Well I wouldn't describe it as Rog letting The Who down as a front man compared to Jagger: RD is still one of the best front men I've seen and I think at better singer; although I feel Mick is underrated as a vocalist. As a front man, Jagger is almost unsurpassed.So townsend, entwhistle and moon were all like for like better than the stones members.
Only daltry let them down as a fromt man compared to jagger.
If you break it down musically then the who were better a better set of musicians.
It asn't an attack, it was athrow away comment blown out of proportion by the modern day need for scandal
You like the who better, l like the Stones. Not sure there is much to argue or debate.There's little point referencing having saw both bands and comparing them when you've just admitted a prejudice.
If the strength of your argument is based around hits and the like then I guess bands like the backstreet boys are top drawer.
I don't profess to have seen all the musicians polls over the years but most I have seen suggest musician wise the Who win fairly comfortably and had a energy that the stones couldn't match.
Jagger was definitely a iconic frontman but is to vocals what Ole is to football management,prick or not Daltrey wins that battle hands down
Too true, it's all personal preference. I also suspect the tone of this was tongue in cheek. Most of these bands have had cheeky little comments before in passing and then they(the receiver) will joke about it on stage at their next gigs.You like the who better, l like the Stones. Not sure there is much to argue or debate.
Why do people always compare bands to the Beatles when they (the Beatles) are not part of the debate ?Too true, it's all personal preference. I also suspect the tone of this was tongue in cheek. Most of these bands have had cheeky little comments before in passing and then they(the receiver) will joke about it on stage at their next gigs.
I don't really get the fascination with the Beatles personally. People can talk about cultural significance or originality all they like(although Science says some of the credit they've been given is overblown anyway). I really don't think their songs have stood the test of time as well. The Stones are top of the list for me in that regard, I still find myself going back to their tracks for a listen, no matter what mood I'm in. I suppose there's a time and place for songs that you just sit and listen to and ponder(The stones have those) but overall, I just ask myself, how does their music in general make you feel? That's what music is to me anyway. They had feeling and soul, which really comes across if you've listened to some of their live tracks from the pomp. There are different kinds of energy and on stage presence, you either understand that or you don't. They had that in spades, whether some recognise it or not.
They were all fantastically talented musicians too but that comes down to personal taste also. Much better man for man, than the Beatles for me. Quincy Jones doesn't seem to rate the Beatles much at all in that respect. Although I think that take is a tad too over the top.
Why do people always compare bands to the Beatles when they (the Beatles) are not part of the debate ?
This is a thread about the Who and the Stones.
In the Led Zeppelin thread above somebody said "better than the Beatles"
I saw the same comment in a Kinks thread.
It puzzles me.
You like the Stones more than the Beatles, what does that have to do with this thread ?
And who cares anyway.
Like them, loath them or somewhere in between, they are generally used as a measuring stick.Why do people always compare bands to the Beatles when they (the Beatles) are not part of the debate ?
This is a thread about the Who and the Stones.
In the Led Zeppelin thread above somebody said "better than the Beatles"
I saw the same comment in a Kinks thread.
It puzzles me.
You like the Stones more than the Beatles, what does that have to do with this thread ?
And who cares anyway.
Why do people always compare bands to the Beatles when they (the Beatles) are not part of the debate ?
This is a thread about the Who and the Stones.
In the Led Zeppelin thread above somebody said "better than the Beatles"
I saw the same comment in a Kinks thread.
It puzzles me.
You like the Stones more than the Beatles, what does that have to do with this thread ?
And who cares anyway.
Both the Stones and the Beatles have a back catalogue of songs that is light years above any other artist in the world. If you were asked to write down 50 songs from each you could easily and probably double that number, and everyone would recognise them. There are few if any other bands/artists that you could come close to that and get the same universal recognition. The Who aren't even in the same conversation.Too true, it's all personal preference. I also suspect the tone of this was tongue in cheek. Most of these bands have had cheeky little comments before in passing and then they(the receiver) will joke about it on stage at their next gigs.
I don't really get the fascination with the Beatles personally. People can talk about cultural significance or originality all they like(although Science says some of the credit they've been given is overblown anyway). I really don't think their songs have stood the test of time as well. The Stones are top of the list for me in that regard, I still find myself going back to their tracks for a listen, no matter what mood I'm in. I suppose there's a time and place for songs that you just sit and listen to and ponder(The stones have those) but overall, I just ask myself, how does their music in general make you feel? That's what music is to me anyway. They had feeling and soul, which really comes across if you've listened to some of their live tracks from the pomp. There are different kinds of energy and on stage presence, you either understand that or you don't. They had that in spades, whether some recognise it or not.
They were all fantastically talented musicians too but that comes down to personal taste also. Much better man for man, than the Beatles for me. Quincy Jones doesn't seem to rate the Beatles much at all in that respect. Although I think that take is a tad too over the top.
To be fair, I think The Beatles can be both very good and overated.It’s because the Beatles are regarded as the best and have been and will be for a long time, probably forever going off modern music. It’s a trait that people need to somehow dilute that praise. Probably makes them think they appear cooler, off the beaten track and have better taste and knowledge of music than the masses.
You know the sort I much prefer the little known blah de blah or the B sides on blah de blah.
People liking someone more than the Beatles is fine, people who say they are overrated or don’t get them are either being disingenuous or don’t know music.