Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Stones v The Who
Posted by: john nicholls ()
Date: June 29, 2007 21:58

Well had a very busy week saw the Who Tuesday and Wednesday night at Wembley Arena then the Stones in Madrid Thursday night. Firstly I had heard reports from friends that had saw the Who and said how good they were, they did'nt let me down they were BRILLIANT!!!! I had never seen the Who before. When I look at Pete Townsends guitar playing it make's me envious that Keith is no longer that good. I'm not here to have a go at Keith I love him and I am just being honest. Daltrey was great too but can't touch Mick for showmanship. The Who had the minimum amount of musicians on stage, including Zak Starkey and Pete's brother on guitar. Right from the start the Who are in your face playing all the well known songs and probably 6 or so from the new album something the Stones have discarded now. Would urge anyone that is thinking of seeing the Who to do so. Back to the Stones in Madrid, Great crowd and Great setlist and as usual Mick worked his socks off. Next stop Dublin for me and hopefully the Who somewhere.

John Nicholls

Re: Stones v The Who
Posted by: sjs12 ()
Date: June 29, 2007 22:01

I thought that Daltry sounded like his voice was going at Rose Bowl in Southampton. However, maybe he just had a cold because he was clutching a mug of something throughout - maybe lemsip!

Re: Stones v The Who
Posted by: Nikolai ()
Date: June 29, 2007 22:58

Yo John,

I saw the who on Tuesday on Wednesday too. Soooooperb! I think Wednesday had the slight edge over Tuesday, but they were outstanding both nights.

Daltrey's never been the Jagger style showman (although Jagger's never lassooed his mic) because he had Pete as a foil. Then Daltrey's never had to carry the band like Jagger does.

Re: Stones v The Who
Posted by: Steven ()
Date: June 29, 2007 23:15

Mick has been carrying the Stones for years, Pete has been carrying the Who for years. Whether Keef or Roger has lost more is not something I want to debate.

Re: Stones v The Who
Posted by: Nikolai ()
Date: June 30, 2007 00:12

Steven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mick has been carrying the Stones for years, Pete
> has been carrying the Who for years. Whether Keef
> or Roger has lost more is not something I want to
> debate.

In a sense you're right about The Who. Pete's written 95% of the songs, but Roger's still the formidable vocalist who brings his creations to life. Together they're still The Who.

Roger's still in great physical shape, but then he quit drugs and drink in the early 70s and hasn't smoked a cigarette since the mid-70s.

Re: Stones v The Who
Posted by: MononoM ()
Date: June 30, 2007 00:37

missed the who twice because off the stones... when the stones were playing in belgium, the who was in holland and the other way round.. hope to see them someday when they pick better tour dates smiling smiley

Life's just a cocktail party on the street

Re: Stones v The Who
Posted by: Edward Twining ()
Date: June 30, 2007 08:59

The Who play with an edge the Stones lost years ago. Of course my heart is with the Stones because i much prefer them when they were at their best but that was a very long time ago.

Re: Stones v The Who
Posted by: Valeswood ()
Date: June 30, 2007 12:10

I went on Wednesday too. The Who are always good live, even on their 'off' nights. They are not the same without Entwistle but Zak Starkey is the second best Keith Moon type drummer after the man himself. Without him their overall sound would be a lot weaker. It was nice that Pete acknowledged the fifth anniversary of The Ox's passing. The best rock bass player ever.


Long Live Rock, Long Live The Who!

Re: Stones v The Who
Posted by: wälder ()
Date: June 30, 2007 13:05

Because of all the posivte echos on this board I went to see the Who in Munich some weeks ago. It was very good, but you really can´t compare the Who with the Stones. This is simple another league.
Wälder

Re: Stones v The Who
Posted by: humanriff77 ()
Date: June 30, 2007 14:35

I dont agree. The Who are not the Who without Keith Moon and John Entwhistle. The Stones are still the Stones, in spite of lineup changes.
The Who now play strongly, but the soul of the band left in 1978 and they never recovered it. However I feel the same would have happened to the Stones if they had lost Keith or Charlie in the 70's or 80's.
The Who for me are the "Pete Townsend Project" since 1978. I would also add that I am a fan of ALL of the Who's music and think the recent album is a fantastic effort and worthy of touring.

