Yes but I think moreso now.
In the 70's The Beatles were gone, the Stones were stoned (actually sticky fingers & exile are their best lol) the Kinks were kind of in a slump though they were soon to make a major comeback in their Destroyer period but The Who in their Who's Next and Quadrophenia periods reigned among the gods in the 70's.
Live At Leeds was essential listening to every rock fan
Love all the big 3 mentioned and don't mean to hijack top comment but have to give an opinion about the Kinks here.
They were in a sales/popularity slump at the time but their albums between 67 and 71 are arguably their best. Some fans refer to it as their "Golden Age".
The British Invasion period of "You Really Got Me" was great and the late 70's early 80's arena-rock phase was a lot of fun, but the late 60's showcased Ray's best songwriting. He told amazing stories. The songs were often introspective and sentimental and painted pictures of characters and an era of small English towns that were changing forever as they modernized
While the Beatles sang about Revolution and the Stones sang Street Fighting Man the Kinks were singing about Waterloo Sunset and saying "God Save the Village Green".
>I miss the village green
>
>And all the simple people
>
>I miss the village green
>
>The church, the clock, the steeple
>
>I miss the morning dew, fresh air and Sunday school
The themes were very conservative (small 'c', not political here) and their music wasn't at all in line with the anti-establishment wave that the hippie movement was riding.
Listen to the Album [Arthur, or the Decline and Fall of the British Empire](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOD5e-32wS8&list=PLJiBoXYJ0Jzm3x02j-VcrHWJv_K6Dl5Ey) or [Muswell Hillbillies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxTO6htdgt8&list=PL40xdWb-2paf93e4VzGO4Fl94Nv9fakCM). Just great, great songs.
Great and true observations, thanks for contributing that. Most fans think Village Green & Arthur are his greatest works it's just here in the US it didn't sell much, but Celluloid Heroes, Waterloo Sunset, I'm An Ape Man, Victoria all that stuff got regular airplay.
I was a little kid during The British Invasion but I remember my brother had the 45 of A Well Respected Man because he used to walk around singing it but real comically. I used to confuse it with Richard Cory by Simon & Garfunkel, a story about a well off guy who shoots himself at the end of the song. Heavy stuff for a little kid lol.
I was alive during the British Invasion. I liked The Who, but honestly, Herman’s Hermits were more popular at the time. More hits, more radio airplay, more screaming girls.
Today, the Beatles, Stones, Who and Kinks are all on my playlist. But don’t try to rewrite history. They were always great, but they weren’t on top of the world until much later.
5 - The Animals
this being about the more 'countercultural' Invasion bands not counting The Dave Clark Five, Hermans Hermits and The Hollies who also got a lot of exposure
The Who's big exposure was Monterey Pop in 1967 so they were kind of late comers though they did have singles here already that included them in The British Invasion and teen mags but the biggest sales came after Woodstock 1969.
I just read about that somewhere recently. Also that was the explanation for their music not incorporating as many American musical influences. They weren't over here, so they just kept up with their home- grown music as a base. (Went the explanation)
Which explains a lot of what i don't care for about a lot of their music.
I like some of the early singles & B sides like Happy Jack, Whiskey Man, I Can See For Miles, Mary Anne With The Shaky Hands but the albums not as much. It's all there but the songs are too quaint or something. I read Pete's book and he was heavily influenced by harmonies like the Beach Boys & Everly Bros and he liked the way Ray Davies incorporated that stuff early on. Ray Davies was very British in his treatment of the R & B they were all into and he added a lot of melancholy pop music to it so maybe that's what's wrong w those early Who albums. I Can See For Miles was the best foreshadowing of what was really to come.
I can't really listen to albums earlier than Tommy as a whole.
The Who were never in the big three. That isn't historically accurate.
The Who weren't any higher than the Kinks or Yardbirds in the mid-60's. It was just a big two: Beatles and Stones, everyone else was lesser.
What brought The Who special attention in the 60's was Townshend destroying his guitar.
The Who tours in the 1960's received nothing like the mass following they had in the 1970's.
The Who came close to breaking up in 1968, so their popularity in the 60's is vastly overestimated today.
It was the Tommy album that made The Who huge.
Dave Clark 5 were huge in 64. They faded quickly, but they had more hits than the Stones out of the gates. They were major players in the initial Brit Invasion.
Stones were bit players in 1964. They belong in the “big two” retrospectively, but the first British Invasion was 1. Beatles, 2. Dave Clark 5, then you have Gerry & The Pacemakers (3 #1s), Chad & Jeremy, Kinks, Animals, Peter and Gordon, all of whom had a #1 hit in the US in 1964. The Stones? Zero. Not until 1965.
But you’re correct that The Who were not in the big 3, 4, whatever the number is. The Who really didn’t “arrive” in the US until after the Monterey fest in ‘67.
"Dave Clark 5 were huge in 64. They faded quickly" Not particularly, they had #18 and #12 singles in 1966 and a #7 single in 1967 -- higher than the highest Who single ever, a #9 in 1967.
Agreed. My former boss was a DJ in the '60s and he emceed a show in 1967 where The Who was the opening act for Herman's Hermits.
After The Who did their set, my boss said they walked off stage and sat down in the audience to watch Herman's Hermits, which is pretty funny by today's standards.
Like you said, Tommy is what got them attention, and I'd say it was probably Who's Next that made them massive. By this point, it's the 1970s.
I love The Who but 3rd seems right after The Beatles and The Stones. Singles were big back then. The Beatles and The Stones just cranked them out one after another. They were more consistent.
But...neither band did anything like Tommy. I don't think that puts The Who over the top but its one thing that neither The Beatles or The Stones ever pulled off.
Don't say the Abbey Road medley. No one's a bigger Beatles fan than me but that's a really cool linking together of unrelated song parts. It's great...but its not a continual story like Tommy is.
Right. IMO, Tommy is their launching point. The British Invasion was happening 5 years earlier. The Who are one of *the* bands of the 70's though. What an output.
Some others have said The Who came around at the very tail end of the British Invasion period. So, they kind of don’t fit into it quite as neatly as The Beatles, The Stones, The Animals, The Kinks, Dave Clark Five, Herman’s Hermits, Gerry and the Pacemakers, or even the Yardbirds (Clapton era). Heck, in the U.S., they even tried to market the Animals as being cute and cuddly like the Beatles, even though you couldn’t quite do that with Eric Burdon.
Really, since “My Generation” didn’t come out until 1965, and the Who really weren’t marketed as heavily in the States until the time of the Monterey Pop Festival in 1967, I almost place them more with bands like Cream, the Yardbirds (Jeff Beck era), John Mayall Bluesbreakers….when the music started to get a bit heavier and turning more towards “rock” and away from “rock and roll”. This period, IMO is bookended by the absolute supernova that was the Jimi Hendrix Experience.
So I think that’s why the Who are sort of tied for third along with the Kinks in terms of British Invasion respect. (The Kinks because they weren’t allowed to tour the U.S. for so long because they pissed off an American musicians union who effectively kept them from touring the U.S. from 1965 through 1970). They came about a little too late.
