Music Banter - View Single Post - 10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles
View Single Post
Old 04-28-2012, 12:32 PM   #409 (permalink)
Unknown Soldier
Horribly Creative
 
Unknown Soldier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, The Big Smoke
Posts: 8,265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan View Post
I didn't say that The Who was more popular than The Rolling Stones, it's something I notice about Who fans they pretty much act like they are the only band that exist. I don't mind Robert Daltrey (I recognised that he was a strong singer) but I think others were really over-rated. John Paul Jones and John Bonham had more talented and provided a much better rhythm section than the Who's rhythm section. Paul Weller is a much much better guitar player than Pete Townsend. The Who really tanked with Tommy and didn't do anything impressive afterwards. I just think The Jam produced much better music in the 70s than The Who did e.g. David Watts > Eminence Front.
I think both Who's Next and Quadrophenia are better albums than Tommy. You're comparing John Entwhistle and Keith Moon to John Paul Jones and John Bonham, its really apples and oranges here, as all of these usually make the top-ten best bass players or drummers of all time anyway. Again comparing the Jam and the Who!!! Two different types of music really and not really that comparable. Strangely enough, the Jam song you've picked out is a Kink's cover and as I said earlier, the Kinks were far more influential on the Jam than the Who were.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by eraser.time206 View Post
If you can't deal with the fact that there are 6+ billion people in the world and none of them think exactly the same that's not my problem. Just deal with it yourself or make actual conversation. This isn't a court and I'm not some poet or prophet that needs everything I say to be analytically critiqued.
Metal Wars

Power Metal

Pounding Decibels- A Hard and Heavy History
Unknown Soldier is offline   Reply With Quote