In all fairness, if compare we must, we have to compare the collective efforts, or else...

I don't see the problem with it, the song or the video. >.>

Besides, two saggy old men in tacky clothes that are dancing like wannabe mack-daddies while rubbing butts is totally badass. <.<

Well, you've gotta be badass to get away with that, I'll give you that.

the cover is crap, the dancing is crap

but at least it's for a good cause (Live Aid) and the two looked like they were having fun

Keith Richards will always be cooler than Pete Townshend - that's an unarguable scientific fact. Plus Keith Richards was more knowledgeable on actually playing blues guitar than Pete.

Charlie Watts is a much more talented hands down, he's a much more versatile drummer than Loony Moony ever was.

Nothing wrong paying homage to Blues and R&B artist that were influences - the Stone paved the way for Blues-Rock of the 60's and 70's.

The Rolling Stones is a better band overall than The Who. The Beatles had popularity The Rolling Stones had talent and The Who were loud - loud doesn't mean talented.


yes if we have to compare :crazy:

The Who>The Stones>The Beatles

Yeah I was bored. Shoot me.


Spoon faced opera buff in a boiler suit or a chain smoking pirate.
Hmmm tough choice
Really? C'mon Jagger has more charisma in his little finger than Daltry has in his whole body.

Bass players, Who cares

English eccentric vs English gent.
I'll split this one
Who's Next is crap, It only has something like 3 good songs on it.
The only good 'concept' The Who ever came up with was The Who Sell Out and I don't think that album even comes close to the stuff the Stones were doing around that time.
The way they played at that gig is thought to be one of the main reasons they decided to get rid of Brian Jones, so you can't really blame them for not wanting to release it regardless of how anyone else played. The Who were notorious for having sloppy gigs in the late 70s when Moon was totally out of it.
The concept of an album in the early 60s was just a collection of singles with a few covers to make up the numbers. It wasn't until the mid 60s that an album became an entity in it's own right.

And would this be the same Who debut album that had a Bo Diddley song & 2 James Brown covers on it?

Live At Leeds :laughing:
Is this the same Live At Leeds album with, count them 2 whole songs written by The Who on it.
Give me Get Your YaYa's Out over Live At Leeds anyday.
Oh and...
Altamont >>>> Isle Of Wight

Were they?
What about Soul, Country, Gospel, Psychedelia, Funk, Disco, even Reggae all done by the Stones while The Who were still around.
Personally I think The Who are pretty one dimensional in that regard they might dress it up as 'high end artrock' or 'rock operas' but it's was still the same basic stuff they were churning out. With The Who you had the mod pop of the mid 60s and the stadium rock of the 70s and not a lot else really.

You wouldn't want one though

Anyone can pull off a chain smoking pirate but to fill a white boiler suit you really have to be Townshend.

Jagger is a buffoon, and charisma won't save him when they unleash their respective vocal cords anyway.

Who cared, that's why they won this one.

Originality vs. timekeeping, a matter of taste I guess. I'd quote Carl Palmer on this one though: "If you want timekeeping, go buy a metronome".

"The Who sell out", already surpassing Stones (and most other bands) in contemporary pop-art, was only the beginning but I'm aware that concept albums in general don't go down well with certain people so I'll let that one pass. The notion of "Who's next" however, is too irrational for me to even be able to process mentally. It's a masterpiece, hands down.

I read somewhere that Stones had been awake for like two days in a row or something, which affected their enthusiasm and thus their performance. All in all, post-Moon Who is not really worth mentioning in this discussion (which goes for post-1980 Stones as well).

And even then the Jagger/Richards originals still weren't up to Who's standards.

I said almost entirely.

Four covers on the reissue, three of which were superior to any other version ("Summertime blues", "Young man blues", "Shakin' all over"), and the rest Who originals, all of which kick any competition off the stage and into the drain. Get yer yaya's outta here!

And Isle of Wight >>>> any other festival in history. I mean: Who, Jethro Tull, ELP, Hendrix, Doors, Procol Harum, Moody Blues, only to mention the cream of the crop.

Psychedelia, okay they pulled it of decently ("Satanic majesties" is their most underrated work ever). The rest, who cares when it all sounds more or less the same, at least in the hands of Stones. The Who on the other hand evolved constantly all the way through until well past Moon's death (even if the synth pop on the last two albums is not very worthy) and they are probably the only band in history that made stadium rock perfectly adequate and sincere, not least since they more or less originated the otherwise abominable genre. I seriously can't think of any other band, other than Beatles, as diverse as Who.

That was probably the most valid counterpoint.

No he isn't; no it isn't.

That's as may be, but who cares about blues.

Talented in that he stuck to what he did best - pure timekeeping - yes, but who needs timekeeping when you can get the rolls from "I can see for miles" or "Bargain"?

Yeah yeah, blues blah blah blah authencity heritage whateverage. I don't want blues, I want originality!

I don't deny the Stones their talent, but Beatles and Who simply had more vision and progressivity in their respective talent.

:whythis: That's first of all from the movie, second of all performed by Elton John, third of all a Who original, fourth of all not a solo performance. :crazy: indeed.

The Who are shite. The Stones pwn them and The Beatles right in the face.