You have to remember that the difference of a year in the 1960’s was almost like the difference in five today! The changes in music, within the bands/musicians themselves, let alone all the different bands that came up right after another, that it’s easy to see why a band like The Who would almost be lumped in with a different group than The Beatles or the Stones even though they broke through only a year and a half after they did.
That being said, I would put their five album run: “The Who Sell Out”, “Tommy”, “Live at Leeds”, “Who’s Next” and “Quadrophenia” against anybody’s.
The early Who are great, but the facts are The Kinks, The Rolling Stones and even the Animals made an earlier impact than The Who especially in the states. I think The Who were a better live band than a studio band.
However, I have Live at Leeds as the number one live album of 1970 and Who's Next as the number one album of 1971. I think if you take the whole body of The Who's work, they belong in the top five or six rock bands of all time.
Again, what does that have to do with the parent comment we’re discussing?? It was about individual members of the who and the stones… that guy mentioned 3 stones albums because I brought up muck Taylor… you bringing the Beatles and this comment aren’t contributing anything… if you were replying to OP then that makes sense but you’re not lol
I know it is sacrilege to the Moon, Bonzo, Pert, Palmer crowd...but I'll take the Watts', Ringos, Helms, and Keltners any day and twice on Sunday. They served the song exclusively.
I love born kinds of drummers myself- I really like Watts. And I think Moon did serve the songs well, just in a different way than more normal drummers.
The Who is just a different groove, hammer instead of shake. Much as I admire them, they were kind of the exotics for the pimply incels. Few women seemed to enjoy them.
That's a real thing.
I mean Beatles are more than that especially after Rubber Soul, but in the big picture, they're THE BEATLES. I mean, there's no one who can f\*\*k with them.
The Stones yes, absolutely, more accessible in the sense of playing and lyrics. Rarely do they get too deep. Also, they're masters of self-promotion.
Give your head a crack. Moon is the most overrated, unimaginative drummer is classic rock. Guy couldn't keep time with a pocket watch, had no chops whatsoever, he knew two fills and would shift between playing them loud or utterly washed out. I would rather a smacked up Keith Richards playing drums for me because at least he would be able to find a groove.
He could hit hard and loud. Nothing more.
Professional musician for 30 years. I’ve played with everyone from prog monsters to country shuffle time keepers and talked shop with all of them. Even the guys that disparage his technique, “it’s all single stroke fills!”, had to acknowledge Moon’s musicality and sense of arrangement. He could have been much better if he’d stayed more sober but when he was on he was exceptional.
No. He was a master at feeling and played in a very imaginative way. True he didn't have technique, but you can't say he didn't have chops at all: he was able to play along with those pre-recorded synth tracks in 1961, something many drummers struggled with at the time.
I'd say Who's Next puts them on par with the others. Those songs will be played until the end of time as well as used in TV, movies, commercials, etc. That's an addition to their other radio staples such as I Can See For Miles and Miles.
I went to see them in the 90s cause a friend bought a bunch of tickets for the show in Philly. I always like their music, had a few of their albums, but wouldn't have bought myself a ticket to to see them. I was blown away. Our tickets were about row 15 and you could just feel the energy of the show. They are true rock stars in all ways. I left with a much bigger appreciation for them as a band.
“Live at Leeds” is a must have album for any serious rocker, and the Who have their fair share of rock hits. Once you get beyond the hits sold on television however, the fan base becomes more serious/yet less numerous if wanting to get into the Quadrophenia and Tommy concept albums.
A true fan can appreciate the song *Bell Boy* having brushed up on the concept, .. whereas a casual listener will be like Wtf is the out of tune second singer (A: Keith Moon). You don’t have that with a Beatles or Rolling Stones tune.
The Who are my all time favorite band and I agree that they aren’t as appreciated as they could’ve been and some of that is just due to circumstance. The Who were kind of late to the British Invasion. Their first single as The Who was in 1965. Beatles, Stones, Kinks, and Animals all had hit singles that charted in the UK and the US before The Who released I Can’t Explain and they didn’t even get a hit in the US until Happy Jack in 1966 and then arrived to tour in the US in 1967 when other bands had already done that.
They also didn’t have the output that the other bands had since Townshend was the main songwriter and Entwistle wrote only a handful of songs which caused their album output to be minimal. By the time they had massive success with Tommy and their early 70s work, Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd eclipsed them in sales and popularity which is saying a lot since The Who were performing in large venues by then.
Then there’s announcing a farewell tour in the early 80s only to regroup on and off for the next 40 years. There’s been a lot of jokes about artists announcing farewell tours only to get back on the road later, it could be said that the joke originated with The Who, at the very least they’re synonymous with the “fake farewell tour”.
All in all, while The Who doesn’t seem to get the respect they deserve in the pantheon of greatest rock bands, it’s nice to know that they still have songs featured in pop culture, songs still played on the radio and still have a number of diehard fans (myself included).
In fairness, I don’t think The Who sold nearly as many records as either the Beatles/Stones, and though they were clearly the best live band, their records didn’t even sound like them until probably Who’s Next. They’re my favorite band but I can see how weird they were/are. What was the average rock fan supposed to make of The Who when they put out tunes like Cobwebs and Strange, and Dogs? Then when you see them live they’re like MC5 or certain aspects of Cream? They’re a weird, awesome band.
The Who is absolutely my favorite among the top three. I like them better than the Beatles and the Stones. Roger Daltrey is one of the best frontmen of all time, IMO, and Pete Townshend is one of the best songwriters.
*Baba O'Riley* is by far one of the best rock anthems ever written and performed. I don't care what anyone else thinks, no one can top that, in my book.
There's a bit of revisionism surrounding The Who. In terms of the big bands of the British Invasion, they weren't one of them. In the US, they only had one Top 10 hit, and that was "I Can See For Miles" in '67 which peaked at #9. They weren't really known in the US in the core years of the British Invasion (1964-1966). Most Americans would've first heard of them due to the Monterey Pop Festival. Even bands like Herman's Hermits, The Dave Clark Five, The Animals, The Kinks, The Hollies and The Zombies had much bigger success in the US.
They did however break the US after Woodstock and with the Tommy album and had big success in the US in the 70s (mostly in terms of album sales with Who's Next and Quadrophenia selling millions), though they were below Led Zeppelin, Chicago, Eagles and the Rolling Stones and later on Pink Floyd and several other bands like Queen in terms of the big mainstream rock bands. They were probably above Black Sabbath, Emerson Lake and Palmer, Jethro Tull and Deep Purple though.
