Comparison of bands

[jennifer fox <jfox@mail.slc.edu>]

Lately I've been noticing a recent squabble over who influenced the Who, and
vice versa.  There has been a lot of talk about the Beatles, and how they
were influenced by the Who, etc.  I consider myself to be pretty much an
authority on the Beatles seeing that I did a 42 page paper on them for my
high school thesis two years ago, and have read 15 different books on them.
Up until I was exposed to the Who, I thought they were the best band that
emerged out of the 1960s.  Now, I feel that it is a tie between the Beatles
and the Who.  To compare both bands is a sticky matter.  Both were so
uniquely good in their own way.  While the Beatles produced albums in which
every song could be really listened to (especially after Rubber Soul), the
Who's live performances would be full of such vigor and energy that nobody
else could touch them.  This is not to say that the Who didn't produce great
albums, but I always found I preferred much of their material from live
shows more than those produced in the studio (see 'A Quick One' from the
Stones' Rock'n'Roll Circus).  I would also have to say that the Beatles were
often times more melodic than the Who.  I mean, I'm sorry, but you can't
tell me that "Yesterday" was a Who inspired track.  As for Harrison's
"Taxman", I really don't see any existing connection either.

I will say this-Paul McCartney did say that "Helter Skelter" was written
after he read an interview on Pete.  Pete had said that he and the Who had
recently just recorded the most raunchy rock song yet to be released.  Paul
never did find out what song Pete was specifically referring to, but it
inspired him to write "Helter Skelter", which can be judged as a respectable
track in its own right.  Pete, on the other hand, when asked who were his
favorite writers (circa 1964-65), one out of the three responses he gave was
the LEnnon/McCartney pair. Paul, on the other hand, was quoted in '64 or '65
as saying that the Who were the most exciting new band to emerge at that
time, and Lennon said that no one could touch the Who live.  In other words,
both groups admired each other, and competed wit one another as well.  I'd
say that their greatest influence was that their own successes forced the
others to try and top one another.  This can be said with a lot of other
bands as well (though none, in my opinion, could exceed the Beatles or the
Who).  

Both bands were great and contributed so much to music.  The Beatles broke
through the system, and the Who shook it up.  The Beatles added more of a
variety to their albums, while the Who stuck with a more solid line in rock
(the Beach Boy influence not included).  Thus, I think it is a futile
argument to keep going back and forth on which band is the best.  Same about
the Hendrix/Townshend debate, though I do think Pete deserves more
recognition than he gets.  Like it was previously said, Clapton is
worshipped as a guitar God (and should be so), but I think Pete should be
worshiped just as much.  I know that I would easily take either Townshend,
Lennon, or Clapton for my own (but that's reverting back to the Pete-lust
topic, on which I have already responded to).

So, take it easy guys, they are both very good bands, and both should be
revered for what they did.

Jennifer

P.S.-If you want to write a nasty response to my remarks, I won't be able to
get back to you until Monday since I'm going home for the weekend.  So,
don't worry, I won't forget to respond to anyone's snide little retorts!