Um, I think you’ve gotten Moon confused with Townsend.
Now now, you vocal Who fans, you’re entitled to like the Who, and you’re entitled to hate the Stones. But there is NO bigger Stones fan on Earth than Pete Townshend, so for HIS sake, treat the Stones kindly, okay?
I happen to think that the Who’s best albums (“Who’s Next” and “Tommy”) were fifty times better than any Rolling Stones album (frankly, I’ve never liked more than four songs on ANY Stones album). But over the course of their careers, I think the Stones have recorded far more good songs than the Who have.
As for live performances… well, I’ve always found Mick Jagger more silly than sexy, more goofy than cool, closer to Don Knotts than to Elvis Presley. I think the Who have much more stage presence, and Roger Daltrey… well, he IS everything that Mick Jagger has always pretended to be! Daltrey is a GENUINE street-fighting man, while Jagger is just a skinny wuss from the London School of Economics.
Hey, if the Who had been at Altamont, you think Daltrey would’ve been whimpering, “Brothers and Sisters, why are we fighting?” Or would he have been trying to kick some Hell’s Angel’s butt?
Still… as much as I WANT to scoff at Jagger, I’m quite impressed by the fact that he’s up on stage, still performing at his age. I’m “only” 40, and I KNOW I couldn’t move and jump around the stage the way he does! So, let’s give the Stones a little credit, both for the sheer volume of great songs they’ve recorded, and for still hanging in there at their age.
I honestly LOVE both bands. The Who were amazing in their time but so was the Stones. For the guy who said that Townsend is a better musician than any of the Stones. Have you ever heard Mick Taylor? Mr. Petey can write and play rhythm like there’s no tomorrow but Mr. Taylor can spin circles around him on lead guitar. I’m sure he’d tell you the same thing given the chance. Mick Taylor is unbelievable when he’s on.
And yes, Mr. Townsend is a GIANT Stones fan. Afterall, he inducted them into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. And guess where he swiped the windmill? That’s right…Keith Richards.
But all in all, they were both outstanding rock and roll bands. I won’t choose one over the other…love them both.
Why don’t they make them like that anymore???
Yeah, well, I don’t even count Mick Taylor as a true Stone.
What, was he with the band for like 10 minutes? He was a hired gun guitar player, who was, admittedly talented, but he wasn’t really one of the group, ya see what I’m saying?
As a musician/song writer/intellect/spirutal entity/whatever … I’d put Townsend up against anyone. And Mick Taylor wouldn’t be worthy of shining his shoes.
Your mileage may vary.
First of all, Vinnie Chuckie is 150, godammit. That said…music aside, nobody is gonna kick Keith R’s ass. Nobody! Like Denise Leary said about KR having to do the ‘don’t-take-drugs’ public service spot, “We can’t do drugs Keith, you’ve already done them all. We’re going to have to wait til you die and smoke your ashes!”
Now music-wise, yeah the Stones suck now, but they R-O-C-K-E-D-! [sub]in their day[/sub].
Think about it this way, who has had more tunes converted to elevator music? I thought so…
And are you people really suggesting Ron can’t play?
WordMan. I’d like to add for the record that I think Copeland is great too. It’s just a matter of preference. And yes, Bonham did some very subtle work with that 'hat of his. In a way, he may have been the wrong example for my comparison - but I chose him because he’s still the quintessential “power drummer.” In a way, only a musician or a very accomplished listener would even notice any subtlety in Bonzo’s work. For the rest of the people, he’s all about those hard-driving pounding beats, and machinegun-like aggression. Copeland, on the other hand, is ALL about subtlety. The average listener might actually say “drummer??? The Police had a drummer??? Wow… I never noticed him.”
Dr. Rieux, though I enjoy Moon a whole lot, he’s not my favourite. I’m actually more partial to the aforementioned drummer from Led Zeppelin when it comes to power rock drummers. Power, feeling, AND technique is a tough mix to beat. But still. Moonie kicked some serious butt in his own way.
And I still enjoy Neil Peart a whole lot. Maybe something’s lacking in the “feeling” department, but that machine-like precision is still something to admire in a drummer.
I am not a drummer. but I like the sound that Keith Moon makes. It is the only drum that I have ever noticed besides wipeout and Nilson’s Without You. I loved the sound he made with his instrument. isnt that the idea? It didn’t sound like a melodrome.
I thought that the last WHO tour was recorded music and backstage musicians? Remember the Stone’s comments about the difference between the two tours and they said “we actually are playing our instruments”.
love both but not anything in the last 20 years.
I saw The Who when they came to San Diego on August 17, 2000. I assure they were playing their instruments, just like they were at the Concert for New York.