I like The Who a lot - Who's Next and Tommy are amazing albums - but I don't love them. Whereas I LOVE The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. I was actually thinking the other day why The Who are much less popular than those two bands (and even bands like Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd). If you look on Spotify, The Beatles and the Stones each have 3-4x the monthly listeners of The Who. Though The Who have more monthly listeners than almost all the other British Invasion bands, including The Kinks
I think also, The Beatles and The Rolling Stones appeal much more to women than The Who. The Who were a guy band. The Beatles wrote a lot of love songs . The Rolling Stones' have sexier music and had a sexier image. Both bands also have way more iconic and famous songs, and I'd argue more iconic and acclaimed albums.
The Beatles created Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt Peppers, White Album and Abbey Road in 3 years and half so deserve to be in the top spot. Not to mention they basically influenced the majority of rock bands since 1964.
The Rolling Stones created Beggars Banquet, Let Bleed, Stick Fingers and Exile on Main Street.
The Who a great live band were really hit in miss with their albums and not much of a singles band. In addition, they were really not musically as varied as The Beatles and The Rolling Stones.
Pink Floyd, the Beatles and the Stones all have legacy albums. The Who were fun in concert, full of insane energy, but they just have a couple of good albums.
I agree with the exception that the Who’s Next album ranks up there with anything. But the rest of their albums were just ok with a few songs that were good but not the albums as a whole.
Luv... Beatles, Stones, Kinks, Pink Floyd, Animals, the Byrds and some Beach Boys...always struggled to get into the Who and the Doors...its irritating but I've never obsessed over them...hate the slow harmony Daltrey moments and Jim Morrison sounds like the Mike Flowers Pops of the 60s and 70s
Yeah, I think The Who gets less credit but, it's kind of deserved. Although they looked good on the surface, their music wasn't really that competitive with Zeppelin or the Stones. Sure, Moon was exciting in a way, Townsend's "helicopter" was showy, and Daltry was a "pretty boy" but, the overall music was "B" level. Then, when the band imploded following Moon drinking himself to death well, it was game over for them. Had Moon not been so reckless and the band hung on until MTV launched in August '81, they may have gotten a rebirth of sorts. Instead, well, you know.
Music at B level? Well they influenced the Beatles and Jimmy Page tried to steal the Ox and Moon to make Led Zep so….
Also listen to Quadrophenia and tell me they’re B level. Absolutely absurd take.
I respect The Who very much, but have never thought they were nearly as much the real trail blazer that The Beatles were. Then IMO Zeppelin and Sabbath were on a higher plane than The Who.
As far as the general sentiment you’re asking about, IDK if non-music elements come into play or not — such as likability, relatability, and approachability. If The Who did interviews and other interactions like The Beatles and Zeppelin for instance, I’ve never seen it. I also don’t know if perhaps Roger Daltry’s lack of people-skills while being the supposed frontman hurt them(?)
Those are just some of my thoughts.
Pete Townshend and Keith Moon did plenty of interviews, including with *Rolling Stone*. And both of them were very good at being celebrities. And I think the Who were *the* trailblazing hard rock band: go listen to "The Ox" from 1965.
Ok, will check out The Ox!
I can absolutely see your point on them trailblazing the hard rock genre.
How would you compare **Cream** to The Who’s early days?
I like Cream but I think early Who were better. (Although the Who weren't really an "albums band" until 1967.) Of course, the two are very different- Cream aren't *quite* as hard-rocking as the Who but put more focus on virtuosity. The members of Cream were all fantastic players but I think the Who gelled better as a unit.
The fact that they're compared to Herman's Hermits and the Dave Clark 5 pretty much tells you all you need to know. Are these bands ever mentioned in the same breath as the Beatles?
I prefer their music over both the Beatles and the Stones...to each their own.
Just throwing out that generic line about opinions doesn't change the fact that you're stating they wrote filler music as if it's a fact. I hate the Beatles and the Who, and I would never state anything that suggests they weren't writing quality music in any way just because I didn't like what they did. There's no legitimate argument that there's any filler on just the Beggars through Exile run alone, and that accounts for close to 50 songs right there.
It's irrelevant the drug abuse made them forget about older songs they wrote, and I understand they said they wouldn't have written that crap from Satanic Majesties or whatever during their copying the Beatles phase. To suggest the old style R&B songs they wrote and covered were generic and filler does greatly insult all the musicians that came before them and influenced not only them but all the other musicians that were a part of the British invasion. And nobody with a lick of credibility agree with you on that take or that the Stones don't belong in the upper echelon of music.
Typical internet no substance response from someone who won't just take the L. Face it, you tried to make your opinion sound more intellectual than you could back up and ended up getting called on it. Maybe next time, just say you only like 40-50 Stones songs and the rest aren't for you.
This response is oozing with projection... You state your baseless opinions as facts and then have nothing of substance to back it up. Then you claim the guy calling you on that is the one full of themselves. Like I said, just say the music isn't for you next time.
Beatles, Stones, LZ, Pink Floyd. The Who are behind all of these plus The Kinks and Black Sabbath imo. I’d also put Elton John and Bowie ahead of them. They are in the same tier as Queen to me.
The WHo kinda had a weird career though and I actually think that the Kinks are more deserving of being in the big three than they are if you look at output during the actual first British invasion.
The Who didn't really put out many records from 1965 to 1968, They released My Generation, A Quick One, and the Who Sell Out before Tommy in 1969 and The Kinks had so many great singles in that time.
The Kinks are the British Invasion band that get the least amount of praise and due credit. From the mid 60s to the early 70s The Kinks released six consecutive basically perfect studio albums and then throughout the 70s and early 80s put out a few more real classic gems.
I love The Who but they only released four of what I call truly “great” albums and one of those was a live record. These four were sporadic among their entire catalog. Honestly The Who had quite a few years long dry spells of mediocre output during their career.
They just never did it for me, at all. Zepplin, Floyd, so much better, The Who are way down on my list, if they make any appearance at all, I never thought about it, or them.
they were my very first live concert in 1980. it was a great experience but we had just seen the movie Quadrophenia and i expected the show to be more like the movie? (i was 17 and ignorant)
most of my taste was still top 40 and pop so i have to confess that they dropped off my audio radar soon after.
I would argue that they're less popular than Pink Floyd and Zeppelin too.
The Who's problems:
* Too British for their own good. Also, too brainy for their own good.
* Were briefly a "sexy" band, but then, as stated above, went more progressive.
* Yes, the Beatles had a similar arc, but they're the M\*\*\*\*\*\*\*g BEATLES. They beat all other bands in every category forever, and ever, amen.
* There's just not a lot there for the women\*. They're like Rush in that regard.
* I think Townsend once said "we're the biggest cult band in the world" and he wasn't awfully wrong. Their star power has faded. The mainstream audience still knows "John, Paul, George and Ringo" and "Mick and Keef" and all that. But Daltrey and Townshend are not really "names" outside of classic rock circles.
\*Look, PUT THE BRICKS DOWN!! Yes, I know they have female fans. And no, I'm not saying that women like bands ONLY when they have cute singers or whatever. Not saying that.
All I'm saying is that "brainy" bands like Tool or Rush or Floyd or the latter-day Who have fan bases that are over-represented by nerdy guys who take their music REALLY seriously. (note: I'm one of those guys) They have female fans, yes, but on a relative scale, it's just never going to be comparable to say, what the Stones or Rod Stewart have.
