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
What relationship? Were they ever in a relationship? All he says is:
Maybe they went out on one date, he fell head-over-heels in love but she got a creepy stalker vibe. She turned down his requests for a second date, politely at first, but when he didn’t get the message she started hiding from him. She’s now dating someone else, and he’s saying “in my place” because he pictures them together forever.
She should “realize that I love you more than any other guy.” He’s obsessed with her, but the song never indicates that she even liked him, let alone agreed to any kind of relationship or commitment.
I disagree, mainly because Help! has its title track and “Ticket to Ride” which are, in my opinion, two of the best songs of the pre-Rubber Soul era, not to mention “Yesterday.” Nothing on A Hard Day’s Night, comes close.
Of course here we’re just arguing personal taste, so it’s not a big deal.
Help! is one of my favorite Beatles songs, full stop.
Funny you mention it because i noticed that it is on for free watching on my Verizon on demand, and thought I’d watch it this week. I’ll be prepared for the idea that it isn’t too great, but a curiosity.
I never answered this question, but I am on the Beatles side, though I really like most of The Who’s stuff quite a bit. My dad was never into them, so I had a phase in the early 2000s where I bought most of their albums.
I recently watched every episode of the show Freaks and Geeks, which was only one season. It is the beginning of the 80s, and in one episode they want to go to a Who concert, and Who songs are played throughout. Love Reign O’er Me (probably my fave Who song) is used to ironic and hilarious effect. It streams on NF and I highly recommend it.
It’s great, and those three songs are definitely up there, making the covers seem rather superfluous by comparison, though as I see now there are only two. I could take that somewhat back, and say that Lizzy at the end of the album seems to play as a fitting end to Beatles phase one.
And now I see for this I must have accidentally commented on the wrong thing when I meant to comment on my #146. This makes no sense. I just got back from the bad trip tent.
Did Paul McCartney or John Lennon ever sing the most beautiful and profound thank-you ever given to the U.S.? Roger Daltrey did.
I prefer The Who over the Beatles! The members of The Who are by far better musicians and and I think as a band they even synthesize better so that they are greater than the sum of their parts. The Beatles had a knack for pop hits, though I admit that does seem to minimize they’re talent. But The Who are greater artists.
From a lot of the comments I’ve seen Daltrey make over the years, I have a suspicion he’s a closet conservative.
It was horrible! So sad. But later they made it a Broadway show and added one song and teweaked the story a bit – all with Townsend’s help and it was great. My then future wife took me to see it on my birthday. I wasn’t expecting to like it precisely because I had seen that film and was prepared for another travesty. I had also seen them debut Tommy in 1969 in Philly from a front-row seat, so I was a tough audience to please.
Pete Townsend has since written another musical Iron Man which is very good. Never produced but the album has several fabulous songs.
But you did indirectly, which was my point.
‘Drugs’ is a loaded term. Psychedelics unsynthesised are plants. They changed the world. Anyone who has ever taken them knows that, at the very least, there is a completely different way of looking at the world. Those who haven’t don’t have any idea.
If you grew up in a land locked desert and lived most of your life there and had no knowledge of marine life, and one day someone kidnapped you and took you scuba diving in the Caribbean, then returned you to the other folks in the land-locked tribe. Try to explain to them what they are missing. Good luck. Then they will say. Well what good is it? You wouldn’t be able to explain that either. But you saw something else. That’s in the very least has a lot of merit. But some were horrified, they will say . Yes. So what? It’s there. I don’t recommend it any more than I’d recommend a trip to the moon because it’s dangerous.
But thank God for our brave astronauts. BTW That also changed the world. Someone standing on another surface looking back on Earth. Every one of them said the experience was transformational, and having my own experiences with this type of thing I understand fully what they mean.
Tidbit:
“It was 20 years ago today…”
Actually, it was 48 years years ago today, The Beatles release Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sgt._Pepper%27s_Lonely_Hearts_Club_Band
There is no better live rock performance than Live at Leeds. NONE
Driving back from a Rush concert on Saturday night and two of my best friends and I had the “Moon Band” discussion: three bands you would take to the moon. For me, it was The Police, U2, and the Who (Rush is a top 10, the Beatles a top 5; I’d burn any Stones music I could find before leaving because I don’t think they would prosecute for malicious destruction if I was on the moon).
But I think the distinction made above is quite valid: quintessential pop classics (some of which they “borrowed” and to be fair, many later musicians “borrowed” from the Beatles: ELO & Oasis being two of the more obvious examples) vs. the first, best rock bank; everybody who came after mimicked the Who one way or another.
