Both were almost parallel in the 60's 70's and even a bit in 80's.But now who will u say better Keith or Townshend.I would go for latter

Well, this is a Rolling Stones forum, what answer do you expect?

a non biased answer

there is no contest between the two, and it has never been.

If the original question is referring to posing I think I'd go for Keith any day of the week.

K.

Townsend probably has the edge over Keith.

Difference is. I don't care about Townsend or The Who.

Well out of 19 songs Keith will be awful bad for 5/6 songs. Can any one you tell me why? Why I'm concerned of Keith ? Because I love him.And I now like hard rock too as well as STONES

Quote
kinoliksmith
But now who will u say better Keith or Townshend.

Do you mean better:

- as a person?
- as a movie star?
- as a songwriter?
- as a guitar player?
- lover?
- as a producer?
- at tennis?
- at cooking?

Hello,

Apples or oranges?

Cheers,

Si.

Nothing beats the original...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-09-16 10:42 by DandelionPowderman.

Pete Townshend is a big Keith fan. What do you think?

ask the same question on a who forum and the answer will be townshend

A fan of both bands.

Seen both guys live recently and also on many recent live DVDs.

PT has the upper hand on recent live work because he has no option but to give it 100% every gig.

The way the Stones are now there are so many musicians on/off stage that KR and RW(to a greater extent) can take more of a laid back attitude to playing.

If PT doesn't cut it live then the whole band would suffer.

good points, and to be honest with you i would say townshend easily is and was the more talented player overall

<KR and RW(to a greater extent)>

IMO, the other way around on the ABB-tour.

This is an easy question. I'm a really Keith fan but you must be objetive and realist that Pete is in better shape than Keith about playing. Peter has not choise, he is the guitarist of the band and the writer too. Keith can be help by Ronnie and Mick. You can't compare Keith and Pete actually. Keith alwyas told he is lazy but now he is in the incapacity to play correctly a whole song. He paid his way of life but DON'T FORGET ALL THE WORK HE MADE BY THE PAST.

Now these days, I have to say Pete.
Both Who and Stones toured US fall 2006, and Europe summer 2007, and I did attend several shows of both bands. I have to say I prefer a Stones concert, as a band they deliver a show and a performance like no other can.
The Who did deliver some amazing shows, despite the absence of Keith Moon and John Entwistle, and that is thanks to one man: Pete Townshend. He was in an incredible shape, playing as aggressive and sharpe as ever. He has not lost any of his skills, in fact I think he is a better guitarplayer now than ever before.
For the moment I think he might be one of the very best guitarplayers in the world.

I never know how to answers these questions without getting into what it means to be a better guitar player.

Pete's still a fine guitar player, but the music he makes with his guitar hasn't done anything for me in decades.

I prefer Keith.

Keith has better hair.

Bald people shouldn't play rock. It's just not right.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-09-16 00:45 by Sleepy City.

Quote
Sleepy City
Keith has better hair.

Bald people shouldn't play rock. It's just not right.

Have you seen Keith without the headband lately, he's not far behind. Funny how the headband gets wider every tour too. Maybe someone good with photoshop could remove the band and the other things he ties to his hair to make it appear fuller and give us a rendering of what he would look like with a short haircut. You may be surprised.

he would be bald thats what he would look like, because he is bald

Ah, my two favorite guitarists, the men who share more credit/blame than anyone for my picking up the instrument.

All told, I give the nod to Pete. He's better technically, he's got more stage presence, and no man ever rocked harder on an acoustic. I'd even go so far as to argue that Pete's the greatest stage performer I've ever seen.

As for the contention that bald people shouldn't play rock, that's just daft. It's all about heart and attitude. No amount of hair will save you if you ain't got those two.

thats why keith should not cover his bald spots, what a lucky man mick is to have that head of hair, woody to for that matter



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-09-16 03:35 by melillo.

Of course Pete is a much better guitarist!!

But Keith is Keith! There you go . .

Pete is great. His energy is carrying the Who- Rogers voice has lost a lot of power. But, saw them twice during the last tour and
Pete was amazing!

Keith is a rock and roll god! The music he has written and plays is my favorite- period. When he hits the first cords/notes of a song- I'm THERE.

IMO, both are known for focusing on the most important part of music; the feel and groove.

But Pete is obviously very inspired of Keith's style, and has knicked a few moves and licks, too. It comes down to songwriting, imo. And that's where Keith is superiour imo.

Keith is a rock and roll god.I should say WAS.But post accident he became one of the worst players in the world

<But post accident he became one of the worst players in the world>

Just because he noodles on 5-6 of 19 songs? The rest still rocks.

Keith's always noodled like that. Thing is, his recent noodling is more to his taste than anybody else's !..and it's been focussed on as a function of his arthritis and all the other real or perceived health issues...which I don't believe it is to any large degree.
He's a lazy player who wings it too much and latterly spends too much time posing. He's not getting away with it so well these days and I sometimes wish he'd show a little more application.
That said, many of the magical moments down the years have come from Keith's chaotic approach to Rock n Roll guitar playing.