Tell Me :
Talk
the pelvis o' course.
tho carreras gives him a run for the money...
_________________________________
presley's rhythm section, contemporaneous with the stones, beats, who, kinks, etc...should also probably be mentioned here...
ronnie tutt is an incredible drummer, we all know about james on lead guitar...
the bass player was as awesome as entwhistle in many ways, totally there...
i was joking a bit with you bumbum, as i agree it's pretty much apples and oranges about these things...
so many so good so passionate so rockin'...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-12-26 20:45 by Beelyboy.
Happy New Year, Debra!
Not quite. Paul plays drums on the Ballad of John & Yoko because he and Lennon were the only two band members present in the studio when John came up with the song. The other two were otherwise engaged. (I think Ringo was filming at the time)
McCartney played drums on Back In The USSR and Dear Prudence because Ringo had temporarily quit the band. He returned a few days later.
I agree with yout post but, like many other awnsers, that wasn't the question.
The question isn't who is the best band but which band has the best musicians. Put the best musicians together and it is not a garantee you will get the best band. If anything the stones are the classic example of that.
Cheers,
Wuudy
Dude what's with your hair issue? Are you gay? or a wig doctor? Why don't you go fishing for flies with your asshoel
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Which band had the better musicians: The Beatles, The Stones or The Who?
Posted by:
phd
()
Date: December 26, 2008 19:41
On a technical point of view, The Who without any doubt.
Re: Which band had the better musicians: The Beatles, The Stones or The Who?
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: December 26, 2008 20:03
i am a new member but long time fan of the Stones. This question is very subjective. All three bands are very different and offer completely different tyoes of music.
The Beatles are very melodic and yes they did have a lot of help from George Martin. From what they have done since they broke up proves that individually they are not that great. McCartney still has the melody thing going but there is no edge to his music it is almost all pop fluff. Lennon has a few great songs but most sound unfinished and need Paul's touch. George was interesting but hell Ronnie can play better. Ringo is fun but can anyone really take him seriously???
The Who is great. However on the technical side of things Charlie is a better drummer than Keith Moon. Moon could not keep good time. Listen to some of Entwistle's comments about that. However within the context if The Who he was unreal.
The Stones are not virtuoso's but throw them together and it is pure magic and has an earthy quality to it. Technically Keith can not compare to Townshend but find me another guitarist as unique as Keith? There is not one he is a true original.
I don't know as there is a good answer to this
The Beatles are very melodic and yes they did have a lot of help from George Martin. From what they have done since they broke up proves that individually they are not that great. McCartney still has the melody thing going but there is no edge to his music it is almost all pop fluff. Lennon has a few great songs but most sound unfinished and need Paul's touch. George was interesting but hell Ronnie can play better. Ringo is fun but can anyone really take him seriously???
The Who is great. However on the technical side of things Charlie is a better drummer than Keith Moon. Moon could not keep good time. Listen to some of Entwistle's comments about that. However within the context if The Who he was unreal.
The Stones are not virtuoso's but throw them together and it is pure magic and has an earthy quality to it. Technically Keith can not compare to Townshend but find me another guitarist as unique as Keith? There is not one he is a true original.
I don't know as there is a good answer to this
Re: Which band had the better musicians: The Beatles, The Stones or The Who?
Posted by:
Nikolai
()
Date: December 26, 2008 20:08
Vocals - Subjective - Roger could do gruff and sweet at his peak; The Who, I think, did better harmonies than The Beatles
Guitar - Taylor, then Townshend
Bass - Enwistle, Wyman, then McCartney
Drums - Moon, then Watts
Guitar - Taylor, then Townshend
Bass - Enwistle, Wyman, then McCartney
Drums - Moon, then Watts
Re: Which band had the better musicians: The Beatles, The Stones or The Who?
Posted by:
Beelyboy
()
Date: December 26, 2008 20:35
Quote
bumbum
Who is a better painter: Picasso, Monet or Michelangelo?
Who is a better writer: Kant, Dostojevski or Sartre?
Which is better: a jazz drummer or a heavy rock drummer?
Which is better: a jazz bassist or a heavy rock bassist?
Who is a better singer: Presley, Carreras or Paul Robinson?
the pelvis o' course.
tho carreras gives him a run for the money...
_________________________________
presley's rhythm section, contemporaneous with the stones, beats, who, kinks, etc...should also probably be mentioned here...
ronnie tutt is an incredible drummer, we all know about james on lead guitar...
the bass player was as awesome as entwhistle in many ways, totally there...
i was joking a bit with you bumbum, as i agree it's pretty much apples and oranges about these things...
so many so good so passionate so rockin'...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-12-26 20:45 by Beelyboy.
Re: Which band had the better musicians: The Beatles, The Stones or The Who?
