOU HAAA-AAA-AAAND!
When I look at you i get this felling, deep inside
i so happy when i look at you that i get hi
i get hi!
i get hi!
Now you
got that sumthing
umm .. .
I wanna hold your HAAAA-AAA-AAAND


SHE LOVES YOU YEAH YEAH YEAH
SHE LOVES YOU YEAH YEAH YEAH
SHE LOVES YOU YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH
You think you've lost your love
Well, I saw her yesterday-yi-yay
It's you she's thinking of
And she told me what to say-yi-yay
She says SHE LOVES YOU!

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:




Anyway, I realised that I haven't actually talked much about The Who in this thread. I suppose I should post a bit about my experiences of them, just to balance up my posts a bit!

I encountered their music much later than that of The Beatles; with the exception of "My Generation", I didn't grow up with it. My first of their albums was the excellent compilation Meaty Beaty Big and Bouncy. Of its tracks, the highlights that were new to me were "Boris the Spider" (amusing and very good), "I Can See for Miles" (possibly my favourite Who track) and "Substitute".

I heard Who's Next shortly afterwards. Although it didn't click with me immediately, I definitely rate it now.

Tommy I've heard a few times, and I like it, but there's a lot to take in and I don't feel familiar enough with it yet. As for its plot, I'm not dismissive of concept albums or rock operas, but the story wasn't a big reason I enjoyed it. (Also, I wasn't impressed by the few bits I've seen of the film.)

Live at Leeds has a reputation as one of the greatest live albums ever. I don't think I've heard enough of them to make that claim, but it's certainly a powerful performance (I've only heard the single-CD edition, not the one with the full performance of Tommy). Their version of "Summertime Blues" is currently getting really highly-rated over in the song rankings thread, and yep, it's a cracking performance. Live at Leeds also introduced me to the song "A Quick One, While He's Away" before I actually heard the album A Quick One.

I've still got quite a lot of their music to hear, though: I haven't heard The Who Sell Out (that's the next one I intend to buy), Quadrophenia (I'd like to see the film as well), Who Are You (the title song is fantastic), The Who By Numbers or their later albums after Moon's death (I've heard Endless Wire, but it was mostly unmemorable).

User avatar
Midnight
Posts: 2170
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:53 am UTC
Location: Twixt hither and thither. Ergo, Jupiter.

Re: Beatles vs. The Who!

Postby Midnight » Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:26 am UTC

thing is, i like the beatles more overall, but I like My Generation more than any other beatles song.

>_> mostly cause it inspired me to play the bass.
uhhhh fuck.

User avatar
Rodan
Any title.
Posts: 1846
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 11:52 pm UTC
Location: Eastern Standard Time

Re: Beatles vs. The Who!

Postby Rodan » Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:50 am UTC

Now, normally, I might think for a while, and ultimately come to the conclusion that I prefer Beatles. But Blue, Red, and Grey is just too great a song to not side with The Who.

BMP
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:09 am UTC

Re: Beatles vs. The Who!

Postby BMP » Sun Feb 08, 2009 5:22 pm UTC

The Who because the Beatles are just o.k.

MrFat
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:28 am UTC

Re: Beatles vs. The Who!

Postby MrFat » Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:41 am UTC

The Who
The obvious place to start here is with Keith Moon: he was a monster. His skills have stood the test of time and almost no other drummer (Bonham being the exception) can match his poise. Townshend's songwriting ability is paramount in "Tommy" where he perfectly pairs his guitar with Roger Daltey's wide stylistic vocal range. Baba O'Riley is the best example of this range as Daltrey switches seamlessly from the boyishly innocence of the bridge ("don't cry...") to the pure rock of the verse ("Sally take my hand..."). Entwistle's bass is often overlooked though he is one of the best bassists around ("5:15"). Live shows were true rock: band members smashed instruments, soloing was pushed to the edge of insanity, and the air was thick with that indescribable energy. The Who lack creative variety in the songwriting department somewhat because Townshend wrote nearly all their songs. The Who do also lack that "second tier" of songs past the singles/hits. "Tommy" is a solid album through and through, but the others are very hit and miss.

The Biased Top 10+10
1. Won't Get Fooled Again
2. Behind Blue Eyes
3. Pinball Wizard
4. Who Are You
5. My Generation
6. Join Together
7. Smash the Mirror
8. The Seeker
9. Sally Simpson
10. Overture
11. Go to the Mirror Boy!
12. Let's See Action
13. Amazing Journey (listen to the drumming)
14. Substitute
15. Magic Bus
16. 5:15
17. Baba O'Riley
18. Let's See Action
19. Squeeze Box
20. I Can't Explain (why this song sounds so much like The Beatles)

The Beatles
This band has had a huge impact on music. The Beatles spearheaded the British invasion of American music and have influenced nearly every band since Please Please Me debuted. The band has reached a status such that the band members need only first names (John, John, Jimmy, and Robert anyone?). Three very talented songwriters (sorry Ringo) formed the heart of The Beatles. John and Paul's harmony became iconic of 60's music. Ringo always seemed to find just the right beat to drive a song. George's guitar was the soul of the band, especially on their later albums. The band's early live performances were very polished--very clean and precise. When the band matured, they lost the suits yet maintained the perfection of the performance. The Beatles were not known for improvisation on stage, least of all Ringo. The Beatles' depth is almost unmatchable. Nearly every song has value, though fillers naturally exist (number 9...number 9...number 9...).

The Very Biased Top 20
1. While My Guitar Gently Weeps
2. Helter Skelter
3. Here Comes the Sun
4. Blackbird
5. Something
5. Come Together
6. Twist and Shout
7. Day Tripper
8. Yesterday
9. Hey Jude
10. Back in the USSR
11. Revolution 1
12. Hard Day's Night
13. Let it Be
14. Birthday
15. Get Back
16. Oh! Darlin'
17. Lady Madonna
18. Elanor Rigby
19. I Want to Hold Your Hand
20. Hello Goodbye

The Verdict?

The Beatles have far surpassed The Who in influence, just as they have every other band. By that fact alone, any top 10 list of greatest will have them at the top. Not to mention John, Paul, and George all had great influence after they split up. The Who would have been the more energetic, unpredictable live show. The Who also wrote 2 of the greatest rock operas ever in "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia." The verdict is that in nearly every aspect the Beatles are competitive or better than the Who (The Who have drumming and bass ability) and they have been heard by nearly every English-speaking person in North America.

The Overly-Biased Top 20
1. Won't Get Fooled Again
2. While My Guitar Gently Weeps
3. Helter Skelter
4. Behind Blue Eyes
5. Here Comes the Sun
6. Pinball Wizard
7. Blackbird
8. Who Are You
9. My Generation
10. Something
11. Join Together
11. Come Together
13. Twist and Shout
14. Day Tripper
15. Yesterday
16. Hey Jude
17. Smash the Mirror
18. The Seeker
19. Sally Simpson
20. Back in the USSR

Fedechiar
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 10:35 pm UTC

Re: Beatles vs. The Who!

Postby Fedechiar » Mon Jul 18, 2011 10:22 am UTC

As a fan of good old rock'n'roll, I'd say the Who win without any doubt. Even without considering that the Beatles are, essentially, a pop band, many of their innovations were already there (they only popularized them). They were even inspired by the Who themselves:
The song may have inspired The Beatles' "Helter Skelter". Paul McCartney recalls writing "Helter Skelter" after reading a review of The Who Sell Out in which the critic claimed that "I Can See for Miles" was the "heaviest" song he'd ever heard. McCartney had not heard the song, but wrote "Helter Skelter" in an attempt to make an even "heavier" song than the one praised in the review.

And their playing - I just can't stand it: Ringo's drum parts could probably have been played by Meg White, the guitars were often sloppy and simplistic (the first one who links While my guitar gently weeps gets a treat because the lead guitar in that song was Eric friggin' Clapton) and I absolutely hate Lennon's voice (that's a matter of personal taste, I know).

The Who, instead - I just love them. They may not have been the best in the songwriting department, but they were great musicians and they managed to create three masterpieces - Tommy, Who's Next and Quadrophenia could easily be in any "best rock albums" list. I own the "Who's next" LP, and "Behind blue eyes" on vinyl can really give me goosebumps...Man, what a song!

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Beatles vs. The Who!

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

I just want to chime in and say that Hey Jude is an affront to all that is good in the world. Every time I see Paul McAsshat still singing that song to a stadium of parents/grandparents with minivans, I want to vomit.

One thing I will say for the Beetles is that their musical repertoire is enormous. They have an asston of songs that are teeth decayingly teenie bopper pop-rock, and an equal amount of haunting story folk songs. I would argue that most people know them for the shitty music, but I find Norwegian Wood, Hard Days Night, While My Guitar, Come Together, and Elanor Rigby to be examples of timeless refined awesome.

The Who are pretty awesome too.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
SirMustapha
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:07 pm UTC

Re: Beatles vs. The Who!

Postby SirMustapha » Tue Jul 19, 2011 2:07 pm UTC

Fedechiar wrote:And their playing - I just can't stand it: Ringo's drum parts could probably have been played by Meg White, the guitars were often sloppy and simplistic (the first one who links While my guitar gently weeps gets a treat because the lead guitar in that song was Eric friggin' Clapton) and I absolutely hate Lennon's voice (that's a matter of personal taste, I know).


I think it's pretty unfair to condemn a musician for not playing something that the song does not demand. In fact, I think that's reason for praise: the Beatles never put the focus on how they play, but on what they play, and playing just what needs to be played is a valuable skill. Ringo was a dependable, professional drummer, and he didn't need pyrotechnics to show he was good. He could be loud, he could be soft, he could be subtle, he could be harsh, he could be jolly, he could be bluesy... and that's a whole lot more than what can be said about, say, John "My drum solos cure insomnia" Bonham.

And yeah, I think everybody and his mother know that Clapton did that great guitar work on While My Guitar Gently Weeps, but Harrison's guitar leads are as catchy and memorable as the band's vocal melodies. In fact, if you're still in doubt of Harrison's talent, All Things Must Pass should put all doubts to end.

The Who are very, very far away from the Beatles in terms of style, so their "pyrotechnics" are demanded by the songs. Well, not exactly demanded, but they gave themselves room for being more adventurous, and they knew just how to do that. I think, however, that their only true masterpiece is Quadrophenia -- Who's Next is patchy as hell, and Tommy suffers from a severe case of filleritis. But The Who Sell Out is really great, despite the fact that the "concept" gets very tired and pointless towards the end of the album.

User avatar
cjmcjmcjmcjm
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 5:15 am UTC
Location: Anywhere the internet is strong

Re: Beatles vs. The Who!

Postby cjmcjmcjmcjm » Fri Jul 22, 2011 5:33 am UTC

No love for the Stones, OP?
frezik wrote:Anti-photons move at the speed of dark

DemonDeluxe wrote:Paying to have laws written that allow you to do what you want, is a lot cheaper than paying off the judge every time you want to get away with something shady.

EvanED
Posts: 4331
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:28 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Beatles vs. The Who!

Postby EvanED » Mon Jul 25, 2011 1:58 am UTC

Oh, is this a "I get to trash The Beatles" thread? Cool! (Don't read too much into that, I temper it in a bit.)

So first, I'm coming at this from sort of a weird standpoint. I listed to classical music (and romantic-esque movie scores) nearly exclusively for... a long time. It was only a few years ago that I started to listen to more. This has a couple consequences.

First, I think partly-to-largely because of this background, I don't really listen to lyrics. You could have an awesome writer but a mediocre composer and for me the output would be mediocre -- and a crappy poet but awesome composer would produce some pretty awesome songs. (I'm not saying this applies too much in either of these cases... in fact, I almost wouldn't know if it does.)

Second, I am not particularly familiar with either band's full catalog. It's hard for me to say things like "band A was consistently better than band B", while it's much easier to say "band A's best [or at least best-known] songs are better than band B's best". It's even hard for me to compare albums, and I'm kind of reduced to single songs. That being said, I almost think this is better: if I could fill a CD with awesome songs, I don't really care that there's a lot of crap by the same people.

I will also admit to often liking "fun" songs over "good" songs -- whatever that means. (I also break out the Phillip Glass not infrequently.)

So with that out of the way, and keeping in mind I'm talking about my personal "I like listening to this song" preference, my opinion on The Beatles is that they are probably the most overrated band ever. I think a ton of their stuff is "meh." Now, with that said, the principle reason that they are overrated is because lots of people pretty much consider them gods -- and they are merely "very good".

The "problem" with being very good is that there are a number of other groups that are also very good -- and The Who is one of them.

And if I take the songs that I like best by The Beatles (maybe "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", "Eleanor Rigby", "I Am The Walrus") and stick it next to the songs that I like best by The Who (maybe "Won't Get Fooled Again", "Behind Blue Eyes", Tommy's "Underture"), The Who wins out pretty consistently.

That being said, the version of "While My Guitar..." from The Concert For George puts put a really good fight... it comes close enough to "Won't Get Fooled Again" that it's like Neptune and Pluto, and they change places.

MrFat
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:28 am UTC

Re: Beatles vs. The Who!

Postby MrFat » Fri Aug 05, 2011 9:11 pm UTC

Ringo was a dependable, professional drummer, and he didn't need pyrotechnics to show he was good. He could be loud, he could be soft, he could be subtle, he could be harsh, he could be jolly, he could be bluesy... and that's a whole lot more than what can be said about, say, John "My drum solos cure insomnia" Bonham.

Do you mean cures insomnia (puts you to sleep) or causes insomnia--it seems like Bonham's drumming was anything but a lullaby.

User avatar
Various Varieties
Posts: 505
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:24 pm UTC

Re: Beatles vs. The Who!

Postby Various Varieties » Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:44 pm UTC

MrFat wrote:Do you mean cures insomnia (puts you to sleep) or causes insomnia--it seems like Bonham's drumming was anything but a lullaby.

Oh, definitely cures. Not in the "lulls you gently to sleep" sense, but in the "checking your wristwatch and finding there's another ten minutes of this solo to go oh god oh god someone please kill me now" sense. See also: Ginger Baker playing Toad.

You know that quote "Golf is a good walk spoiled?" Well, Moby Dick is a nice guitar riff spoiled. ;)

(That When the Levee Breaks intro is quite nice though.)

MrFat
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:28 am UTC

Re: Beatles vs. The Who!

Postby MrFat » Tue Aug 09, 2011 12:19 am UTC

Various Varieties wrote:You know that quote "Golf is a good walk spoiled?" Well, Moby Dick is a nice guitar riff spoiled. ;)[/size]

That riff really deserved a better song, but it's a whole lot easier if you watch Bohnam play than if you just listen to it. Musically, his outrageous solos were not as impressive, I feel, as his stage presence. If people didn't want to see and hear his 15 minute drum solos, there would be much less of them. Great turn on that quote by the way!


Return to “Music”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests