The Rolling Stones or The Who

Elston · Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Posts: 895 My Charts

Haha! Suck on that one jocks. Yeah jocks, more like fucks, yeah, more like fucks.

badfaith · #22 | Posted: 10/02/2009 13:40 | Post subject:

The Who for me.

I think The Rolling Stones longevity has been detrimental to how I see them. Although I love Let it bleed (by virtue of the fact that it doesn't have their most hackneyed songs), the fact they've been peddling these songs for god knows how long over and over in every corner of the cube takes away from their songs' specialness... they captured a moment in time... now a become a stick with which to beat you.

I know the Who have also been going for a bit (until recently of course), but they haven't been so highly visible, and invading my consciousness everytime they launch a new overblown rehashed attempt to relive passed glories mega global dominance even if you get a ticket you'll be so far away from the stage you may as well be at home watching on television travelling museum.

ffudnebbuh · #23 | Posted: 10/04/2009 14:57 | Post subject:

forgot to answer the question, for me, it is the Stones, "Paint it Black' is my fav.. have to listen to a mint copy of the 45 to get real mono sonic crunch.

Eggman/Walrus/Taxman · #24 | Posted: 03/16/2012 10:07 | Post subject:

The Rolling Stones.
_________________
(space blank until I find suitable controversial quote)

Error Finn · #25 | Posted: 03/16/2012 16:01 | Post subject:

The Who - I think, they are more "original". RS has never been a band that leads the way. Compare to other: The Beatles, The Cream, The Animals, The Kinks, The Pretty Things and The Pink Floyd.
_________________
» Woodstock is fuckin’ nothing if you’ve been at the Midnight Sun Film Festival » – D.A. Pennebaker

BlueNote · Joined: 12 Sep 2011 Posts: 301 My Charts

Good question, but I'll take the Stones.

Hermes_requite · #27 | Posted: 03/19/2012 06:13 | Post subject:

It's very hard to chose between two of my favorite bands. But I must go with The Who. Keith Moon and John Entwistle were the best rhythm section of any band that ever took the stage. And The Who just seemed to have more fun being together in a band.

Link

sethmadsen · #28 | Posted: 03/19/2012 07:39 | Post subject:

Personally I like the Stones more. I would like to claim that they were more influential, but I feel like The Beatles made the Stones not as relevant. The Who seems to have hit their high period more in the 70s, escaping the Beatles.

Plus they were some of the first to smash their instruments, which has since become part of Rock and Roll, from Nirvana to Muse.

jhuik · #29 | Posted: 03/21/2012 15:50 | Post subject:

The Who. They took rock seriously and believed it might make the world a better place. The Stones are mainly a get drunk and party band. So if that's your thing....
_________________
Top Canadian songs, beer antiques, beautiful watches, whatever...

Mother Nature's Son · #30 | Posted: 03/21/2012 17:29 | Post subject:

Nothing happens in 2½ year, and then suddenly the thread becomes relevant again.. But hey! This thread IS still relevant..

What my choice would be? Arhh, still need to listen to too many albums with the Who to make MY comment relevant. I'll come back some other day!