Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Beatles vs. The Who
Stipulating that there’s no accounting for taste, what sane person would say The Who are/were a better band than The Beatles? This guy:
I believe rock and roll is a sometimes ephemerally subtle, sometimes gruesome and grotesque she/he-animal capable of transcendence. I believe that rock and roll should reach for the Golden Ring, hot, sexy, lissome and coy, even if it falls in the attempt. I believe that the ability to hear rock and roll is a gift that deserves not just moments of grace, but moments where the fusion of volume, energy, and meaning appear to have the power to split the atom. That’s why I prefer the Who to the Beatles.
…
The Who’s formula of power + ambition + the despair of searching for perfection unachievable and beauty unobtainable leads to human achievements, volcanic and amoebic, that humble any effort by the Beatles to perfect the marriage of rock and pop.
I know the stakes are high. Emotions run hot. On Facebook, a good friend whose opinion I respect said, “The Beatles canon is incredible, but The Who left a legacy of tunes unequalled in their sonic fervour.”
So here’s what we’ll do:
- Take the 25 best Beatles songs and put them up against the 25 best by The Who (if you can name that many). Heck, put them up against the 10 best by The Who.
- Take the 5 best Beatles albums and put them up against the 5 best by The Who.
- Imagine asking 50 random people on the street their opinion.
- Toss in some other criteria: overall record sales and box office, cultural influence, musical variety, production value, transformative style, continuing relevance, number of imitators spawned.
I could do this all night.
Personally, I give The Who an edge on just three criteria: live exuberance, longevity, and the individual musicianship of its members.
Which is not to say that The Who aren’t a great band, just that they ain’t The Beatles.
But there’s no accounting for taste.
Published in Entertainment
The Beatles are unequalled overall as music innovators and as a cultural phenomenon. They created the “shelves” upon which all, or nearly all popular music rests, even now.
That said, I don’t care much for Beatles music. It’s essentially all played-out in my head.
The beatles were a pop band that did some rock, but they were not really a rock band. So the real question is whether any rock band comes close to equalling The Who. I don’t think so. Even the Stones pale in depth and ambition.
The other question is: does anyone under the age of 45 even care about this/these questions. I suspect not. Pop music lost Significance at some point in the 1980s. Lost world, man, lost world.
PS: weren’t they wearing earbuds in Tommy? Prophesy, man, prophesy!
The Who are a great band, with one heck of a catalog.
But I don’t think anything in Rock and Roll history matches the creativity and impact of the Beatles’ output during their 10 years together. “Won’t Get Fooled Again,” “Baba O’Reilly,” “This Song is Over”, and “Who Are You” are great songs, but I’ll take “Hey Jude,” “Come Together,” “Something,” and “A Day in the Life.”
I’ll take The Who over the Rolling Stones, however.
I can respect this argument.
Can you expound on this thought? I have heard people say things like this before, but I have never really understood. What makes a group a “rock” band?
For my money nobody touches the Beatles. Thier music is simply the best and there are very few Beatles songs I tire of.
Are we talking range of influence in the history of all pop/rock music? Probably The Beatles.
Are we talking subjective personal preference? The Who. All day long, the Who.
(coming from a member who loves many Beatles albums, none more than Rubber Soul and Revolver).
The Who: Best live rock act ever (saw the original lineup twice); exciting, loud, unpredictable. Best drummer and bassist in rock. Best cranky guy guitarist. When I want to get charged up they’re still who I listen to.
The Beatles: Best songwriters. Best melodic pop & rock but tamer and more under control than The Who. Beautiful harmonies. Love singing their songs 50 years later. For sheer quantity of good tunes no one compares. Even “throw aways” like What You’re Doing, All I Gotta Do and I Don’t Want to Spoil the Party have great harmonies and melodic hooks. Bigger and broader influence than The Who.
What was the impact of Come Together? Confusion? Louie Louie (the Kingsmen) was more comprehensible, and it had the virtue of being kind of catchy.
Perhaps you meant to say Revolution.
This is about what I thought — the Beatles were wider than deep, and the Who was deeper than wide. Which is not to say that the limits were different, but the distributions differ.
