The Who vs. The Stones

[bobbob1313]

Who was better for these years?

 

The Who:

Tommy

Live At Leeds

Who's Next

Quadrophenia

 

or

 

The Stones:

Let It Bleed

Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out

Sticky Fingers

Exile On Main Street

Goats Head Soup

It's Only Rock n' Roll

 

 

The Stones were more prolific, but where they better? I was just looking at both discographies and realized their peaks coincided and thought it might be interesting to discuss. Of course, I am leaving out of the discussion Led Zeppelin's best albums, who might have actually topped both.

[mountain bed]

The Stones had a jump on The Who with Beggar's Banquet - I'm in the minority here but I think Beggar's is my favorite album of theirs.

 

If The Who would have completed the "commercial" aspect of Sells Out for both sides then they would possibly have the jump. But for the most part they were still a singles band (imo) when The Stones were starting to go LP in their thinking.

 

I know that doesn't answer the question but I'll go with this - '68-'72: advantage Stones ; '69-'74: advantage Who.

[cryptique]

Stones, hands down.

[MattZ]

Stones, hands down.

 

and feet. Not even close.

[myboyblue]

and feet. Not even close.

 

maybe ears as well.

 

Stones were untouchable during this period. If only they would have stopped.

[CortezTheKiller]

My good friend and I had this debate last summer. It's a no-brainer to me. That period for The Stones is one of the greatest in rock and roll. For me the period is Beggars, Bleed, Ya Ya's, Sticky, and Exile. Goat and Rock n Roll are good albums, but the ones before that are fucking GREAT records. The Who is damn good, but The Stones inserted a little darkness into rock and roll.

[Sir Stewart]

This might as well be The Stones vs. Sonny & Cher.

[CortezTheKiller]

This might as well be The Stones vs. Sonny & Cher.

Not a big Who fan I take it.

[bobbob1313]

I'm sort of surprised by the reactions here. Then, I have always preferred the Who to the Stones.

[mountain bed]

I'm sort of surprised by the reactions here. Then, I have always preferred the Who to the Stones.

Mr. SkyKev would not be pleased. I'm sort of surprised too, although I'm a bigger Stones fan.

[Lammycat]

It's always difficult to conclude who was "better" in comparing two incredible bands during high points in their careers. It's not an apples/oranges deal but more like comparing a nice Gala apple to a nice Fuji. Both are great in their own way.

 

I love the Who but have had a longer and deeper relationship with the Stones. It also depends on mood, right? In the end though, given a choice between a stack of lps/cds from the Who pile v. the Stines pile, I'd pick the Stones pile most every time.

[Gobias Industries]

I've always had a greater affinity towards the Who...the whole Stones taking from blues dudes always irked me.

[bobbob1313]

Though this might all be a moot point as I'd probably take Zeppelin or the Beatle's output from this same time (If you count the White Album, which was released 11-22-68) over either.

 

Either way, what a ridiculous time for music. There is a very legitimate argument to be made that 15 of the top 100 albums of all time were released during this period by just 4 bands.

[Lammycat]

I've always had a greater affinity towards the Who...the whole Stones taking from blues dudes always irked me.

Why? Musicians take from eachother all the time, eh?

[Gobias Industries]

Though this might all be a moot point as I'd probably take Zeppelin or the Beatle's output from this same time (If you count the White Album, which was released 11-22-68) over either.

 

That's pretty much a moot point, the Beatles output even without the White Album is 1000000x better than both:

 

Yellow Submarine (though not a real real Beatles album)

Abbey Road

Let It Be

 

So what if it's two (or three if you count Submarine) albums? They're so much better in every way.

 

@Lammy: But it was in more than just "I was inspired," at least in my opinion. It was "let's cop a blues dude's song." I have a great distaste for that kind of thing. If you're an artist, make your own damn song.

 

@Chomp: I would disagree about Top 15 because Dylan has at least 3-4 of those spots: H61 Revisited, Blonde On Blonde, Bringing It All Back Home, Blood On The Tracks. Five if you're a huge fan of Another Side

[mountain bed]

Not to mention that none of the four are from America. The birthplace of rock and roll.

[indy81]

The Stones put out some brilliant albums, but where's the love for The Who? I'd give Let It Bleed the edge over Tommy and Exile is obviously a masterpiece...but Leeds is infinitely better than Ya-Yas, Who's Next better than Sticky Fingers, Quadrophenia better than Goat's Head and IORR combined. (And yes, Zeppelin from 1969-1974 is better than both.)

[Degenerex]

I still to this day do not understand how anyone even tries to call the Rolling Stones "the greatest band of all time," but I would have to give the edge here to the Stones over the Who. But in my opinion, its a lot closer than most of you are making it out to be.

 

By the way... off subject, but who made it blasfomous to say that Exile has plenty of filler on it? I prefer basically any other album from this period to Exile. It would have been an amazing 8-10 song album, but as it stands, I can't make it through the whole thing on a single listen.

[Analogman]

I'm sort of surprised by the reactions here. Then, I have always preferred the Who to the Stones.

 

 

Two entirely different deals - and Pete has always worshiped The Stones. The Who have covered some Stones songs, actually.

 

Although, they both came from a Jimmy Reed/Chuck Berry/black American blues/motown/stax music background - thanks to the talent of Pete, The Who left that sort of thing behind and went down a different path altogether.

 

The Rolling Stones, I feel, have always stayed close to thier roots - whether it sounds like it or not.

 

OR - put it this way - minus Salt of The Earth, and some other songs - most Rolling Stone songs are about sex/drugs/rock and roll in some form or another. The Who have songs about that sort of thing also - but, they went places The Rolling Stones could never go.

 

I feel they are just two different voices - to have come out of the british invasion of the 60s - one not better or worse than the other.

[Lammycat]

@Lammy: But it was in more than just "I was inspired," at least in my opinion. It was "let's cop a blues dude's song." I have a great distaste for that kind of thing. If you're an artist, make your own damn song.

I disagree. The Blues is a genre. It's a genre that spread from black culture and tradition to white culture. I guess I don't see them as trying to rip off anyone. They liked the style of Blues and often played a style of Blues in the early days. No big deal. I will say that it's my least favorite material of theirs, though.

[Lammycat]

By the way... off subject, but who made it blasfomous to say that Exile has plenty of filler on it? I prefer basically any other album from this period to Exile. It would have been an amazing 8-10 song album, but as it stands, I can't make it through the whole thing on a single listen.

I agree there's some filler on Exile. But, (and it's a big but), the majority of the album is so damn good and strong that the filler can easily be dismissed by most people, myself included. There are tracks I skip over most of the time on it, but overall it's still a great album regardless.

[mfwahl]

Always been more of a Who fan than Stones. Better musicians and more creative. Keith Moon!

[aricandover]

Stones all the way. but then I'm biased, because there's a lot of Who stuff that I can't stand.

 

 

EDIT: this should be a poll.

Edited March 11, 2008 by Larry Mendte

[Hixter]

The Stones couldn't come close to matching The Who as a live act during this period. And it's even more lopsided when considering the individual members. Both bands had Keiths who were very entertaining, but I'll take Entwistle over Wyman any day. Townshend is/was more interesting than any of the Stones. Daltrey and Jagger both bore me a little, but Roger wins for the best hair.

[tongue-tied]

Very close for me, but because of Let it Bleed...and since I listened to Beggar's Banquet the other day- Stones.

 

And I'm too big of a Beatles Fan to even think twice about the second poll.