Hi everybody, i read this forum since year 2002 but i never wrote, but now i think that the time has come. I hade the chance to go in few days at the opening date of the stones in milano and at the who concert in montecarlo 2 nights ago, and i have to admit that the who are actually a lot better then the stones. I mean, the stones are my favourite band since 1980, i grew up with them and i still love them, but after i saw them last week in milano i have to say that i am a little confused. i have the ticket for berlin next friday, i don't know what to expect but i am a little worried. i have always been a big fan of keith, but I think that the milano concert has been the gig of mick jagger and the rolling stones. we must be honest and not to have a "religious" point of view regarding the band and be able to say not popular things (i am not the only one, I see there are many opinions like mine in these threads) , but if keith and ronnie won't get better during the next dates I don't believe there will be another tour. regarding the who.....a great, great gig. they played 100 minutes and they have been wild, tough. what a band! I saw them 4 years ago already and they are still very, very good. I hope that the next stones concerts will change my mind, but this is the reality to me now.

In a way, I have to agree with this...the last few times I saw Pete Townsend, it was like he has been taking Jimi Hendrix vitamins...his playing is better now than ever, I think he is the best of the dinosaurs around, including Eric Clapton, Keith, Ronnie, whoever...Rock on Pete!

JR

Ditto

The were better at the Rock and Roll Circus, Concert for NY, and today. It would be a mistake for them to play together because it would be more humiliating that getting shown up by AC/DC.

Mick and Pete carry their bands on their back.

See the thing is, andrea66, you'll get some people who will automatically say things like; "then don't listen to them", or "go post on another board". But, I feel your point is valid. As great as the Stones are, they should also be aloud to recieve criticism. We should also all be able to admit that they certainly not are in their prime. And that's not a knock either, because they are still a great band. I mean, maybe they really just aren't playing as well as they should be. Maybe it's because they are no longer capable. It could be a number of things. But this isn't the first comment saying they aren't up to snuff lately.

Follow the band, but not blindly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-07-18 05:01 by deuce.

i must agree and disagree deuce.as i have said before in several posts ,i saw 5 shows this tour.the first was the garden in nyc,in september 05,they totally dominated and played better than i have ever seen them.(and thats 30+shows since 78)the giant stadium show 2 days later was also great.in october they were a mess,opening night in phillie,it was sloppy many times,though there were some great songs and moments,but deffinetly not up to par.msg in january 06,opening night also had some sub par performances,but march 06,in ft lauderdale they were on fire.i have seen the who 3 times in last 6 years,once in 1975,and yes townsend is the best guitar player,was then,is now hands down.i do agree the who is a more cosistent band ,i do agree.but when the stones are on,no one is better.

john scialfa

Well, I saw THE WHO in 1997 when they performed Qudrophenia. I must say it was simpla fantastic. But right now, without their J.E. on bass it isn't the same Band like in those days.
The Who are in my oppinion just a band of mixed musicians which perform some Who classics (but quiet good).
So I think you can't compare this two bands with ech other.


Keep on rollin'

Gangster

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-07 21:23 by Beelyboy.

yes, they are our favourite band in the world and because of that we must be able to do our critics when we honestly think they deserve them.
but of course, i will be there friday in berlin to enjoy another time of the band, hoping in a better gig than milan. and if it won't happen, i will be happy to see again mick carrying everything on his shoulders and thankful for all the great moments they gave me in my life.

No one plays better than Pete, but no one has written songs better than Mick and Keith. Even a half assed version of JJF is something to behold live, even if you have seen it 100 times. The frustration results from seeing something great you know could be even better.

Even in the day, The Who were about Pete much the same way The Stones are about Mick.

Andrea and Steven, I fully agree with both of you. It would be a dull place here,
if we'd "worship" all day long: We're not dumb and we know what we like (and and also why and when). Reading the recent posts I'm really pissed that I just missed a Who gig. Talking about strengths I think no band has ever archieved a better combination of brain and belly.

At least in München the Stones' playing was very tight. The only defect is Ronnie's incapability to play the way he used to do 30 years ago as well as Keith's accident. Guitars are not at the same level as the rest of the band.

Having seen The Who many times since 75 I caught them in Liverpool two weeks ago.

My first show without John Entwistle. I`d heard varying reprts re Pino Palladino on bass and how it affected The Who sound.

At the risk of upsetting some folk I found his playing and sound was excellent. Latterly Entwistle was fond of using lots of effects on his bass resulting in a strange sound. With Pino the sound was a more oldfashioned full bass sound.

Both Liverpool gigs were excellent with an emphasis on Bass, Guitar and Drums in the mix. According to reports there is a new team doing the main mix and it certainly shows.

Even without KM and JAE the band still sounds like The Who!!!!!!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-07-18 14:15 by GuessWho.

GuessWho Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even without KM and JAE the band still sounds like
> The Who!!!!!!!


They better still sound like The Who, if people insist on still calling them "The Who." It's taking people longer to get over Mick Taylor than those 2.

well mayby the who have gotten better lately but when I saw them in 89 they were awful!! complete crap

In 89 The Who were augmented by loads of extra musicians and as a result didn`t sound like The Who.

Now it`s a more basic setup...the basic four piece (RD, PT, Zak Starkey and Pino Palladino) with keyboards (Rabbit) and Simon Townshend on second guitar ( usually inaudible!) and high backup vocals (covering what Entwistle sang)

Believe me The Who rock! etter than 89, better than 2000..... townshends on fire!

Tomppa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At least in München the Stones' playing was very
> tight. The only defect is Ronnie's incapability to
> play the way he used to do 30 years ago as well as
> Keith's accident. Guitars are not at the same
> level as the rest of the band.

Those are some PRETTY LARGE DEFECTS! Everthing's great with the Stones except the guitar players are inept. That's like the ol' riddle - "what do a plum and elephant have in common? - they're both purple except for the elephant."

Funny thing - The Who played much better than The Stones in R&R Circus and they play - I believe you guys - better than them now, but I still find The Stones much more exciting - in R&R Circus and now. I remember watching The Who Farewell Tour gig from a tele in early eighties, and it was a boring experience. I think I have never got over of that, and give them another chance... I know, The Who is great and important band, but I just don't find them very interesting, not even in their hey-day. Perhaps it's because of their non-charismatic and boring vocalist, Roger Daltrey. Don't know for sure, though. my fault. I guess. Pete's great, for sure.

- Doxa

Keith Moon and Townshend lack carisma mind though eh?????

Tomppa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At least in München the Stones' playing was very
> tight. The only defect is Ronnie's incapability to
> play the way he used to do 30 years ago as well as
> Keith's accident. Guitars are not at the same
> level as the rest of the band.


LIES! dripping off your mouth like dirt!!

I saw the Who in Yokohama in 2004 at the last show in which Pete smashed a guitar. They were fantastic, even though many in the crowd were really waiting for Aerosmith. That said, I would rather see the Stones on a bad night than any other band in the world. Why compare the two? You can have both -- be thankful for that.

Ron Wood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tomppa Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> At least in München the Stones' playing was > very
> tight. The only defect is Ronnie's incapability
> to play the way he used to do 30 years ago as well
> as Keith's accident. Guitars are not at the same
> level as the rest of the band.
>
>
> LIES! dripping off your mouth like dirt!!

What is left from the Stones if the guitars are gone?
I was in Munich. It is still good but the guitars (keith mainly) are indeed deteriorating.

I'd like both and on the same night!

I love both bands, although of the two I prefer the Stones. However, I must agree that Townshend's guitar playing runs rings around Keith and Ronnie's in 2006.

Maybe it's just me, but I think that Keith will return. It takes time to get your chops back when you have been idle for a long time.

ablett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Keith Moon and Townshend lack carisma mind though
> eh?????



Keith Moon is dead. And I agree with Doxa about Daltrey-- he really fades into the background, even though he is a great vocalist, and was always a lot better than, oh say, Screacher Plant.

drbryant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe it's just me, but I think that Keith will
> return. It takes time to get your chops back when
> you have been idle for a long time.

I agree - it's just you

The Who only played for 100 Minutes?

The two Who gigs I saw recently lasted about 110 min each.