Let's face it, The Who is the greatest, most influential rock & roll outfit of all times.
 

hello again and welcome to the 3rd installment of my controversial and exciting *Let's face it* thread series on rock&roll


from each individual musician in the band to record sales and especially such things as power chords and marshall stacks, The Who gave it all to rock & roll.

I like the who better when they were mod's

Couldn't agree more.

Here's how I generally break it down: There's The Beatles, then there's "everybody else". And for "everybody else" The Who is my favorite band of all time.

Influential tho? Hmmm.....no one sounds like The Who, no one plays like Townshend or sings like Daltry or plays bass like Entwhistle. And the drums? No one (except maybe John Bonham of Zeppelin) can compare to Keith Moon.

LONG LIVE ROCK!!!

One word: Quadrophenia.

Direct answer, Beatles.

I was about to weigh in but no need to. The above says it perfectly.

The Beatles were a pop band that lasted 4 years. The Who were a rock & roll band that lasted generations. I'd agree the Beatles were/are more POPular.


But The Who's influences in rock are well-documented. everyone from Pink Floyd and Jimmy Hendrix to the Sex Pistols cite The WHo as an influence.

Actually I hate The Who. The only song I liked was "Eminence Front" - everything else to me was boring, boring, boring.

If you want influential, look for The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Led Zeplin (who I guess are now more thought of as thieves lately, but they still had influence I guess). And of course, every blues band and musician that ever was.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

this is why people rightfully say you're a fanboi. discounting The Who's contributions to R&R because you hate them. come on now. this isn't an iphone.

100% agree... the Beatles were in their own category. The Who were the first real out-and-out rock band... and the best.

Hard to say, but you do make a valid point. I've been to the who twice and they're on my list of favorite shows. I've been to a couple rolling stones shows too. I can't say one was better than the other because they both rock. Add a handful of dead shows, Pink Floyd and Robert Plant shows. It's hard to put one group at the top.

this is a better way to put it. The Beatles were their own category. What they've contributed to humanity is significant and greater than The WHo in that regard.

But when it comes strictly Rock & Roll, their contribution was pretty much Sgt Peppers, I don't mean that as a slight, but when it comes to pure rock&roll- the volume, the smashing guitars, the killer chords, the rock opera, synthezisers and more, a lot more is all The Who.

it's nutty to think they both started in 1964. although john and paul were long time pals before that.

Hardly surpassable ...

and Led Zeppelin :)

well played! :thumbsup

The Beatles (or a version of them) were playing in Hamburg as early as 1960. They were touring Britain extensively in 1962, and hit it big in the UK in 1963.

Who are you kidding " The Who" were just an average band, like Jerry and the Pacemakers.

The Beatles, like them or not produced album after album of ground breaking music.

Led Zeppelin was a fantastic band that changed rock music, albums 1 and 2 are still ground breaking, and sound fresh today.

Is there one good who song?

same could be said for The Who/The Detours. I didn't mean to suggest The Beatles and The Who instantly each came together in 1964.

the amount of rock&roll being created in this very instant is immeasurable and significant.

http://i.imgur.com/CihzuyZ.jpg

Ummm....ok, here's the reality:

The Beatles "lasted" 7 years (1963-1970) in terms of recorded output. They formed in 1956 (tho the Ringo-era lineup wasn't settled until '62). In terms of influence (pop, rock, metal, country, gospel, folk, EVERYthing) no band in the history of mankind can rival The Beatles. They simply did (mostly) everything first, including Pete Townshend's infamous feedback.

This is why it's the Beatles and everyone else.

The Who "lasted" from 1964-1978 with Keith Moon (the only lineup that matters) but officially broke up in 1982. They DID "last" longer than The Beatles but only recorded 10 studio albums vs. The Beatles 13 (in half the time).

Pete Townshend wasn't known for feedback.

Those stats you post are valid stats and you can't disagree with them. Unfortunately, Rock&Roll can't really be measured in stats. Those stats don't really convince me that The Beatles were more influential on Rock& Roll as a thing, than The Who.

I don't think the The Beatles were all that. I think they were a lot of hype and in the right place at the right time - then had the right marketing.

