[QUOTE=pigonthewing82]And after Sgt Peppers a lot more bands from that time used a full band in their songs like Pink Floyd and Hendrix wanted to, but died. It is a lot more then pop.[/QUOTE]
Crediting that to them would be a huge mistake.

[QUOTE=lunch998]True true.

In terms of just music though, I think Tommy is far superior. And without using the studio too much, they could play it live.[/QUOTE]

Also true.

Buuuut...as far as influence goes...I'd merely like to point out that Sgt. Peppers precedes Tommy by two years, so it's possible that Tommy itself was influenced by Peppers.

[QUOTE=lunch998]Almost any music group will say that they are influenced by the Bealtes. But in terms of actual musical influences, many of those bands have no trace of Beatles influence. Therefore in terms of just musical influence, the Who=Beatles.[/QUOTE]

No way, you are really trying to make this into an unfair argument against the Beatles.

I feel that I can safely say that[B] because The Beatles have such a large fan base than The Who, there musical influence also dominates.[/B] But I'll even try to ignore that which easily ends this whole argument.

Ringo Starr is known as the first drummer to use the modern (Regular?) stick holding position. That alone has influenced sooo many freakin' drummers it is unbelievable.

Psychedelic songs like "Norwegian Wood" and others not only rearranged the British Psychedelic sound that bands like The Who, The Yardbirds and Cream were playing, but it even presented the more outlandish American Psychedelia with new opportunities. That all together influenced later Psychedelic English and American bands, but were the main influence for early 90's Psychedelic bands like Tripping Daisy and many others.

The amount of bad musicians out number the good. And being that The Who had better musicians and influenced good musicians, and that The Beatles had some good musicians and some Okay they strongly influenced the ones that turned out not as good.

^That is merely a prediction, but I believe it can play a role in this if you think about it.

I stickin' to the bold.

And Tommy wasn't the first rock oprea, other bands had done it, but not as well. Also I may be wrong about this, so I would like it if people could tell me, but I belive the Beatles could't tour because of threats from groups like the KKK and well they were just too popular. But I may be wrong I heard this on the internet is it true?

[QUOTE=Badmoon]No way, you are really trying to make this into an unfair argument against the Beatles.

I feel that I can safely say that because The Beatles have such a large fan base than The Who, there musicial influence also dominates. But I'll even try to ignore that which easily ends this whole argument. [/QUOTE]That's a false assumption, ever heard of a musicians' musician?

[QUOTE=Badmoon]Ringo Starr is known as the first drummer to use the modern (Regular?) stick holding position. That alone has influenced sooo many freakin' drummers it is unbelievable. [/QUOTE]
Dead wrong. Matched grip is actually the older of the two grips, dating back thousands of years. Until the introduction of marching drums which necessitated "traditional" grip matched grip, because it was the natural way to play, dominated.

[QUOTE]Dead wrong. Matched grip is actually the older of the two grips, dating back thousands of years. Until the introduction of marching drums which necessitated "traditional" grip matched grip, because it was the natural way to play, dominated.[/QUOTE]

Well, in Rock 'n' roll, he is supposably known as the founder. I'm not saying it was correct.

[QUOTE]That's a false assumption, ever heard of a musicians' musician?[/QUOTE]

No, if there are more fans there are most likely more musicians. The Beatles fan base dominates The Who's, therefore there are more likely more musicians who love The Beatles, and are musicially more influenced by them then The Who.

The Beatles are labelled as the greatest band of all time, not the Who.

If the Who are better, why hasn't the world given them this label? Such status can't be given by a couple peoples opinions, this is a worldwide thing and I think the world truly believes The Beatles are the greatest band of all time.

Now I realize that really doesn't add much to the conversation...I'm just saying that if the Who are as great as some of you think (better than The Beatles), I'm pretty sure the world would recognize that.

edit- you could argue that any band is greater than the Beatles...but what good does that do? Maybe you could convince a couple people, but it's not going to actually make a difference overall.

[QUOTE=Badmoon]Well, in Rock 'n' roll, he is supposably known as the founder. I'm not saying it was correct.[/QUOTE]
I highly doubt it was correct. I mean, very, very, very highly.


[QUOTE=Badmoon]No, if there are more fans there are most likely more musicians. The Beatles fan base dominates The Who's, therefore there are more likely more musicians who love The Beatles, and are musicially more influenced by them then The Who. [/QUOTE]
That assumption is false though. I'll give you an example. Pythagarus (sp?). You don't see any Pythagarus fans out their listening to his music on their headsets or anything. But his influence on music has been tremendous none the less.

[QUOTE=RockAndRoll]That's a false assumption, ever heard of a musicians' musician?[/QUOTE]
yes but its not just the technical skill, theres a lot to be said by the simplicity of their music and the style they played it with. and if someone was looking for the musician's musicians of classic rock, they could do better than the who. think rush, king crimson, or yes. the who DID set the stage for the punk attitude and later bands' stage presence though. i personally switch between the two, attempting to decide which i prefer but i cant. it just depends on how i feel.

on a different note, i just bought the new adrian belew (king crimson, the talking head, solo) cd. havent listened to it yet but it has les claypool on bass and danny carey on drums. im excited. oh and the new mars volta album comes out tomorrow.

[QUOTE]That assumption is false though. I'll give you an example. Pythagarus (sp?). You don't see any Pythagarus fans out their listening to his music on their headsets or anything. But his influence on music has been tremendous none the less[/QUOTE]

Now, how do you think that example plays a role. You believe that Beatles fans are more influenced by The Who, though they listen and prefer The Beatles?

Explain

[QUOTE=thickasabrick]The Beatles are labelled as the greatest band of all time, not the Who.

If the Who are better, why hasn't the world given them this label? Such status can't be given by a couple peoples opinions, this is a worldwide thing and I think the world truly believes The Beatles are the greatest band of all time.

Now I realize that really doesn't add much to the conversation...I'm just saying that if the Who are as great as some of you think (better than The Beatles), I'm pretty sure the world would recognize that. [/QUOTE]
We as a world have never gotten together and decided on anything.

[QUOTE=PinkFreud] the who DID set the stage for the punk attitude and later bands' stage presence though.[/QUOTE]
actually the Velvet Underground did that before The Who.

[QUOTE=RockAndRoll]We as a world have never gotten together and decided on anything.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but statistics and constant polling show a lot.

I feel kinda bad because there is nothing wrong with the Who we just got into an argument about it because sombody said the Beatles were the best band of all time (god screw him :rolleyes: ). Its hard to say who the best is because its everybody gets somthing different out of music.

[QUOTE=Badmoon]Now, how do you think that example plays a role. You believe that Beatles fans are more influenced by The Who, though they listen and prefer The Beatles?

Explain[/QUOTE]
Well I'm not saying this is necessarily true but I'm just using this to show that the assumption those with more fans are always more influential is incorrect. And therefore more substantial evidience is needed to prove that the beatles are more influential.

It is possible that people listen more to beatles but that the who's music provides more interesting ideas for musicians or that it provides previously unthought of ways of thinking etc... and so the who's music actually is more influential.

I'm not saying that's necessarily true, I'm just saying your reasoning and your point don't quite match up.

[QUOTE=ledpoisoning27]actually the Velvet Underground did that before The Who.[/QUOTE]

That's arguable. But the argument leans toward The Who. The Velvet Underground's first album came out in 1967. While The Who really sent out their influence through "My Generation" during 1965.

[QUOTE=Badmoon]Now, how do you think that example plays a role. You believe that Beatles fans are more influenced by The Who, though they listen and prefer The Beatles?

Explain[/QUOTE]
well it IS possible. though they prefer the beatles, the who have an advantage over them in technical skill, so if musicians model themselves after a band, though they prefer the beatles, they might go for the who, admiring their talent.

[QUOTE=Badmoon]That's arguable. But the argument leans toward The Who. The Velvet Underground's first album came out in 1967. While The Who really sent out their influence through "My Generation" during 1965.[/QUOTE]
exactly what i was going to say. im a huge advocate for getting the velvet underground out to people, but the who were there before them. of course, the vu, mc5, and stooges had a bigger DIRECT effect, but the who were the forefathers.

[QUOTE]Well I'm not saying this is necessarily true but I'm just using this to show that the assumption those with more fans are always more influential is incorrect. And therefore more substantial evidience is needed to prove that the beatles are more influential.[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying that The Beatles influence is greater because they possess more fans. I'm saying it is a possibility.

[QUOTE=Badmoon]That's arguable. But the argument leans toward The Who. The Velvet Underground's first album came out in 1967. While The Who really sent out their influence through "My Generation" during 1965.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but the Velvets were playing in Warhol's museum for years before they had a record released.

[QUOTE=ledpoisoning27]Yes, but the Velvets were playing in Warhol's museum for years before they had a record released.[/QUOTE]
and the who were playing with a different name and sans keith moon earlier as well. and they still had their incendiary live shows.

[QUOTE=Badmoon]Yes, but statistics and constant polling show a lot.[/QUOTE]
Still the argument was rather absurd. Somethings goodness can not be measured by the number of people who find it good. If you think about it for a second you'll realise how odd of an idea it really is.

[QUOTE=RockAndRoll]Still the argument was rather absurd. Somethings goodness can not be measured by the number of people who find it good. If you think about it for a second you'll realise how odd of an idea it really is.[/QUOTE]

It is kind of absurd, but what do we have to base universal thoughts on other than portional statistics and polls? Other than asking everyone.

[QUOTE=PinkFreud]and the who were playing with a different name and sans keith moon earlier as well. and they still had their incendiary live shows.[/QUOTE]
That is true, but the Velvets already had influenced bands such as the Doors, mostly Jim Morrison. And in a quote, i forgot who said it, butit was said in the 60's any band that heard of the Velvets formed their own band. so i would say that the Velvets had a much more influence on music then the Who.

[QUOTE=ledpoisoning27]That is true, but the Velvets already had influenced bands such as the Doors, mostly Jim Morrison. And in a quote, i forgot who said it, butit was said in the 60's any band that heard of the Velvets formed their own band. so i would say that the Velvets had a much more influence on music then the Who.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but we're talking about who influenced Punk the most.

Not The Doors or music in general (The Who still win. They're much more known)

"A Little Less Conversation" is a fantastic Elvis Song, expecially the remix.

[QUOTE=Badmoon]Yeah, but we're talking about who influenced Punk the most.

Not The Doors or music in general (The Who still win. They're much more known)[/QUOTE]
well lets see, Iggy Pop said that he was influenced to get out and play by hearing the Velvets, and from that the Ramones said they were influenced by Iggy and the list will go on from there.

[QUOTE=ledpoisoning27]That is true, but the Velvets already had influenced bands such as the Doors, mostly Jim Morrison. And in a quote, i forgot who said it, butit was said in the 60's any band that heard of the Velvets formed their own band. so i would say that the Velvets had a much more influence on music then the Who.[/QUOTE]
i would argue that the who had more. ive heard that quote before, but the first part of it said, "only a few hundred people heard the velvet underground but..." and then it continued. now im a firm believer that the velvet underground was a direct influence of the entire genre of alternative and brought drugs, s&m, as well as other taboo subjects into lyrics but the whos influence spread was gigantic. first off, consider individual influence. john entwistle, easily one of the most influential bass players in rock. ever. he first brought the bass to the forefront of the music (rock) along with the first recorded bass solo in rock (my generation). keith moon, a hugely popular and influential drummer. examples? witness n00bs and otherwise in the drum forums. not to mention that players such as neil peart have listed him as an influence. townshend, while not a virtuoso guitar player, was important to the attitude of music with his destruction of equipment and windmill and various other stage antics.

on punk in general, the who most likely came before the velvet underground and while the vu had more influence over subject matter and lyrics, the defining face of punk was the attitude. the lack of respect for authority. the who displayed this attitude early on and didnt let up. thus, in my opinion at least, the who had a bigger influence over punk and rock music in general.

edit: and while bands may not come right out and STATE that they were influenced by the who, they clearly are byt their stage antics. or they might not just be aware. perhaps the saw a different band who was influence by the who and mindlessly incorporated aspects of that band into their own. thats still influence, despite it not being as obvious as saying it.

Hey, about that noobs liking Keith Moon...just take a look around (hint, its not text).

[QUOTE=ledpoisoning27]well lets see, Iggy Pop said that he was influenced to get out and play by hearing the Velvets, and from that the Ramones said they were influenced by Iggy and the list will go on from there.[/QUOTE]

Listen to The MC5, the [I]main[/I] influence to The Stooges. You'll hear nothing but The Who. The Who also had a major influence on The Sex Pistols. Who are supposably the first Punk band.

yes the who is more influential musically, but you have too agree the the Velvets were more influential lyricly speaking

/anyways, im out, going to sleep

[QUOTE=Badmoon]Listen to The MC5, the [I]main[/I] influence to The Stooges. You'll hear nothing but The Who. The Who also had a major influence on The Sex Pistols. Who are supposably the first Punk band.[/QUOTE]

Thank to f[B]u[/B]ck Christ I'm not the only one who didn't forget about Mc5

Is Magicbus around? He wanted me to send him a song.

[QUOTE=Badmoon]Listen to The MC5, the [I]main[/I] influence to The Stooges. You'll hear nothing but The Who. The Who also had a major influence on The Sex Pistols. Who are supposably the first Punk band.[/QUOTE]
the Sex Pistols beat up Townshend (i think), that is what 'Who Are You' is about, their run-in with the Pistols.

/now im leaving

[QUOTE=Seafroggys]Hey, about that noobs liking Keith Moon...just take a look around (hint, its not text).[/QUOTE]
eh, i didnt mean only noobs like him. hes definitely one of my favorites, as well as a big inspiration to my playing.

[QUOTE=ledpoisoning27]the Sex Pistols beat up Townshend (i think), that is what 'Who Are You' is about, their run-in with the Pistols.

/now im leaving[/QUOTE]

No, I recall reading just a confrentation that was actually quite positive. 3/4 of the Sex Pistols were huge Who fans.

I don't like classic rock for some reason. :(

[QUOTE=Aether Storm]I don't like classic rock for some reason. :([/QUOTE]

Then STFU and don't post in here, dipsh[size=2]it[/size].

[QUOTE=Aether Storm]I don't like classic rock for some reason. :([/QUOTE]

Do you want us to recommend you some? I'm sure we could get you off to a great start.

Some Cream or Who is a great place to start. Invest in some "Behind Blue Eyes" and "White Room." Yesh, I don't know too many Who or Cream songs.... :amaze: