The Who > The Beatles > The Stones

The Who > The Beatles > The Stones

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=SG5Y3DR_F1k
youtube.com/watch?v=r1BCfjbne3s
aquariumdrunkard.com/2012/11/08/videodrome-rock-and-roll-circus-a-quick-one-while-hes-away/
youtube.com/watch?v=NBendsEKJCY
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

The Beatles >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

literally who?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Stones > The Who

The Who and The Beatles are inarguably the top two of the British Invasion, it's just the order that can be disagreed on

Gre8 Ba8 Ma8

>not The Butts >>>>>>>>>>

youtube.com/watch?v=SG5Y3DR_F1k

The Who were all fantastic musicians and pretty much invented punk rock. But the problem with The Who is they had some real stinkers and much of their discog is hit or miss.

The Beatles never had stinkers though.

*single handedly invents punk, hard rock, and nose rock in the span of one 3 minute single*

Great, now I look retarded in front of all of Sup Forums

youtube.com/watch?v=r1BCfjbne3s

Tons of Beatles songs are unlistenable shit

>The Beatles never had stinkers though.

Besides a majority of their pre Rubber Soul output, half the white album, half of Abbey Road, the Phil Spector version of Let it Be, SGT Pepper has aged much worse than Who Sell Out

Like what?

Pretty much all of this is wrong.

...

...

God, white album is such a mixed bag for me.

The Rolling Stones > The Who > The Kinks > The Beatles > Le Bitch Bois > Some random "the" band > The Radiohead

The Beatles > The Byrds > The Kinks > The Beach Boys > The Rolling Stones > The Who

You know it.

apples =/= oranges =/= cherries

>The Byrds > The Kinks >
Stop

Quadrophenia is better than any Beatles album

Beatles > Who >>>>>>>>>>>> Stones

everything about this is so wrong I can't believe it wasn't intentional.

>filler city
>meandering, impenetrable concept
>wankery
Yeah no

Jesus, I think The Byrds were an amazing band. How would you rank them?

Beatles > Who > Velvets > Beach Boys > Kinks > Zombies > Byrds > Stones > Doors

You just described like 3 different albums, and Quadrophenia isn't one of them

>Jesus, I think The Byrds were an amazing band.
It's OK to like insignificant, subpar music user
>How would you rank them?
The Beatles > The Zombies > The Who > Rolling Stones > Kinks > The Byrds

[citation needed]

Welcome to the club.
/thread

>Kinks this low
What is this shit?

I wish the Who would put out a new record about the modern world.
Pete Townshend has not put out new songs for so long & he shouldn't be silent.

I agree, and I don't even like the beatles

Kinks>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Pete himself admits he's written every good song he's every gonna write, and anything he makes now is gonna be subpar. Psychoderelict is an interesting look inside his head but the music isn't great and the spoken word bits are cringe inducing at times

>What is this shit?
Is what I say when listening to The Kinks

He says that now..heh.

I just imagine a new Who album blowing the dust away, I saw them play a couple of years ago & still impressive.

Unless you somehow bring half the band back form the dead, no.

>Unless you somehow bring half the band back form the dead, no.

Hmm, this part is difficult.

>still impressive.

more like so rehearsed and sterile that it's always gonna sound atleast competent. How they manage to consistently choose the wrong drummers and the wrong bass players blows my mind. Pino is just boooooooring and sucks the heart and soul from every song he plays, and Zak Starkey somehow manages to over play on Who songs, just trying way too fucking hard and, like Pino, completely lacking in heart

Rolling Stones > The Who > The Beatles

I didn't know this was going to be a pleb thread. Are you guys just too young to appreciate classic country / blues / folk and that sort of thing?

>I didn't know this was going to be a pleb thread.
Well, you just made it one
>Are you guys just too young to appreciate classic country / blues / folk and that sort of thing?
Are you too young to appreciate pure songwriting and inventive arrangements?

