Jest turning your argument, broc, from “the Stones were pu$$ies” to “the Stones wore pu$$ies.” 
[hijack]
Uhhh, Zaphod, do you play the drums? Don’t get me wrong - I agree with everything written thus far - Moon was essential to the Who and all - but technically, he wasn’t a particularly proficient drummer. As a musician who’s been in too many bands with drummers, when we’d talk about who was good, they always shook their heads about Moonie, because they loved his work, but complained about how he couldn’t keep time in a bucket, held his sticks the wrong way, etc…again, he brought that spark, and his fills were amazing, wild abandon, but “actually play his instrument” compared to Charlie Watts, who, while not the most exciting drummer, is technically very proficient, is a bit extreme…
[/hijack]
Onto the question, which, in its essence is: is it better to burn out (then tour occasionally to make money) or fade away? I can see both sides - I give credit to the Stones for trying, but always prefer the older stuff; as for the Who, I like the fact that they cut to the chase, but there is something to be said for the anger they played with before that can’t be captured at their age.
As a very different comparison question, who was better in their prime? That would be incredibly tough, and the criteria used would make all the difference. The Who took more musical risks, and wore their emotions on their sleeves much more, but the Stones worked the blues vein in whole new ways and more importantly crossed-over into public consciousness much more than the Who…both are great, but I think that the Stones are right behind the Beatles in the classic “who’s the best rock band” ranking, with the Who a few notches down, but still top ten…(ducks and runs)
WordMan,
PS: Uh, Ike - Al Stewart did “Year of the Cat” just in case you were serious…
The Who, by a long shot. I saw both groups during their tours in 1989, and enjoyed both immensely, but the Rolling Stones show was really just a chance to see a legendary band live. They did a good job, but that collasal stage was amazing – the real star of the show. The music became sort of a soundtrack for the lights and effects.
I’ve seen two Who shows since then, the Quadrophenia tour (in '96) and the “Greatest Hits” tour last year. Both were exciting and entertaining. I think the Who have a big advantage because they have concept albums like TOMMY and QUADROPHENIA that they can trot out and make the centerpiece of a performance, so they’re not just running through the same songs you hear on the classic radio stations every day. (It was especially good to see the Quadrophenia performance at the forumn, which had none of their hit singles from the '60s, just the album played in its entirety, plus a four-song encore culled from their '70s work.)
It probably helps that they don’t perform too often now. It must be hard to get bored with what they’re doing when they only get together at five-year intervals or so.
I do think it would be nice if they recorded again, but only if they were willing to do something different, not just put together another package of songs in the old style. You know, take a step forward, the way WHO’S NEXT was a step forward from TOMMY.
Steve Biodrowski
http://www.thescriptanalyst.com
Sorry, P.L. Dennison, I truly meant to type in “Stray Cat Blues.” Damn marijuana, it really does screw with your memory. However, I will take the Stones over the Who any day of the week, in any state of consciousness.
A couple of years ago I saw a (then) current photo of Pete Townshend with Mick Jagger. Neither one looked like a rock star in his prime, but Townshend at least looked like a respectable middle-aged artist. Jagger looked like Captain Midlife Crisis – the sort of guy who hangs out in clubs trying to pull chicks half his age, all the while failing to realize that his clothes and hair are a generation behind the style. For me, that about sums up the difference between the two bands today.
Now, as WordMan said, if we’re talking about the bands “back in the day”, it’s a lot harder to call. I personally would still pick The Who, but that has as much to do with the fact that I prefer their attitude to that of the Stones as it does with their relative musical merit.
Now don’t get me wrong, I love Keith Moon. I agree he was an absolutely vital part of the Who, and both visually and musically his drumming was something to behold. But.
I’ve always thought of his approach as “aggressively smacking things with sticks” rather than actual drumming. Sure it worked, but I don’t think it’s something others should be encouraged to attempt - somebody could get hurt.
The way I see it, The Stones were one of the ones to set the table, but The Who served up the banquet.
The Stones started out very poppy, competing with The Beatle for the top of the charts. Sure once the 60’s jaded them, and the 70’s started kicking their asses, they turned into the Street Fightin’ Man’s band, but The Who never made any pretense. They fucking rocked from the get-go, pardon my Swahili.
Plus, I think Townsend is twice to three times the musician as any four member of The Stones, and when it comes to vocals, Daltrey is light years ahead of Jagger.
Also … there is the previously mentioned habit of The Stones recording new music – which should have stopped for the sake of humanity quite a while ago.
Didn’t Jagger once say that he didn’t want to be 50 and still singing Satisfaction? I wish he’s stick to his word.
The Rolling Stones, all the way.
They could more different styles of music better then The Who.
heh heh heh heh, I like 'em both. What I liked best was how bad these old farts knocked the BackStreet Boys, Janet Jackson and Destiny’s Child off the stage. They couldn’t compete. Punks.
The Who…no contest.
Even their prime, I enjoy the Who more.
I like the Rolling Stones, but I always failed to see how people could put them in the same arena as the Beatles.