I have a fourteen year old daughter and I see how crazy they get. I mean, she has a bad day because her favorite singer got a haircut she doesn't like.

If you look at their early history, the Beatles were more "edgy" and hardcore, especially in their German days. They were punk rockers and into all kinds of drugs. They gained a small following there,in the UK... But they had to clean their image up to take it the next level.

What made them big was hype and marketing.

so The Who started it all. Period

Nope. They sucked.

You could argue that the iPhone had a greater influence than the Who did. Sure they sold millions of albums, but Apple changed how music was bought, giving a lot more power to the consumer.

So there. Throw out your crappy TheWho Albums, and go buy an iPod.

:)

This was never a Beatles v The Who argument.

I dont think anyone would ever claim that The Beatles were a R and R band.

The OP simply suggested that The Who were THE most influential Rock and Roll group ever.

Nothing written in this thread has convinced me otherwise, and mention of The Beatles misses the point.

Now if you were to make an argument for The Stones, then you might have a point worth listening to.

As a left field point, I actually feel a great deal of jingoistic pride in that every single act mentioned above hails from Blighty.

God save the Queen.

Beatles
The Who
Black Sabbath
Van Halen
Led Zepplin

These are all groups that have defined what music today is. Without it, we'd still be listening to 1950's heh.

Jeez Van Halen ?

So they make the list but you leave out The Stones, Bowie, Queen, Cream, Hendrix, The Doors.

Should I go on ?

:Oh crap

:thumbsup

Meet the new Boss.

just to clarify my comment earlier, Pete used feedback as a part of his noise as music repetoire, but it came later and I'm pretty sure not from The Beatles. and that repetoire I don't think, could be defined by feedback.

:)

Can I just say how much I LOVE dyna mo's passion for music?
His threads literally rock.

:thumbsup:thumbsup

Keith Moon was the best drummer that ever lived, when he died The Who were just a shell of themselves after that. Same with Metallica after Cliff Burton died.

the iphone isn't buying single songs. That itunes, totally different.


And sure anyone could argue that itunes had a greater impact on music in its entirety than The Who, but as far as Rock&Roll goes, no way.

hey, right back atcha man, I always look forward to your comments too btw. no shit. no one's wrong here, it's fun to create some chitty chat about music. people are very particular about their music, like their politics and religion. :upsidedow

I add Neil Peart to that list - I've always liked each of them equally over the years.

I hate to admit this, but I remember when the Beatles hit in the UK. I was a young kid, but a huge music fan, and had nagged my parents into buying me a piano when I was 5. In my memory, there was before the Beatles and after the Beatles, and after nothing was ever the same. Their music was so fresh and energetic and original that it took the country by storm, and Beatlemania was bewildering because the phenomenon erupted seemingly out of nowhere. Hype and marketing alone didn't make them big--they were the real thing, hence many people in this thread agreeing that they were in a category of their own.

BTW, the Stones (and Zeppelin) were both, at heart, blues bands. To me the Stones play American music while The Who sound more English because they play a non-blues based rock (and I think were the first to do so). Zeppelin is kind of an amalgamation of the Stones and The Who, IMHO.

I wish the who never played the Super Bowl. They were so off and it takes something away from their legacy.

As for influential, I'd stack The Clash up against anyone. Listen to music today and you'll hear more Clash than Beatles or Who in it... Which is a bigger deal than in the past since so much is derivative these days and creativity is being pushed out of the spotlight.

And on the business side, nobody comes close to KISS. Their music was nothing compare to the other bands mentioned, but in a competition, if I had a choice between having Gene Simmons sell dog turd or anyone else sell anything else, I'd take Gene Simmons pretty much every time. That guy could market breast implants to nuns if you gave him a few minutes alone with them.

While he was more a blues man than a rock n roll singer, I would argue that few have cast such a shadow of influence over the rock world than Robert Johnson.

His music is electrifying... I read about him last night, so have been listening to him today, and there really is something supernatural about him and his music.

Of Course.

Not even worth reading the rest of the Thread!
(Don't Start! LOL)

pretty sure tommy iome influenced way more guitar players than good ole' pete :2 cents: