Yeah, and aside from that Who's Next is quite arty in its ways. Post 75 The Who were mediocre and the band really should have stopped when Moon died.

I like the 60's Who the best.

I have Then And Now which pretty much covers all of their best stuff.

That's not selling out. That's losing creative energy. "Selling out" is appearing in JCPenny ads, it's collaborating with boy bands, its doing all the bull**** that is so prevalent in the music industry today. That's one thing I always thought was unnecessary about Led Zeppelin: they went to extremes to avoid being called sellouts (not selling singles, not licensing their songs for ****, etc). Jack Black actually had to beg to get Immigrant Song on School of Rock. But that's how they wanted it.

The Who certainly don't deserve being called sellouts, no matter how many poor albums they produced.

The only album I never really liked was 'It's Hard' after 1975. 'Who Are You' gets way too much criticism and 'Face Dances' and 'The Who By Numbers' are alright. The albums aren't god awful.

I'll admit to a certain soft spot for Face Dances. You Better You Bet, Don't Let Go The Coat, and Another Tricky Day are all great pop songs, and Entwistle's two songs are neat little rockers.

But I won't argue with anyone who says that Did You Steal My Money? is the worst Who song.

I will admit that I am kind of a Zep addict...they are, in my opinion, the best band ever assembled.

It's interesting to have the discussion...for those of us who know what the original lineup for Zep was supposed to be. lmao!

Anyway...without ANY bias...Zep has had more influence on future artists, was better musically, had better mainstream appeal, experimented more...they were just a better band. A better discussion is: Who is better, the Beatles or Led Zeppelin?

I STILL go with Zep...by a hair.

Ha, you really think Led experimented more? The Who are far, far more innovative. What does better musically mean? The riffs, the songwriting, what?

I agree in essence with Proggy (did I actually say that?) though I wouldn't understate Zep's own innovation.

We don't really get into arguments, do we? But yeh, I think saying Led is more experimental is pretty blind fanboism.

I think Led Zeppelin was more like a band whose music looked back on times rather than forward. But they integrated new concepts, new musical elements into the familiar blues. So, in that sense, Led Zeppelin was a very innovative band. They didn't experiment too much, but brought unfamiliar elements into mainstream rock. Folk compositions of the band like Bron-Yr-Aur Stomp really show their widespread talents off. And then, I mean, c'mon, how many rock n' roll acts covered Memphis Minnie? And how many of them did it so well?