Music Banter - View Single Post - 10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles

Dotoar · 02-20-2011, 04:07 PM

1. Pete Townshend > Keith Richards
2. Roger Daltrey > Mick Jagger
3. John Entwistle > Bill Wyman
4. Keith Moon > Charlie Watts
5. The grand concept albums, one of which was even too grand for The Who themselves, but that they still managed to turn into "Who's next" which eats any selected Stones album for breakfast.
6. "Rock'n Roll circus" that Stones didn't dare to release as The Who blew them away with the "A quick one" performance.
7. The Who's debut consisted almost entirely of self-penned songs, Stones' debut had one original.
8. "Live at Leeds". And for the remaining doubters "Live at Isle of Wight".
9. High-end artrock > sloppy blues rock. Ok, that's an exaggeration but The Who were still much more diverse during much less time.
10. Townshend's nose > just about everything

02-20-2011, 04:07 PM	#309 (permalink)
Dotoar Supernatural anaesthetist Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Örebro, Sweden Posts: 436	10 Reasons why The Who were better than Rolling Stones 1. Pete Townshend > Keith Richards 2. Roger Daltrey > Mick Jagger 3. John Entwistle > Bill Wyman 4. Keith Moon > Charlie Watts 5. The grand concept albums, one of which was even too grand for The Who themselves, but that they still managed to turn into "Who's next" which eats any selected Stones album for breakfast. 6. "Rock'n Roll circus" that Stones didn't dare to release as The Who blew them away with the "A quick one" performance. 7. The Who's debut consisted almost entirely of self-penned songs, Stones' debut had one original. 8. "Live at Leeds". And for the remaining doubters "Live at Isle of Wight". 9. High-end artrock > sloppy blues rock. Ok, that's an exaggeration but The Who were still much more diverse during much less time. 10. Townshend's nose > just about everything __________________ - More is more -