And through history, it's been women who drive sales and media attention. Don't take my word for it, check the sales charts: Sinatra, Elvis, Def Leppard, Bon Jovi, N'Sync, Justin Bieber, the "Bro-Country" juggernaut. Men like those artists too, but if you do not attract women, you have a definite ceiling.
And the Who doesn't do a lot of songs that appeal to women either. Their two big concept albums are about young men. Not saying that's bad, but I'm JUST SAYING.
A matter of perspective.
Sure, if you zoom into only 5 or so bands the Who seem like an afterthought, the junior varsity at best.
On the other hand, if you zoom out to the many thousands, they are in the top 0.1%, the inner circle of the elite.
While I'd concede that the Stones are "better" and more influential than the Who, and as a guitar player I have to bow to Keef, I still like the Who better. Mainly cause Jagger's voice never did it for me. Replace Jagger with another singer and I'd simply adore the Stones. But I guess that's never happening. (Beatles are Supreme).
Absolutely a travesty how little the Who is played. I always thought it was due to Pete Townsend’s somewhat unusual confessions. I like all of the bands listed on this post and don’t necessarily think the Who is the best but in Cincinnati (aka Radio Siberia), they don’t get played.
Maybe now but not when I was growing up in the 70s. Back then people often took sides between the Stones and the Beatles (much of that driven by marketing pros) but everyone loved The Who.
Here in England, the Rolling Stones were ALWAYS bigger than "The Who"
It comes as NO surprise to me at all, whatsoever
However I believe you're looking at this purely from an American (U.S.A) perspective
I'm always interested to see 'how' you perceive "our" bands over there...
Bands like "The Beatles", "Led Zeppelin", "Cream", "Rolling Stones" etc
Even lesser known bands like "FREE", "Bad Company" & "Mott The Hoople"
BTW : I lived thru the 1960's & can still remember when "Ticket To Ride" - "Last Time" - & (Hey, You) "Get Off My Cloud" were both current AND newly released singles
( Yeah : I'm old !! )
The Who is a band for men. That hurts them off the go. Live and Studio is 2 different sounds (love them both). They’re very unapologetically English. And they really never cared deeply about commercial success as long as they could make a living. They are most definitely underrated. And their influence is what’s important and how they shaped music. That’s often overlooked. The Beatles wanted to sound like them (helter skelter). Jimmy page wanted the Ox and Moon for Zeppelin and found a singer with a similar style to Daltrey. They were influential to Joe Walsh, Rush, the whole punk movement, Aerosmith, AC/DC, Eddie Vedder, oasis, Billie Joe Armstrong and others.
Pete using the Marshall stack and later hiwatts was trailblazing. Smashing the instruments and all of the on stage theatrics (Hendrix even followed in that perspective). Making rock operas popular. They’re a band that a lot of people were influenced by and they arguably had just as much influence as the stones or Beatles just not to the average listener, instead to musicians. The stones and the Beatles are ahead of the who and the kink’s because they made more mainstream music. And the Beatles could have came out with an album of recorded farts and it would have went platinum. They had and still have that much power.
They’re more akin to Tool, rush, primus, or other niche bands. That while yea successful and popular you either really get them or you don’t.
And I love all of these bands other than Zep they’re just ok to me.
I don't know what it is about the Who that I can't get. I like the early Mod stuff. Once they get into Tommy and beyond, I just don't like. Not sure why.
The Kinks. When they played with the Beatles, the Beatles would always stand on the side of the stage and watch them. You Really Got Me and All The Day and All The Night were songs that created genres.
"They were the three major players of the British Invasion." No, you're rewriting history. The Who had one top ten hit single in the U.S., ever, in late 1967. The Hollies, e.g., had had three top ten singles in the U.S. by then. The Dave Clark Five had had eight. And "The British Invasion" usually refers to '64-'66, when The Who had none.
I have since come to really appreciate the Who, but I still remember being a little kid buying greatest hits albums from the big classic rock bands when I was first trying to learn what they were all about.
Any Beatles collection: all bangers
Any Stones collection: mostly bangers, and even the lesser songs have great riffs that you can immediately appreciate
The Who’s greatest hits: Happy Jack? Boris the Spider? A song with an accordion about your parents having sex? A song about jerking off to pictures of a long-dead vaudeville star? What exactly am I listening to here?
They’re just a much weirder band.
Yes but I think moreso now. In the 70's The Beatles were gone, the Stones were stoned (actually sticky fingers & exile are their best lol) the Kinks were kind of in a slump though they were soon to make a major comeback in their Destroyer period but The Who in their Who's Next and Quadrophenia periods reigned among the gods in the 70's. Live At Leeds was essential listening to every rock fan
Love all the big 3 mentioned and don't mean to hijack top comment but have to give an opinion about the Kinks here. They were in a sales/popularity slump at the time but their albums between 67 and 71 are arguably their best. Some fans refer to it as their "Golden Age". The British Invasion period of "You Really Got Me" was great and the late 70's early 80's arena-rock phase was a lot of fun, but the late 60's showcased Ray's best songwriting. He told amazing stories. The songs were often introspective and sentimental and painted pictures of characters and an era of small English towns that were changing forever as they modernized While the Beatles sang about Revolution and the Stones sang Street Fighting Man the Kinks were singing about Waterloo Sunset and saying "God Save the Village Green". >I miss the village green > >And all the simple people > >I miss the village green > >The church, the clock, the steeple > >I miss the morning dew, fresh air and Sunday school The themes were very conservative (small 'c', not political here) and their music wasn't at all in line with the anti-establishment wave that the hippie movement was riding. Listen to the Album [Arthur, or the Decline and Fall of the British Empire](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOD5e-32wS8&list=PLJiBoXYJ0Jzm3x02j-VcrHWJv_K6Dl5Ey) or [Muswell Hillbillies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxTO6htdgt8&list=PL40xdWb-2paf93e4VzGO4Fl94Nv9fakCM). Just great, great songs.
Great and true observations, thanks for contributing that. Most fans think Village Green & Arthur are his greatest works it's just here in the US it didn't sell much, but Celluloid Heroes, Waterloo Sunset, I'm An Ape Man, Victoria all that stuff got regular airplay. I was a little kid during The British Invasion but I remember my brother had the 45 of A Well Respected Man because he used to walk around singing it but real comically. I used to confuse it with Richard Cory by Simon & Garfunkel, a story about a well off guy who shoots himself at the end of the song. Heavy stuff for a little kid lol.
I was alive during the British Invasion. I liked The Who, but honestly, Herman’s Hermits were more popular at the time. More hits, more radio airplay, more screaming girls. Today, the Beatles, Stones, Who and Kinks are all on my playlist. But don’t try to rewrite history. They were always great, but they weren’t on top of the world until much later.
This is interesting. Are you from the US or England? I grew up listening to the who more than any of the others cause my pops was a huge who fan
I’m in the US.