On a side note, Zak(sp?) Starkey (son of Richard Starkey aka Ringo Starr) is the current drummer, and although he lacks Moon’s raw energy and power, he is a pretty good drummer in his own right.
I recall Letterman making jokes about how the Stones were singing “I Can’t Get No Metamucil” and how he loved it when they smash their walkers at the end of the concert.
But I still like the Stones better than the Who.
I saw the Who in 1980, and while they rocked and rocked hard, even then it was a greatest hits thing. A lot of reviewers commented on it then as seeing old friends and knowing they were doing well.
I also saw the Stones on the some girls tour and Mick Jaggers birthday, IIRC 1979. A great show.
I can’t really imagine seeing either band NOW and thinking they were anywhere near what they were even circa 1980. I would want to see a comparison of say '72 or '76 Who/Stones.
At the Hollywood Bowl show in Los Angeles, Pete abruptly stopped playing in the middle of “Magic Bus,” because he felt Zack Starkey was playing the drums too fast to keep up. “I can’t even think this fast,” Pete complained into the microphone, trying to drop a hint, but then he just stopped strumming the guitar. After a few seconds of consultation, The Who resumed at a slower tempo. Later, Pete apologized for embarrassing Zack, explaining that he wanted to take the song in a different direction, and the easiest thing to do was just start over from the top.
After an incident like this, I seriously doubt the group was using recorded music or backstage musicians. (Of course, they do use tapes for the synthesizer parts of “Baba O’Reilly,” “Won’t Get Fooled Again,” and “Who Are You,” but everything else is live performance.)
Steve Biodrowski
http://www.thescriptanalyst.com
And the violin part to “Baba” was played on the harmonica by Daltrey, which was pretty damn cool.
I was at that show too, and all those “Eh, Entwhistle - so what?” detractors DID NOT see and hear that bass solo. That guy is a total nut when let loose.
I do vaguely remember them stopping the show at one point, although I think I missed why. I was 4/5 of the way back, and that’s way bigger than I had thought.
I think near the end of the show (during the encore probably), Pete made some joke about giving flowers to Zach because his feelings had been hurt when Pete berated him for playing “Magic Bus” too fast.
::putting on old geezer hat::
I first saw the Stones in the fall of '69 on the “Get Yer Ya-Ya’s Out” tour. Saw them again in '76 and again in '94.
I first saw The Who in the summer of '70 shortly after “Live at Leeds” came out. Saw them again in fall '72 (Who’s Next tour) and fall of '75 (Who by Numbers). I think I can safely say I saw both bands in their prime.
In that 1969/1970 context of initial viewing, it’s a VERY close call as to who put on the better show, but I’ll give the Who the nod. In addition to doing their “Live at Leeds” set, they played “Tommy” all the way through. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a harder working band.
W/re the Stones in '69, the first time I ever heard “Midnight Rambler” was at that show (it preceded the release of “Let it Bleed” by a couple of weeks). That may be the single most memorable song I’ve ever seen performed.
w/re Mick Taylor, he was only (I use “only” with a grain of salt) with the band for five years, but look at the albums they put out with him: “Let It Bleed,” “Sticky Fingers,” Exile on Main Street," “Goats Head Soup,” and “It’s Only Rock and Roll.” (not forgetting “Get Yer Ya-Ya’s Out”) That’s a damned impressive catalogue.
I’ll give the edge to the Who, but, damn I love the Stones!
The Rolling Stones!! They are much more talented than The Who!
Although…if they were both on “Celebrity Deathmatch”, The Who would win hands down. Mick Jagger’s mouth would be no match for The Who’s explosives.
Neither band never made it out to small boring city on the prairies… (Cowtown) BUT, in a battle to the death… well, obviously, the last one standing would be Keith Richards… considering what the man has lived through, even a resurrected Moon isn’t going to take him down. Richards, like the cockroaches, will survive nuclear war.
Musically, they’re both great.
Aside from ripping it up normally in songs…they let him solo during 5:15. If you download any live versions of that song…you will know what makes John Entwistle rock’s best bassist.
My wife and I flew to Vancouver in 1996 to see The Who during their ‘Quadrophenia’ tour. It was an awesome concert, and it helped that we were front row center! Daltrey still looks exactly like he did in 1975. Something not quite right about that.
It is to joke. You guys think the Doors are overrated?!?! This thread really takes the cake. If the Mick Jagger sucked any harder he’d swallow the earth whole. And the Who, well, at least Jim Morrison never stuttered, no matter how high he was.
Add rush to this mix and you got yourself an audio purgative, because they all make me want to puke.
In any event, at least Pete Townshend has some talent, so I say the Who, mainly because it’s the lesser of the two evils.