You have to work with the tools that are available.

Enjoy them while they are still around is my philosophy.

>Rolling Stones make a 10 minute song early in their career
>its basically just an extended version of one of their regular songs but more boring

>The Who makes a 10 minute song on their second album

>It's possibly the single most sophisticated piece of rock music made up to that point

From day fucking 1 The Who were blowing the fuck out of The Stones

>You have to work with the tools that are available.
Or you just don't, you call it quits because half the band is fucking dead and you haven't written anything good in 20 years

>It's possibly the single most sophisticated piece of rock music made up to that point
kek it's a 3 chord song.

>Rolling Stones > The Who

Rock and Roll Circus

that is my response

aquariumdrunkard.com/2012/11/08/videodrome-rock-and-roll-circus-a-quick-one-while-hes-away/

The Who are the most overrated band of all time.

>(you)

In the grand scheme of things I don't think the Who or the Beatles were extremely inventive. Granted, neither were the Rolling Stones but they cultivated an interesting and unique sound that drew on beautiful organic American musical traditions. Plus they had way more bravado than the Who or the Beatles. That's why I prefer them.

>fail to mention it was nearly two fucking years after Goin Home

That's also true of the Beatles btw, considering Lennon got so pissed off at the idea of the Who gaining crowds with their innovative guitar techniques that he stole them before they had a chance to put them on record. Townshend called their recordings 'really lousy'

?

>that drum work by Keith fucking Moon 2 minutes in

Literally the best 3 piece rock band to ever exist, only Cream and JHE can compare and even then Cream sucks as a live band. The most pure, raw form of Bass, Guitar, Drum centered rock to ever exist

>I prefer them.
Not what we are discussing
>I don't think the Who or the Beatles were extremely inventive
Oh i see. You don't understand music theory.

They both came out in 66 retard

Everyone has to eat & food doesn't fly down from the sky.

>considering Lennon got so pissed off at the idea of the Who gaining crowds with their innovative guitar techniques
[citation needed]

The Beatles and The Rolling Stones wrote timeless music that sounds fresh and relevant even to this day. The Who wrote crusty dadrock that was dated even before their albums released. Quadrophenia is an hour and a half waste of time.

Sure I do. The Beatles and the Who certainly didn't know much about music theory. Nor did they accidentally stumble on anything that music theorists would find especially interesting. All you need to understand their music from a "music theory" perspective is 6 months of guitar lessons.

And please don't pull out the "music theory" card just to sound deep. You actually sound like a retard.

Nah.

>Sure I do
Do you?

Chart out Goin Home, then chart out If I Fell or So Sad About Us.

>Nor did they accidentally stumble on anything that music theorists would find especially interesting
Incorrect

well you can prove anything with facts lol.

That's retarded. I don't think any 60s recording sounds as fresh as My Generation. On the other hand, Townshend is a pedo so the Beatles and Stones won

Townshend was an art school student who incorporated elements of auto destructive art and loftier ideas of the kind of sound and power you could get out of a guitar. Completely new technology had to be invented specifically for The Who for them to achieve the sound they wanted. Townshend is not only in the same class as Zappa and Hendrix, he's at the very top

>Townshend is a pedo

>he actually believes the british tabloids
>he's actually stupid enough that he believes anything Huffpo says

Yes I do. I've played guitar for about 15 years including as a member of my college jazz band. I understand more than enough to write music and improvise well. Granted I'm not a music theorist but neither are you.

>Yes I do. I've played guitar for about 15 years including as a member of my college jazz band.
Sure you are.

Chart out those three songs and show us which is less sophisticated

>Granted I'm not a music theorist
Now you are backpedaling.

>3 piece

What makes you think you're a music theorist? Where did you get your degree?

Roger is such a minor force of volume compared to the other 3 it might as well be a 3 piece.

Not him but he means the guitar/bass/drums is a 3-piece, excluding the vocalist.
Ooops you didn't answer the question. Try again

Nice misdirection though.