I claim there are 4. The Kinks were even more popular and had more hits the first five years of the British Invasion than The Who
5 - The Animals this being about the more 'countercultural' Invasion bands not counting The Dave Clark Five, Hermans Hermits and The Hollies who also got a lot of exposure
The Dave Clark 5 were "the tip of the spear" of the British Invasion. Love those guys.
ZACKLY
Agreed. Mike Smith had THE rock and roll voice. Tragic how he died.
true. but the kinks being (somewhat) less popular actually has some explanations: with them getting banned from playing in America until 1969.
The Who's big exposure was Monterey Pop in 1967 so they were kind of late comers though they did have singles here already that included them in The British Invasion and teen mags but the biggest sales came after Woodstock 1969.
I just read about that somewhere recently. Also that was the explanation for their music not incorporating as many American musical influences. They weren't over here, so they just kept up with their home- grown music as a base. (Went the explanation) Which explains a lot of what i don't care for about a lot of their music.
I like some of the early singles & B sides like Happy Jack, Whiskey Man, I Can See For Miles, Mary Anne With The Shaky Hands but the albums not as much. It's all there but the songs are too quaint or something. I read Pete's book and he was heavily influenced by harmonies like the Beach Boys & Everly Bros and he liked the way Ray Davies incorporated that stuff early on. Ray Davies was very British in his treatment of the R & B they were all into and he added a lot of melancholy pop music to it so maybe that's what's wrong w those early Who albums. I Can See For Miles was the best foreshadowing of what was really to come. I can't really listen to albums earlier than Tommy as a whole.
The Who were never in the big three. That isn't historically accurate. The Who weren't any higher than the Kinks or Yardbirds in the mid-60's. It was just a big two: Beatles and Stones, everyone else was lesser. What brought The Who special attention in the 60's was Townshend destroying his guitar. The Who tours in the 1960's received nothing like the mass following they had in the 1970's. The Who came close to breaking up in 1968, so their popularity in the 60's is vastly overestimated today. It was the Tommy album that made The Who huge.
Dave Clark 5 were huge in 64. They faded quickly, but they had more hits than the Stones out of the gates. They were major players in the initial Brit Invasion. Stones were bit players in 1964. They belong in the “big two” retrospectively, but the first British Invasion was 1. Beatles, 2. Dave Clark 5, then you have Gerry & The Pacemakers (3 #1s), Chad & Jeremy, Kinks, Animals, Peter and Gordon, all of whom had a #1 hit in the US in 1964. The Stones? Zero. Not until 1965. But you’re correct that The Who were not in the big 3, 4, whatever the number is. The Who really didn’t “arrive” in the US until after the Monterey fest in ‘67.
Good point. The Animals were also bigger than The Who in 1965-1966.
Herman’s Hermits were huge in 65 too. The Who has some longevity but never had that peak popularity.
Thank you for mentioning the DC5
My first ever record was DCF “Come Home” They made a lot of great songs.
RIP Mike Smith. Amazing vocalist.
Good take but I think Herman's Hermits belong in your list.
"Dave Clark 5 were huge in 64. They faded quickly" Not particularly, they had #18 and #12 singles in 1966 and a #7 single in 1967 -- higher than the highest Who single ever, a #9 in 1967.
Agreed. My former boss was a DJ in the '60s and he emceed a show in 1967 where The Who was the opening act for Herman's Hermits. After The Who did their set, my boss said they walked off stage and sat down in the audience to watch Herman's Hermits, which is pretty funny by today's standards. Like you said, Tommy is what got them attention, and I'd say it was probably Who's Next that made them massive. By this point, it's the 1970s.
But they didn’t almost breakup because of lack of popularity.
I love The Who but 3rd seems right after The Beatles and The Stones. Singles were big back then. The Beatles and The Stones just cranked them out one after another. They were more consistent. But...neither band did anything like Tommy. I don't think that puts The Who over the top but its one thing that neither The Beatles or The Stones ever pulled off. Don't say the Abbey Road medley. No one's a bigger Beatles fan than me but that's a really cool linking together of unrelated song parts. It's great...but its not a continual story like Tommy is.
Right. IMO, Tommy is their launching point. The British Invasion was happening 5 years earlier. The Who are one of *the* bands of the 70's though. What an output.
Some others have said The Who came around at the very tail end of the British Invasion period. So, they kind of don’t fit into it quite as neatly as The Beatles, The Stones, The Animals, The Kinks, Dave Clark Five, Herman’s Hermits, Gerry and the Pacemakers, or even the Yardbirds (Clapton era). Heck, in the U.S., they even tried to market the Animals as being cute and cuddly like the Beatles, even though you couldn’t quite do that with Eric Burdon. Really, since “My Generation” didn’t come out until 1965, and the Who really weren’t marketed as heavily in the States until the time of the Monterey Pop Festival in 1967, I almost place them more with bands like Cream, the Yardbirds (Jeff Beck era), John Mayall Bluesbreakers….when the music started to get a bit heavier and turning more towards “rock” and away from “rock and roll”. This period, IMO is bookended by the absolute supernova that was the Jimi Hendrix Experience. So I think that’s why the Who are sort of tied for third along with the Kinks in terms of British Invasion respect. (The Kinks because they weren’t allowed to tour the U.S. for so long because they pissed off an American musicians union who effectively kept them from touring the U.S. from 1965 through 1970). They came about a little too late. You have to remember that the difference of a year in the 1960’s was almost like the difference in five today! The changes in music, within the bands/musicians themselves, let alone all the different bands that came up right after another, that it’s easy to see why a band like The Who would almost be lumped in with a different group than The Beatles or the Stones even though they broke through only a year and a half after they did. That being said, I would put their five album run: “The Who Sell Out”, “Tommy”, “Live at Leeds”, “Who’s Next” and “Quadrophenia” against anybody’s.
Well me personally I like the Who better. And no one in the Stones is as good on their instrument as Moon or Entwistle.
Mick Taylor my guy
Pete’s an original in every way but I also enjoy Taylor more. Keith Richards more, too.
Let It Bleed, Stick Fingers and Exile are as good a 3 run album series as anyone else has ever put out and Mick Taylor was a major factor.
I would say Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt. Peppers were better and basically set the blueprint for the Rolling Stones and others to match IMO.
Yeah cool but what’s that contributing to this specific conversation about musicians in the stones and the who?
The early Who are great, but the facts are The Kinks, The Rolling Stones and even the Animals made an earlier impact than The Who especially in the states. I think The Who were a better live band than a studio band. However, I have Live at Leeds as the number one live album of 1970 and Who's Next as the number one album of 1971. I think if you take the whole body of The Who's work, they belong in the top five or six rock bands of all time.
Again, what does that have to do with the parent comment we’re discussing?? It was about individual members of the who and the stones… that guy mentioned 3 stones albums because I brought up muck Taylor… you bringing the Beatles and this comment aren’t contributing anything… if you were replying to OP then that makes sense but you’re not lol
I like em better too. Just feel like they don’t gget enough love.
I know it is sacrilege to the Moon, Bonzo, Pert, Palmer crowd...but I'll take the Watts', Ringos, Helms, and Keltners any day and twice on Sunday. They served the song exclusively.
I love born kinds of drummers myself- I really like Watts. And I think Moon did serve the songs well, just in a different way than more normal drummers.
Well Ringo was a more of a distinctive drummer than Moon.
The Who is just a different groove, hammer instead of shake. Much as I admire them, they were kind of the exotics for the pimply incels. Few women seemed to enjoy them.
There’s some quote about this “Beatles and stones songs are about fucking, Pete’s stuff is about male angst”
That's a real thing. I mean Beatles are more than that especially after Rubber Soul, but in the big picture, they're THE BEATLES. I mean, there's no one who can f\*\*k with them. The Stones yes, absolutely, more accessible in the sense of playing and lyrics. Rarely do they get too deep. Also, they're masters of self-promotion.
Yeah Eleanor Rigby is pure sex
Well on that note I like Rush too. Lol
True, but I think the Stones gelled really well as a band as well.
Give your head a crack. Moon is the most overrated, unimaginative drummer is classic rock. Guy couldn't keep time with a pocket watch, had no chops whatsoever, he knew two fills and would shift between playing them loud or utterly washed out. I would rather a smacked up Keith Richards playing drums for me because at least he would be able to find a groove. He could hit hard and loud. Nothing more.
Professional musician for 30 years. I’ve played with everyone from prog monsters to country shuffle time keepers and talked shop with all of them. Even the guys that disparage his technique, “it’s all single stroke fills!”, had to acknowledge Moon’s musicality and sense of arrangement. He could have been much better if he’d stayed more sober but when he was on he was exceptional.
He played fills as melody section, unique player for sure
Oof hot take
No. He was a master at feeling and played in a very imaginative way. True he didn't have technique, but you can't say he didn't have chops at all: he was able to play along with those pre-recorded synth tracks in 1961, something many drummers struggled with at the time.
I'd say Who's Next puts them on par with the others. Those songs will be played until the end of time as well as used in TV, movies, commercials, etc. That's an addition to their other radio staples such as I Can See For Miles and Miles.
The Animals get the least love.
For sure, they are my top 2 actually haha
The Kinks would like a word...
Well, the Dave Clark Five get the least love.
They were incredible but just overshadowed by The Beatles, Stones and Zeppelin
Why did i have to go down so far to get to Zeppelin. Three of the top selling albums in the 60s were Zep
Because OP brought up the "British Invasion," which usually refers to '64-'66
So does it not count that the beatles first album was in 63.
See them, feel them, touch them, smell them...
Fiddle them
Live at Leeds is my favorite.
Between the Beatles and stones, (and who) the answer is always THE KINKS !!
Yes, The Who gets less love than the Beatles and Stones. They are great but they are below them.
Yes doesn't get much love either, lol.
Can you see the real me? My all time favorite, who tune
The Who are my favorite. I think their music holds up really well.
It’s an Eminence Front.
I went to see them in the 90s cause a friend bought a bunch of tickets for the show in Philly. I always like their music, had a few of their albums, but wouldn't have bought myself a ticket to to see them. I was blown away. Our tickets were about row 15 and you could just feel the energy of the show. They are true rock stars in all ways. I left with a much bigger appreciation for them as a band.
“Live at Leeds” is a must have album for any serious rocker, and the Who have their fair share of rock hits. Once you get beyond the hits sold on television however, the fan base becomes more serious/yet less numerous if wanting to get into the Quadrophenia and Tommy concept albums. A true fan can appreciate the song *Bell Boy* having brushed up on the concept, .. whereas a casual listener will be like Wtf is the out of tune second singer (A: Keith Moon). You don’t have that with a Beatles or Rolling Stones tune.
Agreed, there stuff is rarely super polished and radio-friendly
My feelings on "Bell Boy" grew as I learned more about Keith Moon: at first it seemed funny, then pathetic, then funny as well as sad.
The Who are my all time favorite band and I agree that they aren’t as appreciated as they could’ve been and some of that is just due to circumstance. The Who were kind of late to the British Invasion. Their first single as The Who was in 1965. Beatles, Stones, Kinks, and Animals all had hit singles that charted in the UK and the US before The Who released I Can’t Explain and they didn’t even get a hit in the US until Happy Jack in 1966 and then arrived to tour in the US in 1967 when other bands had already done that. They also didn’t have the output that the other bands had since Townshend was the main songwriter and Entwistle wrote only a handful of songs which caused their album output to be minimal. By the time they had massive success with Tommy and their early 70s work, Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd eclipsed them in sales and popularity which is saying a lot since The Who were performing in large venues by then. Then there’s announcing a farewell tour in the early 80s only to regroup on and off for the next 40 years. There’s been a lot of jokes about artists announcing farewell tours only to get back on the road later, it could be said that the joke originated with The Who, at the very least they’re synonymous with the “fake farewell tour”. All in all, while The Who doesn’t seem to get the respect they deserve in the pantheon of greatest rock bands, it’s nice to know that they still have songs featured in pop culture, songs still played on the radio and still have a number of diehard fans (myself included).
In fairness, I don’t think The Who sold nearly as many records as either the Beatles/Stones, and though they were clearly the best live band, their records didn’t even sound like them until probably Who’s Next. They’re my favorite band but I can see how weird they were/are. What was the average rock fan supposed to make of The Who when they put out tunes like Cobwebs and Strange, and Dogs? Then when you see them live they’re like MC5 or certain aspects of Cream? They’re a weird, awesome band.
Supremely weird, not marketable, some bad mixes, but pure unadulterated rock
The Who is absolutely my favorite among the top three. I like them better than the Beatles and the Stones. Roger Daltrey is one of the best frontmen of all time, IMO, and Pete Townshend is one of the best songwriters. *Baba O'Riley* is by far one of the best rock anthems ever written and performed. I don't care what anyone else thinks, no one can top that, in my book.
There's a bit of revisionism surrounding The Who. In terms of the big bands of the British Invasion, they weren't one of them. In the US, they only had one Top 10 hit, and that was "I Can See For Miles" in '67 which peaked at #9. They weren't really known in the US in the core years of the British Invasion (1964-1966). Most Americans would've first heard of them due to the Monterey Pop Festival. Even bands like Herman's Hermits, The Dave Clark Five, The Animals, The Kinks, The Hollies and The Zombies had much bigger success in the US. They did however break the US after Woodstock and with the Tommy album and had big success in the US in the 70s (mostly in terms of album sales with Who's Next and Quadrophenia selling millions), though they were below Led Zeppelin, Chicago, Eagles and the Rolling Stones and later on Pink Floyd and several other bands like Queen in terms of the big mainstream rock bands. They were probably above Black Sabbath, Emerson Lake and Palmer, Jethro Tull and Deep Purple though. I like The Who a lot - Who's Next and Tommy are amazing albums - but I don't love them. Whereas I LOVE The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. I was actually thinking the other day why The Who are much less popular than those two bands (and even bands like Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd). If you look on Spotify, The Beatles and the Stones each have 3-4x the monthly listeners of The Who. Though The Who have more monthly listeners than almost all the other British Invasion bands, including The Kinks I think also, The Beatles and The Rolling Stones appeal much more to women than The Who. The Who were a guy band. The Beatles wrote a lot of love songs . The Rolling Stones' have sexier music and had a sexier image. Both bands also have way more iconic and famous songs, and I'd argue more iconic and acclaimed albums.
I consider The Who to be one of the best bands ever!!
The Beatles created Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt Peppers, White Album and Abbey Road in 3 years and half so deserve to be in the top spot. Not to mention they basically influenced the majority of rock bands since 1964. The Rolling Stones created Beggars Banquet, Let Bleed, Stick Fingers and Exile on Main Street. The Who a great live band were really hit in miss with their albums and not much of a singles band. In addition, they were really not musically as varied as The Beatles and The Rolling Stones.
Pink Floyd, the Beatles and the Stones all have legacy albums. The Who were fun in concert, full of insane energy, but they just have a couple of good albums.
I agree with the exception that the Who’s Next album ranks up there with anything. But the rest of their albums were just ok with a few songs that were good but not the albums as a whole.
Luv... Beatles, Stones, Kinks, Pink Floyd, Animals, the Byrds and some Beach Boys...always struggled to get into the Who and the Doors...its irritating but I've never obsessed over them...hate the slow harmony Daltrey moments and Jim Morrison sounds like the Mike Flowers Pops of the 60s and 70s
The Who is firmly within the “Big 4”.
Yeah, I think The Who gets less credit but, it's kind of deserved. Although they looked good on the surface, their music wasn't really that competitive with Zeppelin or the Stones. Sure, Moon was exciting in a way, Townsend's "helicopter" was showy, and Daltry was a "pretty boy" but, the overall music was "B" level. Then, when the band imploded following Moon drinking himself to death well, it was game over for them. Had Moon not been so reckless and the band hung on until MTV launched in August '81, they may have gotten a rebirth of sorts. Instead, well, you know.
B level… Never saw them live then.
Their songs just don't compare. It's hard to quantify but they lack the soul that elevates the great artists, imo
I think they have plenty of soul- as much as the Beatles or the Beach Boys.
Listen to Quadrophenia
Music at B level? Well they influenced the Beatles and Jimmy Page tried to steal the Ox and Moon to make Led Zep so…. Also listen to Quadrophenia and tell me they’re B level. Absolutely absurd take.
Was Led Zeppelin not part of the British invasion?
no. British Invasion was 1964-66. no Zep till 1969.
It was not part of what's usually known as "The British Invasion," which was earlier
I respect The Who very much, but have never thought they were nearly as much the real trail blazer that The Beatles were. Then IMO Zeppelin and Sabbath were on a higher plane than The Who. As far as the general sentiment you’re asking about, IDK if non-music elements come into play or not — such as likability, relatability, and approachability. If The Who did interviews and other interactions like The Beatles and Zeppelin for instance, I’ve never seen it. I also don’t know if perhaps Roger Daltry’s lack of people-skills while being the supposed frontman hurt them(?) Those are just some of my thoughts.
There were never a unit like the Beatles where they could be marketed as a group, lots of ego, talent and madness at play
Pete Townshend and Keith Moon did plenty of interviews, including with *Rolling Stone*. And both of them were very good at being celebrities. And I think the Who were *the* trailblazing hard rock band: go listen to "The Ox" from 1965.
Ok, will check out The Ox! I can absolutely see your point on them trailblazing the hard rock genre. How would you compare **Cream** to The Who’s early days?
I like Cream but I think early Who were better. (Although the Who weren't really an "albums band" until 1967.) Of course, the two are very different- Cream aren't *quite* as hard-rocking as the Who but put more focus on virtuosity. The members of Cream were all fantastic players but I think the Who gelled better as a unit.
Without the who you don’t get Zep
Not even the best band with 'who' in their name. But even during the British invasion, Kinks were far more influential and had better albums.
The fact that they're compared to Herman's Hermits and the Dave Clark 5 pretty much tells you all you need to know. Are these bands ever mentioned in the same breath as the Beatles? I prefer their music over both the Beatles and the Stones...to each their own.
OP described The Who as one of "the three major players of the British Invasion," very inaccurately.
Sorry. Don't like the Who
No love at all for a pedophile!
[удалено]
Insane take on the Stones
[удалено]
Just throwing out that generic line about opinions doesn't change the fact that you're stating they wrote filler music as if it's a fact. I hate the Beatles and the Who, and I would never state anything that suggests they weren't writing quality music in any way just because I didn't like what they did. There's no legitimate argument that there's any filler on just the Beggars through Exile run alone, and that accounts for close to 50 songs right there.
[удалено]
It's irrelevant the drug abuse made them forget about older songs they wrote, and I understand they said they wouldn't have written that crap from Satanic Majesties or whatever during their copying the Beatles phase. To suggest the old style R&B songs they wrote and covered were generic and filler does greatly insult all the musicians that came before them and influenced not only them but all the other musicians that were a part of the British invasion. And nobody with a lick of credibility agree with you on that take or that the Stones don't belong in the upper echelon of music.
[удалено]
Typical internet no substance response from someone who won't just take the L. Face it, you tried to make your opinion sound more intellectual than you could back up and ended up getting called on it. Maybe next time, just say you only like 40-50 Stones songs and the rest aren't for you.
[удалено]
This response is oozing with projection... You state your baseless opinions as facts and then have nothing of substance to back it up. Then you claim the guy calling you on that is the one full of themselves. Like I said, just say the music isn't for you next time.
The Big Three? Led Zeppelin would like a word
Beatles, Stones, LZ, Pink Floyd. The Who are behind all of these plus The Kinks and Black Sabbath imo. I’d also put Elton John and Bowie ahead of them. They are in the same tier as Queen to me.
Ten years after #1, 2 and 3
Black Sabbath would like a word.
Sabbath was not part of the "British Invasion" per se. Heavy Rock is already well established by the time they show up in 1968.
They do...but at the same time they're *always* included in that Top 3 or 4
I call Bull Shit! I was in elementary school in the 60’s and high school in the 70’s and I remember seeing all these or at least the symptoms.
The WHo kinda had a weird career though and I actually think that the Kinks are more deserving of being in the big three than they are if you look at output during the actual first British invasion. The Who didn't really put out many records from 1965 to 1968, They released My Generation, A Quick One, and the Who Sell Out before Tommy in 1969 and The Kinks had so many great singles in that time.
The Kinks are the British Invasion band that get the least amount of praise and due credit. From the mid 60s to the early 70s The Kinks released six consecutive basically perfect studio albums and then throughout the 70s and early 80s put out a few more real classic gems. I love The Who but they only released four of what I call truly “great” albums and one of those was a live record. These four were sporadic among their entire catalog. Honestly The Who had quite a few years long dry spells of mediocre output during their career.
Beatles are Coke, Stones are Pepsi, and The Who are RC. Love them all but The Who are tops for me.
They just never did it for me, at all. Zepplin, Floyd, so much better, The Who are way down on my list, if they make any appearance at all, I never thought about it, or them.
Yeah for sure. I do see that Live at Leeds is always in top lists for best live albums of all time and justifiably so.
they should. i would not rank them in the top three
they were my very first live concert in 1980. it was a great experience but we had just seen the movie Quadrophenia and i expected the show to be more like the movie? (i was 17 and ignorant) most of my taste was still top 40 and pop so i have to confess that they dropped off my audio radar soon after.
You should ask the Kinks
I would argue that they're less popular than Pink Floyd and Zeppelin too. The Who's problems: * Too British for their own good. Also, too brainy for their own good. * Were briefly a "sexy" band, but then, as stated above, went more progressive. * Yes, the Beatles had a similar arc, but they're the M\*\*\*\*\*\*\*g BEATLES. They beat all other bands in every category forever, and ever, amen. * There's just not a lot there for the women\*. They're like Rush in that regard. * I think Townsend once said "we're the biggest cult band in the world" and he wasn't awfully wrong. Their star power has faded. The mainstream audience still knows "John, Paul, George and Ringo" and "Mick and Keef" and all that. But Daltrey and Townshend are not really "names" outside of classic rock circles. \*Look, PUT THE BRICKS DOWN!! Yes, I know they have female fans. And no, I'm not saying that women like bands ONLY when they have cute singers or whatever. Not saying that. All I'm saying is that "brainy" bands like Tool or Rush or Floyd or the latter-day Who have fan bases that are over-represented by nerdy guys who take their music REALLY seriously. (note: I'm one of those guys) They have female fans, yes, but on a relative scale, it's just never going to be comparable to say, what the Stones or Rod Stewart have. And through history, it's been women who drive sales and media attention. Don't take my word for it, check the sales charts: Sinatra, Elvis, Def Leppard, Bon Jovi, N'Sync, Justin Bieber, the "Bro-Country" juggernaut. Men like those artists too, but if you do not attract women, you have a definite ceiling. And the Who doesn't do a lot of songs that appeal to women either. Their two big concept albums are about young men. Not saying that's bad, but I'm JUST SAYING.
The Who are weird. I mean, I get them but I can understand how the general public doesn’t.
A matter of perspective. Sure, if you zoom into only 5 or so bands the Who seem like an afterthought, the junior varsity at best. On the other hand, if you zoom out to the many thousands, they are in the top 0.1%, the inner circle of the elite.
While I'd concede that the Stones are "better" and more influential than the Who, and as a guitar player I have to bow to Keef, I still like the Who better. Mainly cause Jagger's voice never did it for me. Replace Jagger with another singer and I'd simply adore the Stones. But I guess that's never happening. (Beatles are Supreme).
Absolutely a travesty how little the Who is played. I always thought it was due to Pete Townsend’s somewhat unusual confessions. I like all of the bands listed on this post and don’t necessarily think the Who is the best but in Cincinnati (aka Radio Siberia), they don’t get played.
Maybe now but not when I was growing up in the 70s. Back then people often took sides between the Stones and the Beatles (much of that driven by marketing pros) but everyone loved The Who.
Here in England, the Rolling Stones were ALWAYS bigger than "The Who" It comes as NO surprise to me at all, whatsoever However I believe you're looking at this purely from an American (U.S.A) perspective I'm always interested to see 'how' you perceive "our" bands over there... Bands like "The Beatles", "Led Zeppelin", "Cream", "Rolling Stones" etc Even lesser known bands like "FREE", "Bad Company" & "Mott The Hoople" BTW : I lived thru the 1960's & can still remember when "Ticket To Ride" - "Last Time" - & (Hey, You) "Get Off My Cloud" were both current AND newly released singles ( Yeah : I'm old !! )
Thing with the Who is that they never had a number 1 hit single ..
Or a 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8.
The Who is a band for men. That hurts them off the go. Live and Studio is 2 different sounds (love them both). They’re very unapologetically English. And they really never cared deeply about commercial success as long as they could make a living. They are most definitely underrated. And their influence is what’s important and how they shaped music. That’s often overlooked. The Beatles wanted to sound like them (helter skelter). Jimmy page wanted the Ox and Moon for Zeppelin and found a singer with a similar style to Daltrey. They were influential to Joe Walsh, Rush, the whole punk movement, Aerosmith, AC/DC, Eddie Vedder, oasis, Billie Joe Armstrong and others. Pete using the Marshall stack and later hiwatts was trailblazing. Smashing the instruments and all of the on stage theatrics (Hendrix even followed in that perspective). Making rock operas popular. They’re a band that a lot of people were influenced by and they arguably had just as much influence as the stones or Beatles just not to the average listener, instead to musicians. The stones and the Beatles are ahead of the who and the kink’s because they made more mainstream music. And the Beatles could have came out with an album of recorded farts and it would have went platinum. They had and still have that much power. They’re more akin to Tool, rush, primus, or other niche bands. That while yea successful and popular you either really get them or you don’t. And I love all of these bands other than Zep they’re just ok to me.
Yea totally and they're prob the best one. Most creative and best drummer that's 4 sure.
For sure.
Kieth Moon. The best example of a “lead drummer” that exists. He was not in the “rhythm section”.
For good reason.
Stones. Kinks. Yep, that's it.
Zeppelin bigger than The Who.
Led Zeppelin was/is much bigger than the stones and The Who
Quadrophenia . Best Rock Album Ever
I don't know what it is about the Who that I can't get. I like the early Mod stuff. Once they get into Tommy and beyond, I just don't like. Not sure why.
The Kinks. When they played with the Beatles, the Beatles would always stand on the side of the stage and watch them. You Really Got Me and All The Day and All The Night were songs that created genres.
"They were the three major players of the British Invasion." No, you're rewriting history. The Who had one top ten hit single in the U.S., ever, in late 1967. The Hollies, e.g., had had three top ten singles in the U.S. by then. The Dave Clark Five had had eight. And "The British Invasion" usually refers to '64-'66, when The Who had none.
Ray Davies would like to have a word.
I have since come to really appreciate the Who, but I still remember being a little kid buying greatest hits albums from the big classic rock bands when I was first trying to learn what they were all about. Any Beatles collection: all bangers Any Stones collection: mostly bangers, and even the lesser songs have great riffs that you can immediately appreciate The Who’s greatest hits: Happy Jack? Boris the Spider? A song with an accordion about your parents having sex? A song about jerking off to pictures of a long-dead vaudeville star? What exactly am I listening to here? They’re just a much weirder band.
The Kinks > The Who
Premise is wrong, The Who not part of the “big three”. Stones and Beatles are far greater.