Posted by:
Loudei
()
Date: December 26, 2008 20:57
This not a competition. I selected these three bands because they were the top bands of the 60's british invasion. I could also consider the Kinks, or bands like Cream but I don't think they are quite that high up - yes Cream is a supergroup filled with awesome musicians. The only US band from that era that could be considered is The Beach Boys, but again The Who, The Stones and The Beatles are in a different class. Its interesting all the responses to this question and I think that we are all right and maybe there is no real answer. Perhaps the beatles made better music with better songs but, could they really play them live? The Stones and The Who both are proven live acts. I also conclode that being a great musician is not really an edge, or enough to make great music. I think is finding out what you have and make the best of what you have to offer. Pink Floyd wasnt a technical of great musicians, but they made music that took you out of this galaxy.
In Rock music is whats underneath the notes that move you.
In Rock music is whats underneath the notes that move you.
Re: Which band had the better musicians: The Beatles, The Stones or The Who?
Posted by:
doubledoor
()
Date: December 26, 2008 22:18
As far as song writing goes Lennon/Mccartney are unrivaled except possibly by Jagger/Richards. But both were teams helping fill each others weak spots. Townsend also had an excellent group backing him up but seemed to do the Lions share of writing and giving creative vision. When it comes to musical brains and innovation, or the trickier term musical genius, I would put Pete at top of list, Lennon second, and the sporadic genius of Brian Jones third. Too bad Brian never found his songwritng gene, he certainly knew how to inject a lot of Magic into the Jagger/Richards penned songs.
Re: Which band had the better musicians: The Beatles, The Stones or The Who?
Posted by:
6853
()
Date: December 27, 2008 00:54
if you had included cream i would have picked all the cream guys
i am not saing that the are overall the best BAND, but for best instrumental player on guitar base and drums they are tops
i love listening to them today
i am not saing that the are overall the best BAND, but for best instrumental player on guitar base and drums they are tops
i love listening to them today
Re: Which band had the better musicians: The Beatles, The Stones or The Who?
Posted by:
mickschix
()
Date: December 27, 2008 01:23
Hello my man, Gazza!! Happy New Year to you!! Yes, a short time as compared to the Stones career, for sure! They played hundreds of gigs in Germany alone before they were famous, yes, but I was speaking of after they became so big that concerts were a joke. BLUZ, ya know, I KNEW THAT CLAPTON PLAYED THAT LEAD and I forgot!!! LOL!
As far as Ringo is concerned, Gazza, he was adequate, but I won't go further than that! There were many occasions when Paul played the drums because Ringo couldn't do the drum part as Lennon/McCartney wanted it! This I have read in many Beatles bios. I saw Ringo's All Star Review and his son Zak does most of the real drumming. Like I said, he was ok for what he had to do, but not sensational.
As far as Ringo is concerned, Gazza, he was adequate, but I won't go further than that! There were many occasions when Paul played the drums because Ringo couldn't do the drum part as Lennon/McCartney wanted it! This I have read in many Beatles bios. I saw Ringo's All Star Review and his son Zak does most of the real drumming. Like I said, he was ok for what he had to do, but not sensational.
Re: Which band had the better musicians: The Beatles, The Stones or The Who?
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: December 27, 2008 01:42
Quote
mickschix
Hello my man, Gazza!! Happy New Year to you!! Yes, a short time as compared to the Stones career, for sure! They played hundreds of gigs in Germany alone before they were famous, yes, but I was speaking of after they became so big that concerts were a joke. BLUZ, ya know, I KNEW THAT CLAPTON PLAYED THAT LEAD and I forgot!!! LOL!
As far as Ringo is concerned, Gazza, he was adequate, but I won't go further than that! There were many occasions when Paul played the drums because Ringo couldn't do the drum part as Lennon/McCartney wanted it! This I have read in many Beatles bios. I saw Ringo's All Star Review and his son Zak does most of the real drumming. Like I said, he was ok for what he had to do, but not sensational.
Happy New Year, Debra!
Not quite. Paul plays drums on the Ballad of John & Yoko because he and Lennon were the only two band members present in the studio when John came up with the song. The other two were otherwise engaged. (I think Ringo was filming at the time)
McCartney played drums on Back In The USSR and Dear Prudence because Ringo had temporarily quit the band. He returned a few days later.
Re: Which band had the better musicians: The Beatles, The Stones or The Who?
Posted by:
NICOS
()
Date: December 27, 2008 01:51
"Ringo had temporarily quit the band. He returned a few days later"........then they are a reunion band and as I said before I hate reunions 
__________________________
__________________________
Re: Which band had the better musicians: The Beatles, The Stones or The Who?
Posted by:
dreamtime1
()
Date: December 27, 2008 03:20
Stones, so easy.
Next question?????????
Next question?????????
Re: Which band had the better musicians: The Beatles, The Stones or The Who?
Posted by:
magenta
()
Date: December 27, 2008 07:52
The Stones because they swung. Just listen to their early cover versions of the Chess catalog, they swung like Tarzan through the trees. The Beatles never swung and neither did the Who. If ya wanna get the bozos on the dance floor you are going to have to swing. Remember the Stones are/were a band. So they always sounded like a band. Of course Macca is one of the all time great bass players but Billy Wyman had that FEEL. Moon was great but Charlie on "Down The Road Apiece".....Damn. Mick Taylor was the best guitarist the Stones ever had but it was Keef's rhythm that made the Stones move. The Beatles are the greatest POP band ever, the Who had that maximum R and B thing down but the Stones, you could bring them something raw and they would cook it, just ask Keith.
Re: Which band had the better musicians: The Beatles, The Stones or The Who?
Posted by:
Wuudy
()
Date: December 27, 2008 08:17
Quote
magenta
The Stones because they swung. Just listen to their early cover versions of the Chess catalog, they swung like Tarzan through the trees.
I agree with yout post but, like many other awnsers, that wasn't the question.
The question isn't who is the best band but which band has the best musicians. Put the best musicians together and it is not a garantee you will get the best band. If anything the stones are the classic example of that.
Cheers,
Wuudy
Re: Which band had the better musicians: The Beatles, The Stones or The Who?
Posted by:
stoned in washington dc
()
Date: December 27, 2008 08:46
The Who had the best musicians but the Beatles had the best songwriters.
Re: Which band had the better musicians: The Beatles, The Stones or The Who?
Posted by:
Silver Dagger
()
Date: December 27, 2008 09:14
Guitar - Townshend
Bass -McCartney
Drums - Keith Moon
Vocals - Mick Jagger
Bass -McCartney
Drums - Keith Moon
Vocals - Mick Jagger
Re: Which band had the better musicians: The Beatles, The Stones or The Who?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: December 27, 2008 09:40
Quote
bumbum
Who is a better painter: Picasso, Monet or Michelangelo?
Michelangelo, easily - solely his Sekstus Chapel stuff gets more recognition than the works of the other two combined. A constant success for a half millenium. Picasso and Monet are little boys with small tricks compared to the true master.
Who is a better writer: Kant, Dostojevski or Sartre?
Dostojevski, easily - even though as Kant is goddam sharp thinker and philosopher, his stuff is quite horrible in aestheticwise (even though he had his moments in stuff directed to a larger audience, a'ä 'Was Ist Äerklarung´', etc.) Sartre is over-rated both as a philosopher and as a novelist (very one-track-mind in both areas). As a novelist, good ole Fjodor could play circles around both of them (he had his wanna-be-philosopher moments but what a hec - no one is perfect).
Which is better: a jazz drummer or a heavy rock drummer?
A jazz drummer, easily - plays not just better music, but also music that requires much more sense of musicality.
Which is better: a jazz bassist or a heavy rock bassist?
A jazz bassist, easily - the same as above
Who is a better singer: Presley, Carreras or Paul Robinson?
Carreras, easily - those tiny, thin voices of Presley and Robinson are a world apart from the majestic voice of Carreras.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-12-27 09:47 by Doxa.
Re: Which band had the better musicians: The Beatles, The Stones or The Who?
Posted by:
Shott
()
Date: December 27, 2008 20:03
Blondie Chapin is a better guitarist than George Harrison. Ringo Starr is the luckiest human that ever lived. The combined IQ of the Beatles is barely into 3 digits. Stones all the way on this one.
Re: Which band had the better musicians: The Beatles, The Stones or The Who?
Posted by:
doubledoor
()
Date: December 27, 2008 21:10
I think Mick Jagger is the greatest lead singer ever. I think Moon and Watts are on the top 5 list of drummers ever. I think Entwistle is the greatest rock Bass player ever. I would have a hard time finding room for any of the guitar players on a list with the likes of Hendrix Clapton Page..... but Keith is my favorite anyway. As for Ringo, he is definitely behind Moon and Charlie Watts (who I named my dog after) but considering how long and often he has been ripped by critics, I would consider him underrated.
Re: Which band had the better musicians: The Beatles, The Stones or The Who?
Posted by:
Svartmer
()
Date: December 27, 2008 22:44
Well, I don´t think Charlie Watts or Keith Moon could have done a better job than Ringo on Abbey Road.
Re: Which band had the better musicians: The Beatles, The Stones or The Who?
Posted by:
scottkeef
()
Date: December 28, 2008 03:22
In the early days I have to say Keith is light years ahead of George(who really kinda sucked on the Berry numbers although he had Perkins down) but somewhere along the line George really came on so I dont know. By the way thats John on lead during "You Cant Do That"(rockin song)-just watch the old performance footage.
Re: Which band had the better musicians: The Beatles, The Stones or The Who?
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: December 31, 2008 15:43
Ringo is very underated
Re: Which band had the better musicians: The Beatles, The Stones or The Who?
Posted by:
Loudei
()
Date: December 31, 2008 16:28
I think Charlie Watts its also underrated. He is the best drummer of the three regardless Moons drum set. The Stones could not go on without him, and the Who went on without Keith Moon (rest in peace). The Stones are not the same band without Bill Wyman. Chemistry is more important than virtuosity (if it applies) and technique. Townshend did an awesome job with The Who being the only guitarist, I think he is a better rythm player than a lead player like Taylor. Lets point point out that Pete is the complete package - a great live musician and a creative genius, who pretty much wrote everything. Singing wise - depends on the songs. The Beatles had incredible voices on incredible music and G Martin arrangements. Different bands , different musicians, different greatnesses...
Re: Which band had the better musicians: The Beatles, The Stones or The Who?
Posted by:
RadioMarv
()
Date: December 31, 2008 17:04
talent has little to do with rock-n-roll
rock-n-roll is a religion, a spirit and an attitude
some of the best profits in rock-n-roll had little musical ability (IE the Ramones or Neil Young) but still make great rock music.
IMO there are THE ROLLING STONES and then there is everybody else.
rock-n-roll is a religion, a spirit and an attitude
some of the best profits in rock-n-roll had little musical ability (IE the Ramones or Neil Young) but still make great rock music.
IMO there are THE ROLLING STONES and then there is everybody else.
Re: Which band had the better musicians: The Beatles, The Stones or The Who?
Posted by:
mavorick
()
Date: December 31, 2008 17:10
Pete Townsand is the only member of the Who who doesn't have hair implants.
Re: Which band had the better musicians: The Beatles, The Stones or The Who?
Posted by:
Loudei
()
Date: December 31, 2008 17:41
Quote
mavorick
Pete Townsand is the only member of the Who who doesn't have hair implants.
Dude what's with your hair issue? Are you gay? or a wig doctor? Why don't you go fishing for flies with your asshoel
Re: Which band had the better musicians: The Beatles, The Stones or The Who?
Posted by:
Ket
()
Date: December 31, 2008 18:44
without question of the three listed the stones are the best. Best drummer, vocalist and guitarist in my opinion will give the nod to Entwistle for bass.
Re: Which band had the better musicians: The Beatles, The Stones or The Who?
Posted by:
mavorick
()
Date: December 31, 2008 18:49
What, indeed, is an "asshoal"?
Re: Which band had the better musicians: The Beatles, The Stones or The Who?
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: December 31, 2008 20:50
Loudie - I agree that Charlie is underated and technically he is better than Keith Moon. The Who have NOT been the same band without him though. I was watching Amazing Journey and Pete pretty much said that one night he had taken a solo as far as it could go and he was expecting Moon to pick up on it and instead it was Kenny Jones and he was not disrespecting Kenny and Kenny will also tell you that he is not Keith Moon either. You have it correct three different bands, three different styles and three different kinds of greatness.
Re: Which band had the better musicians: The Beatles, The Stones or The Who?
Posted by:
mickschix
()
Date: December 31, 2008 21:59
There are a lot of different stories out there as to WHY Paul played drums on some Beatles tracks; from a drummers perspective ( my boyfriend's not so much mine) Ringo got LUCKY being in that band!! My boyfriend says Ringo STINKS! I can see that on many songs he is basic, at best and there could have been more done with the drum line than Ringo did. Abbey Road is an example, for sure, of some of his best work.
I agree that Mick is by far the BEST vocalist, hands down. I'll agree that Peter is the best guitarist in the bunch, and still I believe that the songwriting championship belongs to Lennon/McCartney. My favorite band, obviously, is the Stones.
These 3 bands are the top of the tops and all other great bands borrowed much from them. I love all 3, and I know how fortunate I am to have lived to experience their music when the music was actually created. The excitement of putting on that new Stones, Beatles, Who album is unsurpassed!
I agree that Mick is by far the BEST vocalist, hands down. I'll agree that Peter is the best guitarist in the bunch, and still I believe that the songwriting championship belongs to Lennon/McCartney. My favorite band, obviously, is the Stones.
These 3 bands are the top of the tops and all other great bands borrowed much from them. I love all 3, and I know how fortunate I am to have lived to experience their music when the music was actually created. The excitement of putting on that new Stones, Beatles, Who album is unsurpassed!
Re: Which band had the better musicians: The Beatles, The Stones or The Who?
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: December 31, 2008 23:47
I think Keith is the best overall guitarist of the bunch!
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
adamw3405 , frankotero , gnillor , hickorywind , michaj , resotele , Rolling Hansie , stefanofontaneto , switchblade1975 , syrel , teleblaster , witterings
Guests:
1402
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10