Uh. You didn't ask me a question.

>can you chart out those three songs and show us which is less sophisticated?
I take this as a "no"?

>can you chart out those three songs and show us which is less sophisticated

why would anyone want to do that? What kind of insufferable nerd faggot are you where you actually give out homework assignments to other anons? Fuck you do it yourself since you're the one who cares more about winning the argument.

>prove me claims?
>why would anyone want to do that!
Just admit you were wrong and stop posting

I'm not even the guy you're arguing with i'm the OP and I'm telling you that you're a fucking nerd faggot

>white knighting
kek

this tbhq

Then this faggot shows up

They surely didn't know, but they stumbled on it in ways that show they definitely were musical geniuses.
So Sad About Us' chord progression is nothing to write home about, though it is notable that it uses nearly the entire range of A major, the main riff being built off A, Asus2 and Asus4. Notable is also how the melody tends to give the sensation of the whole thing making heavy use of 6ths, 7ths and 9ths. That said, rhythmically it is extremely interesting, and it's full of lost strands of melody.

If I Fell, that said, is fucking genius. It starts in Db as the key, then modulates to D through way of stepwise motion before landing on a ii - V - I, before using chords from the parallel minor quite heavily despite being almost surely in D major. Oh, and they just riddle the whole thing with fourths in the harmony. The song also has plenty of contrary motion, especially between the voices and the bass, the former often ascending and the bass often desceding. The whole thing is just insanely genius.

I mean I'm not going to sit down to transcribe the music because there's literally no point of doing that.

I mean I think the only thing you're really talking about with "If I Fell" and "So Sad About Us" is that the vocal melodies move around a bit more and that both songs also involve vocal harmonies. So what? None of it's very complicated. The Who and the Beatles were both using common early rock/pop musical motifs.

idk shit about music theory but the bass and drums on So Sad blows my fucking balls off every time.

>The Who and the Beatles were both using common early rock/pop musical motifs.
Name 60 bands that were, with examples.

Yeah, that's the thing about The Who just in general. Pretty good harmonically, but rhythmically they were just insanely good.

Wut?

Well, if these two compositionally-sophisticated bands were simply using common motifs, then name 60 songs that equal If i Fell and So Sad About Us.

Go ahead

Using 6ths, 7ths, and 9ths doesn't really make the music more complicated. Sure it makes things sound a little bit "jazzy" but nothing more than that inherently.

I agree that the chord progression on "If I Fell" is interesting but I really don't think they invented it.

"Name 60 songs"

Wow you are a massive faggot.

youtube.com/watch?v=NBendsEKJCY

>Only been playing together for about a year
>Keith Moon, who is 90% of The Who's sound, had been in the band less than a year

live recordings like this really show why The Who is so respected and revered, and why they need to be discussed in such hyperbolic statements. Just look at them, listen to how they sound, it's fucking great and it only gets better and better from there

this sounds like absolute shit

You don't invent chord progressions, though.

god i've never seen this before. you can already see the potential.

Regardless I don't really know how I got roped into this argument with you. I wouldn't try to argue with you that the Rolling Stones were more compositionally sophisticated than the Who or the Beatles. But they were still the best band of the three.

>I like them the most, so they are the best
Not how it works

The The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I already explained to you why they were the best.

>Granted, neither were the Rolling Stones but they cultivated an interesting and unique sound that drew on beautiful organic American musical traditions. Plus they had way more bravado than the Who or the Beatles.

>The Who meet my arbitrary criteria for being the best so they're the best
Not how it works

I think the 'Stones were the best rockers of the 3. The Who were loud, but they weren't funky.

This but unironically, though Radiohead shouldn't even be in the discussion

OP here again, I've revised my opinion somewhat

>Studio recordings
The Beatles > The Who > The Stones

>Live recordings

The Who >>> The Stones >>>>>>>> The Beatles