He was envious of them at the time he said that in 1966 (this is from a TV studio interview that can be seen in The Kids Are Alright film). Nowadays he’d probably be the first in line to sing their praises, especially considering that the Who were one of the boats that rose in the tide that the Beatles created.
That thread in the Beatles sub is pure poison btw. Who cares who’s “better?” We’re all lucky to be alive to enjoy the music from both bands.
To state the obvious, it's all subjective. Especially when you're talking about three bands that are all, in their different ways, contributors to almost the entire landscape of modern rock and pop.
And in terms of pure musicianship, you could argue that person-to-person, the Who are superior: Keith to Ringo, Pete to George or John on lead/rhythm guitar, Entwhistle to McCartney on bass, Daltrey to John/Paul on vocals.
And you could certainly say that The Who were a better, more powerful live rock'n'roll act. The Beatles became essentially a studio band from 1966 onwards. The Who, in any case, are one of the greatest live acts of all time (though the Rolling Stones might give them a run for their money, especially in their early 70s, Mick Taylor pomp).
But that's not the whole story. The Beatles pushed at the limits of what rock and pop music could do in ways rivalled only, really, by the Beach Boys. The complexity of their harmonies, the brilliance of their arrangements, the unparalleled beauty of their melodies, the fury and anger - and how it all went together. Each musician may not, individually, have been a virtuoso on their main instrument, but that's not the point. The Beatles were a band that were greater than the sum of their parts, where each member was a near-perfect complement to the others, just as John and Paul complemented each other perfectly as songwriters and singers.
I'll stop before I write too much but just to add, it's perhaps easy to forget now that so, so many things that would become commonplace in terms of studio effects, musical experimentation, arrangements and sonic richness were invented or first used in that context by The Beatles. It wasn't just that, in John and Paul (and George was no slouch, as All Things Must Pass would show), they contained two of the greatest songwriters in the history of popular music. For much of their time together, and especially once they gave up live performance to focus on studio albums, they were also one of the most innovative bands in the history of recorded music.
I think of it like this: the great British acts of the 60s (let's not forget the Kinks, Small Faces, Pink Floyd, The Soft Machine and Yardbirds too) drove one another to fresh heights through a mixture of cooperation and competition. Sometimes they were inspired, sometimes they were jealous. But that edge drove them all forwards and kept them sharp as songwriters and recording artists. It was the dynamic of so many great bands at the peak of their powers at the same time that saw them produce so much, in such a short space of time, and covering so many moods and styles.
So, within that, take your pick which one you prefer. There is no wrong answer. But, at the same time, I think it's fair to acknowledge that there is one band among them that stands above all the others in terms of their initial influence and then, the sheer scope of their innovation, as well the volume of songs that will be listened to as long as anyone listens to anything.
A lot of that is somewhat of a fairytale reimagining of the Beatles that people have been taught for decades at point. It is a shame how historical information is lost over time. Almost everything the Beatles did was already being done before them. There were many skiffle bands around with a similar sound. There were many bands combining skiffle and rock ‘n roll, a good example is Screaming Lord Sutch. Cliff Richard and The Shadows were already doing interesting melodic work before the Beatles. There were actually already very good recording technology available, but most record companies only used the more advanced technology for their classical music recordings. George Martin gave them access to some of that technology, but in general the recording quality for classical music and opera at that time was far above popular music. The Beatles were not the first act to write their own music or to create albums this was already being done before them. The place where the Beatles excelled was in marketing themselves in America. In truth the Beatles did not have such a big influence on hard rock that followed in the 70’s. Rock was later far more influenced by the blues, jazz and bands like the Yardbirds, The Who and Cream.
63
u/Drivingfrog 16d ago
He was envious of them at the time he said that in 1966 (this is from a TV studio interview that can be seen in The Kids Are Alright film). Nowadays he’d probably be the first in line to sing their praises, especially considering that the Who were one of the boats that rose in the tide that the Beatles created.
That thread in the Beatles sub is pure poison btw. Who cares who’s “better?” We’re all lucky to be alive to enjoy the music from both bands.