[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Who vs Stones X Kinks

> So "the who-" (the who 'minus', i.e., the who without john & keith)
> is greater than (>) the rolling stones times (*) the kinks!  
> In other words, The Who, even in 2004, is better than the 
> Stones
> & the Kinks combined!!  Brilliant!!
> QED 

There is an intensity to a Who show that the others just can't match.  I went to see Aerosmith a week ago and though I enjoy their songs and their show is very entertaining (Tyler at one point swinging on a trapeze), it lacks that special intensity of a Who show, where everyone is on pins-and-needles wondering what will happen next, despite knowing exactly what songs they might play.  

"When will the next violent windmills occur?  When is the next jump?  What improv jam will Pete do next?  Will Roger hit somthing with that mike?  Which notes will he nail and which will he fudge?  Will he botch the lyrics?  Will he obliterate the tamborines and send silver discs flying?"  There is an edge to a Who show that is unmistakeable but almost impossible to describe.  While fans of Aerosmith have a great time, they sort of laugh at and with the antics of the band.  Fans of The Who have the feeling of, "Fuckin YEAH!!" as they experience The Who.  The passion of the band is palpable by those in attendance, and it is noticeable when it is lacking.  Case in point was Boston show #1 from 2002, where everyone who went and posted here got the same impression- the fire was lacking.

To me, this elevates The Who above bands like The Stones and Aerosmith, b/c their shows aren't major social events that are "cool" to attend, yet they leave audiences with the elevated feeling that they have not just seen and heard something great, but have experienced it as well.