The big classic rock clash: The Rolling Stones or The Who?

[Texas King]

Tough, both are so iconic, but The Who for me and talentwise they are a superior band.

What you say?

[Stormtron]

The Rolling Stones

[ReRushed]

The Rolling Stones

[custom55]

Tough for me but The Stones got my vote. I'm a Stones groupie and there is more variety in their music. IMO

 

The Stones have:

 

Beggars Banquet

Let It Bleed

Sticky Fingers

Exile On Main St

Goats Head Soup

It's Only R&R

Black And Blue

Some Girls

 

 

The Who:

 

Tommy

Live At Leeds

Who's Next

Quadrophenia

The Who By Numbers

Who Are You

[goose]

Hard to deny the Stones the tip of the nod here. The highs aren't as high, but thw sheer volume of great songs is astonishing. Second only to the Beatles, probably

[invisible airwave]

The Who

[Mithrandir]

Stones. Many many more songs that kick ass.

[ReRushed]

It's all about output. The Rolling Stones provided many more songs to explore and appreciate. And their "good" albums outnumber the Who's "good" albums. Personally, I'm not much into concept albums. I prefer songs to stand alone, apart from a story. In the end, what's the point? Both are fantastic bands. It's all good.

[EagleMoon]

The Who wins this VERY easily for me. Even if the poll was based only on Tommy or Quadrophenia and nothing else against all of the Stones full catalog there would be no contest. Never cared for The Stones at all. Boring music. Except for a couple of songs all their output sounds the same.

[rocket ignites]

I pick The Stones. The Beatles trump both...

[Ancient Ways]

The stones are a bit like Dylan for me, I just don't get them the way others do. The who

[Babycat]

The Who.

[KenJennings]

The Who; not even close. The Stones really aren't anything special in my eyes.

[treeduck]

Both are singles bands, except for Who's Next which is the only good full album that either of them can boast. So I've got to give it The Who.

[geezer]

The Who: greater songwriting, more innovative and more explosive live.

[Syrinx]

Two of the greatest bands ever without a doubt. I would pick the Stones by a slight margin. The late 60's / early 70's Stones are the best band ever in my opinion. But Quadrophenia is my favourite album of all time.

[toscanobarga]

Led Zeppelin. By miles.

[Digital Dad]

Again, a TRF poll goes to rhe snowdogs.

 

Stones baby. All rhe way. The Who didnt have Keith Richards. #micdrop

[Digital Dad]

Both are singles bands, except for Who's Next which is the only good full album that either of them can boast. So I've got to give it The Who.

 

 

Uhhhh. Seriously? Exiles would like a word with you.

[treeduck]

Both are singles bands, except for Who's Next which is the only good full album that either of them can boast. So I've got to give it The Who.

 

 

Uhhhh. Seriously? Exiles would like a word with you.

I can't find one Stones album that isn't filled with either lame pseudo R'n'B tunes, filler pop, light rock with no balls or ill-advised attempts at country. Sure there's a few good tunes on most of their albums, but most of their albums are filled with some very poor stuff.

[Ancient Ways]

Again, a TRF poll goes to rhe snowdogs.

 

Stones baby. All rhe way. The Who didnt have Keith Richards. #micdrop

You're putting Keith over Pete? Wow

[ReRushed]

Again, a TRF poll goes to rhe snowdogs.

 

Stones baby. All rhe way. The Who didnt have Keith Richards. #micdrop

You're putting Keith over Pete? Wow

I put Keith over Pete. It's apples and oranges, isn't it?

[J2112YYZ]

The Rolling Stones.

 

Also, classic rock is not a genre, it's a radio label.

[Bigbobby10]

I've never like The Rolling Stones personally.

 

But I love me so Who.

[Entre_Perpetuo]

Tough question for me. I find both bands a little annoyingly inconsistent. Like, Tommy aught to be mind blowing, yet the poor production available to them at the time just renders it sounding a little lame, even if every idea on the thing is gold. Something like Beggar's Banquet is too chocked full of acoustic country stuff for my taste, and I've never gotten into Exile...seems to lack stand out songs, all just kind of runs together. I'm sure I'll try it again though. Some Girls is brilliant at times, but cheesy and embarrassing at others. Tattoo You is 80% enjoyable filler, and 20% classic songs, only one of which I don't get tired of. When it comes to the stones, I'll listen to Let It Bleed and Sticky Fingers all day, but otherwise just point me to a greatest hits, or better yet one of those early sixties greatest hits because they were a consistently amazing singles band at that time. Back to the Who, Quadrophenia is perfect, and Who's Next is roughly also perfect. Live At Leeds is also glorious. Thing is though, The Who sounded kind of like a joke in their early years compared to later. I mean, I've come to love My Generation and The Kids Are Alright, but Roger sounds like any other random sixties dude thinking he'll make it big a lot of the time, when only a few years later he would unleash this monster voice that stands up there with the greats, though perhaps it was a little unwieldy. I'd pretty much always prefer to listen to early stones than early who, but the who have these few perfect albums and incredible songs from their mid and later career.

 

All in all it's a tough question, but I guess I'm usually more inclined to listen to The Who than the Stones, if only because they simply interest me more. Let It Bleed vs. Who's Next? Sticky Fingers vs. Quadrophenia? These are great questions.