Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Entertainment & MusicMusicRock and Pop · 3 months ago

True or false: The Who were a much better band than Rolling Stones?

The Who are more edgy and therefore more interesting and better. Rolling Stones however, are a cookie cutter blues band. Loads of covers. The Who are dirtier, angrier, and more powerful in performance as proven in their live shows on Youtube. 

Update:

No I do know about music, more than you do. Rolling Stones are trend followers. They even at one time jumped on the psychedelic bandwagon in the album "Their Satanic Majesties Request", when other bands already did so. Before that they did ton of covers or were influenced by other bands. 

Update 2:

The Who were original in a lot of their work, they invented or popularized a lot of techniques, style and gimmicks that were copied by other bands to this day. 

7 Answers

Relevance
  • Smiley
    Lv 7
    3 months ago
    Favorite Answer

    True, I prefer The Who also.

    Hahaha...here's a long-winded answer based on my personal experience and opinion.

    As to who's "better", that's suggestive. When I was a kid I guess I liked both bands about equally, but that changed over time. I grew up during the beginning of the whole The Beatles vs The Stones thing, which is still debated to this day. Not bad, considering The Beatles broke up 50 years ago, only functioning as a band for approximately 8 years. The Stones on the other hand have been around for well over half a century.

    During my youth I preferred The Beatles over The Stones, primarily because what they achieved was was groundbreaking. Not only were they one of the first bands to compose their own music, but their major influence and setting of trends within popular culture worldwide is unprecedented. Many not old enough to have lived through those times may never fully understand their impact, despite the internet and many documentaries, etc.

    As you're aware, during the early-mid 1960's, The Stones were primarily a blues cover band. Eventually Jagger & Richards penned their own music, inspired mostly by The Beatles to do so. They even veered off into pop psychedelia territory, again inspired by The Beatles. After a couple psych/pop albums (Between The Buttons and Their Satanic Majesties Request), it was back to blues rock again. They rode that same wave for many years. That said, for me I prefer other blues/rock bands such as Savoy Brown, Ten Years After, John Mayall's Bluesbreakers, Fleetwood Mac, etc far more than The Stones. It's obvious the aforementioned bands have the Rolling Stones and Yardbirds to thank for opening that door.

    Next came my introduction to The Who and The Kinks. Of the two bands, I found The Who to be much more innovative in their approach to writing, and their musical ability was vastly superior to that of The Kinks. The latter again had their roots in the blues, but eventually began experimenting with more progressive/experimental styles, arriving a little late to the game. To me The Kinks shift in style seemed a tad forced, out of character yet predictable. Don't get me wrong, as I loved 'Arthur And The Decline...' and Lola Versus Powerman...'. Just not as much as anything The Who was doing during and prior to this period.

    Today I prefer The Who's more modest back catalogue far more than The Rolling Stones half century library of what I consider mediocre rock music.

    Having seen both bands live a few times (1970's/80's/90's/00's), it was The Who that had the most impact on me. Literally jaw dropping performances, and full of surprises each time.The Stones? Music by numbers and predictable.

    I think both bands had an impact/influence on future artists about equally. Just look at The New York Dolls, Aerosmith, GnR, The Black Crowes, etc. Easy to see The Rolling Stones inspiration there. Same way The Jam, and practically the whole 70's new wave scene can pay homage to The Who.

  • Anonymous
    3 months ago

    Yes. The Who has a Lot of talent.  I dont like the Stones. Especially  After I read Sonny Barger's experience with them.

  • ?
    Lv 5
    3 months ago

    Sure they were an angrier band that reflected youth disillusionment at the time but the Stones morphed with the times and are much better and well rounded.

  • 3 months ago

    To me, a coin toss.  However, I found The Who far more entertaining in live shows.  

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Vela
    Lv 6
    3 months ago

    True.  Each member of the Who contributed their own style which created the Who's sound.  If the Stones got a different drummer or bassist no one would really notice. 

  • ?
    Lv 7
    3 months ago

    Sorry you don't know much about music. Keep listening, it will come.

  • Murzy
    Lv 7
    3 months ago

    False although I like them both.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.