Re: Stones v The Who
Posted by: Edward Twining ()
Date: June 30, 2007 14:50

humanriff although i do agree partly with what you're saying i believe there's a fair share of nostalgia mixed with you comments also. It can be argued the Who aren't actually the Who at all with only two members left yet for me based on recent live performances they're light years ahead of the Stones although my heart really belongs to the Stones (when they were in their prime).Daltrey and in particular Townshend still sound razor sharp even if they have backing musicians. They certainly don't carry as many extra musicians as the Stones these days and the title 'Las Vegas Who' isn't quite applicable yet.

Re: Stones v The Who
Posted by: Nikolai ()
Date: June 30, 2007 16:19

humanriff77 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I dont agree. The Who are not the Who without
> Keith Moon and John Entwhistle. The Stones are
> still the Stones, in spite of lineup changes.
> The Who now play strongly, but the soul of the
> band left in 1978 and they never recovered it.
> However I feel the same would have happened to the
> Stones if they had lost Keith or Charlie in the
> 70's or 80's.
> The Who for me are the "Pete Townsend Project"
> since 1978. I would also add that I am a fan of
> ALL of the Who's music and think the recent album
> is a fantastic effort and worthy of touring.


Mr Riff, I'm glad to hear you like Endless Wire - which is actually much better live. You could technically argue that The Who always were Pete's "project".
He wrote and writes the bulk of the songs, he took them down the conceptual route - including a rock opera, a failed interactive "experience" (Lifehouse), another rock opera, a very personal, introspective album (Who by Numbers). To be honest with you, I think The Who became less his project after Moon died. Face Dances and It's Hard - whatever you may think of them - aren't as indelibly stamped with Pete's persona as the predecessors were - probably because he was also recording (superior) solo albums at the time. I saw The Who with Kenny Jones between 1980-81. I prefer the current band, even without Entwistle.

And, like The Who, The Stones lost two original members. Well, three counting Stu. If it's Jagger and Richards, it's still The Stones. If it's Townshend and Daltrey, it's still The Who. The point is moot and academic.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-30 16:19 by Nikolai.

Re: Stones v The Who
Posted by: timbernardis ()
Date: June 30, 2007 16:43

I saw the Who at Wembley Arena at a special stop I made in London on my way back to the States just for this reason.

I think that overall, this was a better show than any of the six I have seen the Stones do in Europe in June, possibly Paris and Lyon are close or equal.

I dont know if it was consistently great, but especially the last 45 minutes or hour were fantastic, powerful in only the way that the Who can be. They have always moved me in a way (a different sort of way) the Stones have never done and will never do. Or anyone else.

I have never known how to characterize what they do. For lack of a better phrase, and this may sound stereotypical, but something akin to the positive power of the human spirit for change and improvement in one's own condition and the condition of humankind.

The Stones don't do that, they are mostly only into rebellion without solutions and having a good time. The Who do all that but transcend it. I think they are at an intellectually and spiritually different, and I think deeper, level, than the Stones.

The greatest single concert I have ever seen was the Who at Winterland in San Francisco in March of 76. Wow. And on Wednesday, I experienced deja vu, or at least some shades, of that.

They were better than when I saw them on March 1 in San Diego. The sound was better than San Diego and better than any of the Stones shows. Hopefully it will be the same when the Stones play indoors at the o2 in August.

Townshend is very intense, hard playing, fairly physically animated. My description does not do him justice. He brings the band to another level.

Daltrey seems to have solved his hoarse voice problems he had in March. His voice is still different (deeper, maybe not as effective) than in the 70s.

Zak plays so damn hard and is the only one who can really succeed, but never replace, Keith. I am even beginning to accept and like Paladino, though it was very sad when Townshend, at the end of the show, said someone told him that that night was 5 years since Ox passed.

The graphics show was quite different from the one in March. I dont think there were nearly as many old shots of the Who past included.

Wont Get Fooled Again and the Tommy set were the greatest moments of the night. And this was their fourth show in four days.

I feel I am not doing a good job in making comments that convey the show and what they did. Maybe i can revise this post later. Best to stop for now.

I should say as a final note that the Stones are still my favourite, and the Who my second favorite, band.

But at least I have now seen my two favourite bands in their common home town of London and not many Americans can say that. I am blessed.


The Plexiglass

Re: Stones v The Who
Posted by: JJHMick ()
Date: June 30, 2007 20:17

No matter what (y)our/my preference is: This thread should be called Stones AND the Who. They have one thing in common: They should return to a 2-3 year mode of releasing new material...

Re: Stones v The Who
Posted by: Happy Jack ()
Date: June 30, 2007 20:52

Arent the Stones and Who the two oldest surviving groups? (I dont count the 'Beach Boys, as they dont have anything remotely close to the original line up, or some of these other "nostalgic" acts Temps, Four Tops, etc). I think what is amazing is after 45 years both groups still draw a very diverse and large crowd. I dont know of any other groups from that era that can still do that (again I discount Macca, because he is a solo artist).

Re: Stones v The Who
Posted by: JJHMick ()
Date: June 30, 2007 22:27

My dear Happy Jack, you are totally right! But: With a name like that you still have to deliver, say, half a dozen records with new material. I'd love to buy those SCOOPS!!!

Re: Stones v The Who
Posted by: Nikolai ()
Date: June 30, 2007 22:48

JJHMick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No matter what (y)our/my preference is: This
> thread should be called Stones AND the Who. They
> have one thing in common: They should return to a
> 2-3 year mode of releasing new material...


The Who will be making at least one more album. Pete said - on stage in London - that "this is the future", meaning that they're going to carry on, plus he hinted to Dave Marsh that there would be a little more, album-wise from the band.

Not sure about The Stones releasing another album though. I think A Bigger Bang is their last studio album.

Re: Stones v The Who
Posted by: chandler ()
Date: July 1, 2007 14:37

Watching at the Stones and the Who we see of course not only the present Band, we all combine many years of common history with these guys. Watching at Keith/Mick and Pete/Roger we think of Exile and Who´s Next, Monterey and Hyde Park, Brian Jones and Keith Monn, splits and reunions, and many, many hours of listening their music and watching them on stage. Both bands have a great part of the post-war western culture.

I saw the Stones last year in Cologne, and although the Gig was not fantastic (Ronny hit really only every second note), I was glad to see these heroes of rock music one more time.

The Who I saw last week in Oberhausen and they hit me out of the socks. Such a fantastic show let you forget about the missing members.

Both bands are important for generations all over the world, so you could really not say Stones v Who. I´m german and have to say: thank you England for giving us these music.

Re: Stones v The Who
Posted by: timbernardis ()
Date: July 1, 2007 18:08

chandler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Watching at the Stones and the Who we see of
> course not only the present Band, we all combine
> many years of common history with these guys.
> Watching at Keith/Mick and Pete/Roger we think of
> Exile and Who´s Next, Monterey and Hyde Park,
> Brian Jones and Keith Monn, splits and reunions,
> and many, many hours of listening their music and
> watching them on stage. Both bands have a great
> part of the post-war western culture.
>
> I saw the Stones last year in Cologne, and
> although the Gig was not fantastic (Ronny hit
> really only every second note), I was glad to see
> these heroes of rock music one more time.
>
> The Who I saw last week in Oberhausen and they hit
> me out of the socks. Such a fantastic show let you
> forget about the missing members.
>
> Both bands are important for generations all over
> the world, so you could really not say Stones v
> Who. I´m german and have to say: thank you
> England for giving us these music.

Chandler

I was very moved and nearly brought to tears by your poignant post. Your descriptions of the bands, albums, and venues really hit me close to my heart. I share these experiences both directly (live) and through recordings.

And yes, it should be the Stones AND the Who.

And I have always thought the greatest rock n roll bands in the world were (and still are) British. Here here to olde England.

Thanks for your post.

Plexiglass



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 3028
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 9627 on January 2, 2024 23:10

Previous page Next page First page IORR home