The Who or The Rolling Stones? People always compare Beatles

>>74202391
The Rolling Stones had better singles, The Who had better albums.

>>74202391
the who on the basis they actually have more then one song i can listen to without my brain dissolving into mush and/or ears bleeding

Rolling Stones were absolute trash

File: tips.jpg (87KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 600x600px

>>74202405
>>74202439

>>74202391
One had Mick. Made all tge difference.

>>74202399
/thread

The Rolling Stones

>>74202391
The Who had two of the best musicians ever and one of the best songwriters of all time. And their frontman was able to keep up with them.
The Stones were nowhere near that level.

>>74202399
Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main St. are better than anything the Who released

>>74202727
It's up for debate but Tommy and Quadrophenia are equal if not better.

>>74202727

The Who were far better live than on their albums

>>74203012
That's doesn't mean shit in 2017. None of us have been to a Who concert in the 60's/70's (seeing old washed up geezers doesn't count) And the Stones were also incredible live.

>>74203123
The deluxe edition of Live at Leeds (where they also play Tommy) spreads Stones' anus and whistles in it. And I love the Stones.

Who were funnier. They doesn't seem to take the shit too seriously
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAuPJ-VsO6E
Stones got serious hit singles but these are just commercial song nowadays. the Who are still rockn roll madness. So I would go for them.

>>74202391
small faces > kinks > beatles> who> stones

While The Who created the blueprint for just about every power pop and dadrock band that followed it (especially the latter; Robert Plant was all but trying to be Roger Daltrey), if you look at their stuff it's closer to early TVU in terms of just how pop art they were.

>>74204760
They didn't take themselves seriously at all, and pretty much repudiated most political association.

>>74202917
The Who Sell Out is better than Exile anyway, and Quadrophenia beats both.

>>74202727
Exile is filler shit.

>deluded little twinks shitting on exile in favour of a gimmick album
you know fuck all about rockular music desu noobs

The Who

>>74205059
The Rolling Stones or The Who. How do you not know them? they're very famous bands...

>>74202391
>rock music
Come on now

>>74202399
What? No. The Rolling Stones had better albums too.

>>74205022
>While The Who created the blueprint for just about every power pop and dadrock band

They pretty much created the blueprint for like 5 or 6 innovative sub-genres of rock.

They were the first notable noise rockers. While some early bands might've stumbled onto feedback by chance, Townsend actually purposely incorporated it into song structure.

1 min to 2 min. No one was doing that in 1965.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXU0GvtOTH0

My Generation is probably the first fully formed "punk song." Had the energy, cynicism (hope I die before I get old), and fuck you attitude of modern punk. A lot of garage rockers before then were maybe musically punk with 3 chord structures, lo-fidelity and such (Kingsmen, The Mysterians, Sonics etc), but didn't quite have the aggressiveness to match.

First band (on Who's Next) to really explore the synthesizer as a lead instrument rather than just a psychedelic accent.

And of course, innovated power pop and the rock opera (for better or worse).

I've listened to many The Who songs for a billion times yet I only remember Paint it Black from the Stones.

That would mean on an absolutely objectively scale that The Who is far better.

>>74205383
Pretty much. Also Townshed's half rhythm half lead guitar (one of the leitmotifs in Tommy is just a chord progression) was damn innovative, and so was Entwistle's bass. Oddly underrated band here.

The Rolling Stones were probably the most impressive set of talents to come together in Britain before the Soft Machine: decadent vocalist Mick Jagger (who distorted soul crooning and turned it into an animal instinct), rhythm guitarist Keith Richards (who took Chuck Berry's riffs into a new dimension of fractured harmony), multi-instrumentalist Brian Jones (who penned their baroque and psychedelic arrangements), and the phenomenal, funky rhythm section of bassist Bill Wyman and drummer Charlie Watts. Steeped in the blues, the Rolling Stones redefined the rock performer, the rock concert and the rock song. They turned on the degree of vulgarity and provocation to levels that made Chuck Berry look silly. Arguably the greatest rock and roll band of all times, the Rolling Stones revolutionized each of the classical instruments of rock music: the drums incorporated the lascivious tom-tom of tribal folk, the martial pace of military bands and the sophisticated swing of jazz; the guitar amplified the raw and ringing style of Chuck Berry; the bass invented a depraved sound, the singing turned the sensual crooning of soul music in an animal howl, half sleazy lust and half call to arms; and the arragements of keyboards, flutes and exotic instruments completely misinterpreted the intentions of the cultures from which they were borrowed. The revolution carried out by the Rolling Stones was thorough and radical.