As for talent, I can’t speak for Moon because I know little of drumming, but Roger and Pete can certainly hold their own against Keith and Mick. No one has brought up John Entwistle yet. IMO he is rock’s most talented bassist (excluding Rush, Geddy Lee and his band of musical androids don’t count.) He’s also my favorite bassist of all times. The Who just has a certain energy that I hear in so few bands. One of my favorite tracks is “A Quick One (While He’s Away)” as performed at The Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus. I have it on LP on the double record The Kids Are Alright soundtrack. It is a short little rock opera (a quick one) that features all four voices. A little off key apart, but they sound great together. Each member plays their instrument amazingly. Four musicians in their prime and it sounds great.
Anyway…so…uh…my vote is for The Who.
They both kicked ass, in different ways. I personally have a Who poster on my wall, but the Stones rock my world too.
I’d say the Who are more thoughtful (somewhat), but also way more pretentious (at times) than the Stones. They’re weirder. Which I like. But I’m a big fan of the blues, and the Stones are plainly more in that category than the Who.
Something else cool is that between the two (and a couple others like the Yardbirds and Cream) they set up the blueprint for hard rock in the 70s (whether that’s a good thing is, I suppose, up to your own personal tastes.)
Wordman, yes I am a drummer. I agree, Moon was no technical wizard, but as you mentioned, his fills were the stuff of legends. Watts be able to keep time, but there’s very little else in his bag o’ tricks. Sometimes, being able to play one’s instrument has more to do with “feeling” than with being able to be more precise than a metronome. And yes, he lacked subtlety, but sometimes that’s what makes a drummer exciting. That’s why I’ll take John Bonham over Stewart Copeland any day.
See, I’m not comparing Moon to Neil Peart or Buddy Rich, but I’m saying that - bad timekeeper or not - Keith Moon was more of a musician than any member of the Stones. Not so much in terms of pure technical genius (which he lacked), but in terms of feeling and intensity.
So, maybe “he could play his instrument” was a poor choice of words, but I posted that right after work, which happens to be the time of day when only I can understand what I’m trying to say. insert smiley
The Who all the way, kids!
The best rock and roll band ever!
Zaphod’s right about Moonie, the greatest rock drummer, past, present or future.
Remember, this is Rock, where heart and soul count for far more than being “technically” good.
Sounds like you and I are on the same page regarding Moonie, ** Zaphod **, it was just a question of wording…
[hijack]
Interesting that you would compare Bonham and Copeland. I think they’re both great,and Bonham is certainly more bombastic. But I remember an interview where JPJones said that what all of the drummers who follow Bonzo have missed was his…subtlety. He talked about how Bonham listened to Motown drummers and even with Kashmir (my fave Zep song, BTW) the ulimate Boom-Crash thud masterpiece, Bonham does a lot of interesting high hat work which his emulators miss out on. High hat work? Why, that sounds like…Stewart Copeland 
[/hijack]
I like about a half a dozen Stones songs, all 30 years old.
I like a lot more Who songs, up till ‘You better, you bet’.
Locked in a steel cage, although right now outnumbered 4-3, The Who are much tougher than the Stones. The Who grew up in the Mod subculture of the 60s, and with all the fights against the Rockers, I’d say the Who are tougher and would win the fight.
The Stones I think were a bunch af art students and blues musicians. And look at the lineup: sissy boy Mick, heroin burnout Keith, skinny and frail Robn, and Charlie Watts who looks like he is 150 years old.
That said, Keith Richards might take out John Entwhistle with a right cross before going down.
Phil,
At least you didn’t complicate this by adding Pink Floyd. Who gets my vote.
(I dunno, who? That’s right, Who gets my vote. What are you asking me for? I’m not asking you, I’m telling you … Who gets my vote. I dunno, who? Yeah, you betcha.)
In fairness, Pete Townshend was also an art student. But Roger Daltrey was a real street fightin’ man. That scar on his torso? From a knife fight. No joke.
I think Entwistle could take Richards any day of the week, too.
Now, an all-out no-holds-barred match between Ray and Dave Davies would be harder to call, but that’s a subject for another thread. 
It is interesting to see lots of folks talking about “Tattoo You” as being the last Stones album that had any meat to it. Oddly enough, it was made up nearly entirely of material from the early 70s that had been shelved for one reason or another - meaning that it has been even longer than most folks realized that they (the Stones) had produced exciting stuff. Still, I’m a fan and give the nod to Mick and the boys.
A great little Stones story, as told by Keith Richards himself:
During a mid 80s tour, Mick gets plastered and starts screaming (in jest) for “my drummer…where the fucks my drummer…” etc. etc. etc. Charlie Watts gets wind of this and gets out of bed, takes a shower, shaves, puts on a three piece suit, walks down to the party where Mick is making an ass of himself, and punchs Mick Jagger in the jaw just as pretty as you please, saying “Don’t you ever forget that you’re just the singer in MY band.” He then walks back upstairs and goes back to bed. Richards, as you can imagine, took great pleasure in telling this story.
A battle OF the dead, you mean!!