Come together might not be the most influential of their songs, but for whatever reason it’s one of my personal favorites, nonsense lyrics and all.
[Double post]
I’m 28. Yes, there are still young hipsters out there who’ll debate this.
I love this post so much I can’t stand it because you discuss the two greatest bands in Boomer history!
They’re different though. The Beatles were so amazingly prolific and poignant, yet the Who created Baba O’Riley – arguably one of the greatest rock ‘n roll songs ever written. I still embarrass my husband whenever I hear that infamous riff and jump around the house playing my imaginary drums. :)
Speaking as someone who just barely made it into Generation X: I don’t know who “The Beatles” or “The Who” are supposed to be, but perhaps Led Zeppelin is the dynamic and influential band you’re looking for.
;)
Stairway to Heaven was an impressive piece of music indeed.
My daughter says the same thing!
Led Zeppelin’s awesome, but the Beatles rule over all.
The Who were better individual musicians – Daltrey was the only vocalist that could compete with crooners of the previous generation and Entwistle/Moon were the best rhythm section that ever played together – but the Beatles were Mozart to their Saltieri. Remember Mozart’s put-down of Saltieri; “you were the better craftsman.”
Just so.
I still go back to the Who more than I go back to the Beatles. But then again, I’m more of a headbanger than a toe-tapper.
I have no musical chops. I only have a preference. The Who have some great songs but The Beatles are the soundtrack of my life.
Will people still debate this? Well, my ten-year-old son is torn between Rush, the Who, and Styx (hey, he’s ten).
When the time is right on this thread, Matthew, you know we’re going to have discuss the Stones as well. ;)
I’m a fan of both, but if the criteria is rock, Rock, not whatever combination of Rock and classical and other genres the Beatles and George Martin put together (which is absolutely great) The Who win by a mile.
Two songwriters usually make more dynamic songs than a solo writer no matter how talented, so it’s not really fair to compare Townsend with Lennon/McCartney not to forget George.
I saw the Who in 1969 at the Electric Factory in Philadelphia along with about 500 other people. They performed most of Tommy, which had not yet been released in the US. I was sitting directly under Pete. I was – no exaggeration – about 5 feet away from him. They started with Pinball Wizard ,a song no one in the place other than the band and their roadies, had yet heard. As mind-blowing as that concert was, I still did not appreciate it as much as I should have.
I am a music fanatic. However, the only Beatles album I’ve owned is Revolver and the only Who album I’ve owned is Who’s Next. Add in the woefully underappreciated Pet Sounds by The Beach Boys and that’s all the ’60s pop/rock I own. Every other album from the period in my collection is Johnny Cash, Frank Sinatra, James Brown, assorted jazzboes and bossa nova.
It’s not that there wasn’t great rock created in that era, it’s just that, being a Gen X-er, I’ve heard those songs again and again and again and again. The soundtrack of my youth was less the music of my generation, but Boomer nostalgia. I just burned out on the whole thing. By the eleventy-fifth documentary on How Important Woodstock Was, I tuned out the decade and started over with The Ramones and forward.
This isn’t to denigrate The Who/The Beatles — their influence is obviously greater than Joy Division or The Pixies — but when I’m on a roadtrip, I’m playing the latter two.
All that said, let me cut the baby in half: The Who is the best rock band of the ’60s and The Beatles are the best pop band of the ’60s. (Though The Beach Boys are a close second)
I think this gets it exactly right. They are two great acts doing different things.
Ah, you have raised him well. My wife doesn’t really care for Beatles, Beach Boys, or Paul Simon, but I’m hoping I can get my daughter into them.
BTW, when I’ve been bored on Twitter, I’ve said, “Meh, The Beatles are overrated,” just to witness the international freakout. People lose their minds, though it’s even worse when I type, “Meh. The Princess Bride is overrated.”
Is Pet Sounds under-appreciated? I think it’s generally regarded now as one of the all-time best albums. And while I think the Beatles are superior to Beach Boys, I think Pet Sounds is a superior album to all the Beatles albums. It somehow manages to keep a cohesive sound throughout the whole album and yet still have each song be a distinct classic. Brian Wilson- what a talent.
Even though I knew you were joking, the statement about Princess Bride raised my blood pressure a little.