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
Yeah, you’re probably right. When I was younger, most people dismissed the Beach Boys as a silly teenage boy band. In the ’90s, critics started lauding Pet Sounds again and brought the band back to mass acceptability.
Who knows what Brian Wilson would have accomplished if he hadn’t been sidelined by so many personal demons after Pet Sounds‘ release.
I’m not joking.
<rolls grenade into comment thread, sneaks out of room>
I love the Who. I’m all about the mod thing and Maximum R&B. I would listen to Live at Leeds right now if I wasn’t being Mr. Saturday Suburban Dad. The Who are great. But the Beatles are something else entirely.
The debate over Beatles vs. Stones is well-worn. This is a new one. I’m actually surprised the Who are getting as much love as they are.
If we ever meet in person, I’m gonna go full-Inigo Montoya on you.
I feel no need to weigh in on this question. I love them both, and that’s all I need to know. The better question, I think, is why isn’t anyone making music of this quality today? Is there a single band out there that can be mentioned in the same breath with the Beatles, the Who, the Stones, or even the Moody Blues?
I think the Beach Boys generally get overlooked, unless you are talking about surf music. Among aficionados it has a lot of fans, but it never got nearly a public reception in line with its reputation.
Whenever there is Beatles vs. Stones debate on Ricochet, at least one person always chimes in with The Who.
Of course we are comparing apples and oranges here, but I take some issue with Matthew on a couple of things. If this is a popularity contest, then the Beatles win of course, so I don’t see how # 3 and half of #4 are relevant.
If we are talking about songwriting overall, again the Beatles win.
If we are talking about iconic ROCK songs and the epitome of the rock and roll genre then it’s the Who all the way.
Sonic fervor. Your friend is right on that one! And I’d add, Iconic Rock songs. The Who have many more of them.
Musicianship? That’s tough to evaluate. Townsend beats out George on guitar – but they were quite different. Moon was stronger by far than Ringo. Paul is more musical than Entwhisle. Daltry was simply a good singer, and John was more poet than musician. Kind of a wash. I’m a musician, and I think ‘musicianship’ is about the least important element here.
Plus, the Beatles had George Martin.
Roger Daltrey is not what I’d call a good singer. He’s got a pretty decent roar in him.
I am reminded of a debate my brother had at his workplace about 15 years ago. My brother said that The Beatles were the greatest band of all time. His coworker said it was Len. (You may recall the song “Steal My Sunshine.” Or you may not.)
Tomorrow’s post: Sugar Ray vs. Smashmouth
In the recent Who documentary, Amazing Journey, Townsend says something along the lines of “Moon was a genius, John was a genius, I was almost a genius, Roger was just a singer.”
He does say that he’s speaking of the early years of the band and that at the time of Tommy, Daltrey found his voice.
Did you ever hear or see their performance of Baba at the Concert for New York City in November 2001? Wonderful moment when thousands of firefighters and policemen are singing “it’s only teenage wasteland”; lyrics to a song written 30 years earlier.
I can’t imagine McCartney or Lennon’s vocals carrying Behind Blue Eyes.
Speaking of which, they got a movie coming out this year about Wilson’s struggles with sanity. Looks like it’s got a good cast, though it’s hard to see Cusack as Brian Wilson in the 1980s (I think) scenes after watching the 1960s scenes with Paul Dano being a ringer for Wilson.
Greatest producer evah.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Srsly, Beatles. The sheer amount of musical invention they accomplished in a few years means they’ll still be played when the boomers are all gone. That said, Who > Stones.
Don’t disagree but Sympathy for The Devil and Gimme Shelter are remarkable.
Compare this scene from Quadrophenia with the one in Hard Day’s Night where the gang is running from the crowd. That’s the difference between the Who and the Beatles.
To reiterate a common sentiment, ‘Why do you have to choose? There’s room for both groups in my head! And for many more as well. (Anyone hear of Renaissance?)
National Review ranked the 50 most conservative rock songs of all time.
#3 – Rolling Stones – Sympathy for the Devil
#2 – The Beatles – Taxman
#1 – The Who – Won’t Get Fooled Again
Not that politics should play any role in the far more serious business of ranking bands.
Townshend is a committed conservative – too much so in my opinion – he wouldn’t let Michael Moore use “Don’t Get Fooled Again” to close out Fahrenheit 911.
I relate to @exjon’s weariness w/ the late 70’s music scene. My catalog shrank to just a few bands.
What opened my ears was The Boomtown Rats.
I guess I’d go Sugar Ray because they only had one terribly overplayed mediocre song.
No.
Looking them up on youtube now to remind myself, I see I may be mistaken.
The intro to Gimme Shelter is so good I’d almost say it’s divinely inspired though I can’t imagine any of the Stone’s being in touch with heaven. Popular song for movie trailers too- they used it for The Departed, Flight, and The Gambler (the Mark Wahlberg remake).
Smashmouth, no contest.
I saw them live a few years back at a corporate event, in addition to a strong body of their own tunes they did a credible cover of several songs off Van Halen’s first album.
Merry Clayton’s isolated vocal on Gimme Shelter. Whoa!!
The mention of the two songs inspired me to pull them up on youtube. While listening to “Sympathy for the Devil” my 22-month old daughter came into the room and danced a little (this dance consists of waving her fists in the air).