Tommy, Quadrophenia, Who’s Next, Live at Leeds and everything else in between “I Can’t Explain” in the early 60’sand the 80’s “Eminence Front, Another Tricky Day, & You Better, You Bet,” Just…Wow. mal
I’m way late to this thread, but it’s The Who for me. I can still listen to them, but rarely listen to the Beatles any more (except as Muzak). That said, Rosanne Cash did a wonderful version of “I Don’t Want to Spoil the Party.”
Hope this works:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnEFsYwBXD8
I realize I’m quite late to this thread, but I must add my two cents: The Who always and forever. In terms of musicianship, lyricism, depth, passion, you name it, the Who are light years beyond the Beatles.
The Beatles were only noteworthy because they were first. Had they delayed their debut until after they’d learned to play their instruments, they’d probably be considered a middle-of-the-road British Invasion band, a la the Dave Clark Five or Herman’s Hermits. Instead, by concentrating on packaging and marketing, they staked out an oversized portion of the cultural territory of the ’60s, a decade known for its sobriety, measured restraint and rational priorities. (<–sarc)
Also, as the first “Hair Band,” they paved the way for Justin Bieber, so there’s that.
I don’t believe LSD or whatever drug would alter my perception of anything, nor would space travel; deepen certain aspects of perception, yes. But no fundamental changes. I base this both on the experience of others (who have tried it and said “no big deal”), and how shallow and uncreative I find most people in their unaltered state. Voilà.
Of course. You don’t know what you don’t know. I understand completely.
Back on topic, I didn’t think I’d like The Who in 1969 when my buddy practically dragged me to their concert. I thought they would just play “I can see for miles” and then smash their instruments. But they played Tommy and were the best live band I ever saw. I was wrong, but I wouldn’t have known it unless I actually went.
On thing I was thinking about since this conversation was started is that it is really hard to find the two bands doing much similar to make a good comparison.
The Beatles are rooted in a variety of American influences like Chuck Berry and Buddy Holly. The Who are rooted in James Brown (there are two Brown covers on their first album).
The Who have a more unified sound because it tends to be the work of one songwriter. The Beatles sound tends to be all over the place after the first two years. Revolver goes from genre to genre on a song by song basis.
In 1969, when the The Who is making a big long form story (“Tommy”), the Beatles are stitching together song fragments that could hardly stand on their own to form something amazing, the Abbey Road medley.
The closest I can think of is Sgt. Pepper with The Who Sell Out. They are both concept albums from 1967. One is supposed to be a show and the other a radio broadcast. In both cases, the concept is applied haphazardly.
This is why it’s easier to do this with the Beatles and Stones, where the Stones are responding to the Beatles every six months.
I think you’re deluding yourself . As I said, I e spoken with several people who have tried various psycho-drugs. One was impressed, three were not.
And we also have the dangers to consider–like the brain damage that would lead to someone thinking Yoko Ono is musically, or otherwise artistically talented. And mass numbers of people thinking the Grateful Dead and Phish are/were talented. I rest my case.
I think “American Beauty” and “Workingman’s Dead” are perfectly defensible albums. I wouldn’t trade them for “Who’s Next” or “Revolver”, but that isn’t the standard.
Also, I think the “music” of Yoko Ono is more likely to scare people with brain damage.
I would say scare people into brain damage. I don’t think I’ve weighed in yet, although I’ve been following since the post went up. I’m with the ‘Orrible Ooo.
Ha! Well now it’s 2 out of 5. Trending upwards as you gain anecdotal information. I’ve already spoken of the dangers which is the skirt lots of people hide behind when talking about hallucinogens. I get it. It’s scary. Mountain climbing and auto racing are also scary. But that’s still not the point.
I have tripped more times than most deadheads and I have not one whit of interest in their music or that of phish. My brother however, who has never smoked pot or taken any drugs, a Catholic convert with a very high security clearance with the US government, goes to their concerts. And not to bust people – he likes the music! I can’t begin to even consider what Yoko does as any kind of artistic contribution, and I don’t think many people of any background do. I would hate her ‘music’ even more under the influence of hallucinogens.
So much for anecdotal information ;)
Franco, in all seriousness, I’m sure LSD opens doors for some people, maybe even most people, but not all.
Led Zeppelin did a great job with Stairway, even including the parts they plagiarized.