mountain bed Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 When I place this album in historical context, I have a hard time saying it's not one of the 5 greatest albums ever. The stuff The Stones were putting out before this was good, but Beggar's took them to a whole other stratosphere. It's overplayed, but fuck, can you imagine turning on the radio and hearing "Sympathy For the Devil" for the 1st time in 1968?Yes. If I had to rank LPs it would make my top 5. I got that record as a little kid (age 6/7) and there has never been a time when I didn't listen to it. It still kills me every time: Kieth's cold-steel solo in "Sympathy", the strange psychedelic-folk of "Jigsaw", the positively salacious "Stray Cat", the moonshine-fueled "Factory Girl", etc etc. I think it's just about a perfect record. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
So Long Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Depending on my mood the answer will vary. But I'm gonna have to side with the Stones. The Who got a bit boring for me...don't know why: Pete Townshend: great guitarist, good songwriter, a bit creepyRoger Daltry: annoying as all hellJohn Entwhistle: considered to be one of the best bassists in history (I disagree)Keith Moon: fuckin' rocks. Put 'em all together and you'd expect to do better than most of their catalog... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
W(TF) Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 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. That's a good summary. Both Daltrey and Jagger are somewhat one-dimensional as singers, but Daltrey had more range. The other piece no one mentioned is Townshend's first solo album Who Came First -- it has some of his best material ever. Entwistle and Moon were incredible musicians. The Who broke a lot of new ground while the Stones were partying and selling out stadiums. If we're talking American bands of the same era, for me it's The Band, hands down. With a nod to Creedence for a nice run of hits, but they're still a distant second. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted March 12, 2008 Author Share Posted March 12, 2008 Depending on my mood the answer will vary. But I'm gonna have to side with the Stones. The Who got a bit boring for me...don't know why: Pete Townshend: great guitarist, good songwriter, a bit creepyRoger Daltry: annoying as all hellJohn Entwhistle: considered to be one of the best bassists in history (I disagree)Keith Moon: fuckin' rocks. Put 'em all together and you'd expect to do better than most of their catalog... Entwistle is incredible. McCartney changed the way people thought about the bass player, but Entwistle changed the way people approached it. He is, without a doubt, my favorite bassist ever (though Paul's gift for melody shown through especially in his bass playing. He's the only bassist you can sing along to.) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
remphish1 Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 LONG LIVE ROCK! GO WHO! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
CortezTheKiller Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 If we're talking American bands of the same era, for me it's The Band, hands down. With a nod to Creedence for a nice run of hits, but they're still a distant second.This thread got me think about that comparison immediately. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Panther Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 For me that period of Stones material is untoucable, its like Buddy Holly or something.I'd still take the beatles output from that period though, not including the white album.Keith Moon is great but when the material gets proggy...yuk. just to throw this in, how about The Velvet Undergrounds material from this period(including that lost album what was it called again?)For me listening to VU today I realise they are way more releveant than the stones , the who and especially zeppelin.Besides the beatles they are the most inffluential band from this era. am I crazy? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 The Who, by a doink. Both are really, really great and no one should ever be forced to choose between them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Panther Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 I guesse only VU and Loaded fit into this period since white light/white heat was released in 68.unless you include Squezze(I dont!) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
giraffo Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 The Who. It seems to me like were focused on music, where the Stones were just shouting and meandering about and playing the blues. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jmacomber68w Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 1-beatles2-the who3-led zep4-stones ive come to peace with this list for these 4 bands a few years ago Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.