Indirectly, the Rolling Stones invented the fundamental axis of rock and roll: the sexy singer, sexual object and shaman, and the charismatic guitarist. For at least forty years that would remain the only constant in rock music (and one of the external features that set it apart from jazz, folk, classical music). In an era still crowded with vocal groups of pop music (Beach Boys, Beatles) inspired by those of the 1940s', the Stones represented a generational trauma.
After them, not only rock music but western civilization itself will never be the same again.

File: 65-Who-DW-Picadilly-Circus.jpg (308KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 750x750px

the who are pretty underrated these days – especially this interesting phase between straight-up mod/r&b and their rock opera shit – because their back catalogue is a big fucking mess. i think the way you present your music is an important factor for legacy artists/groups these days, if you're trying to draw in new listeners

a comprehensive set of the stones' abkco singles has been in print since the '80s, and their '60s albums were all reissued in 2002. it's all easy to acquire and make sense of. the beatles mastered this in the '80s with their discography revamp

whereas the who had their last decent catalogue rollout in '95 or something. after that it's been sporadic deluxe editions, hits compilations and the odd archival release. fun if you're a fan, but to the average listener it's totally jumbled and you can't get a clear overview of their musical trajectory, which is a shame for such an interesting band

i thought they'd finally start rectifying this shit with the my generation set that came out last year but it seems like they've rejected a similar edition of a quick one in favor of another singles set aimed at collectors (which will inevitably contain the wrong mixes for this song and that song, pissing those people off even further)

>>74205635
>>74206285
did u actually type all this out

>>74202680
>one of the best songwriters of all time
HAHAHAHA

small faces dick all over the who, /end thread

>>74206386
The second guy did, the first one is a Scaruffi pasta, I believe.

Since the beatles are so colorful and creative the stones being a straight honky tonk blues rock band that barely deviated from their formula are seen as the anti beatles. Now Who vs Stones? For me it's easily the stones. I like the who live but the stones just have too many good songs, easily 20-30 really really good ones. Even on the who's best album I only really like maybe 2 tracks, and then it's 45 minutes of hearing the guitarist sing about diddling blind kids.

Overall The Who, but I don't think The Who ever did an album as good as Let It Bleed, and I've heard all their stuff because they were my favorite band when I was 16.

Also I think the stones had better production. Everything on the who albums is this big open clear sound that gets boring very fast. On the stones album it's so rough, you might hear some guitar twang and then it dissapears and a different instrument pops up just because its so mushed together and vintagy. Much more enjoyable to listen to imo

I honestly really like this battle - nearly everyone says The Beatles on The Beatles versus The Rolling Stones debate, but The Who versus The Rolling Stones - there are a few parallels between them but they're also different enough that you could have an actual debate for it. Both have quite influential stuff too, it's much more interesting.

>>74206476
Tommy is the worst "good" The Who album, though.

>>74206479
I'd give Quadrophenia the edge, but it's a close one.

>>74206546
>Tommy is the worst "good" The Who album, though.
Listen to the movie soundtrack and not the The Who album. It's much better.

The Who were:

>more instrumentally talented, best rhythm section at the time
>rawer attitude
>more sonically varied thanks to Townsend's synthesizers and Entwistle's horn section
>more ambitious musically, conceptually and lyrically

>>74202391
The Who made artistic concept albums with cultural impact, the Stones just made 'dude coke and speed and sex lmao' songs.

>>74206695
>autistic concept albums
indeed

The Who?

Rolling Stones are shits