>>116164809 (OP)

Literally who

>>116164809 (OP)

>can't write a single song

Fuck this midget

>>116164809 (OP)

The Stones are better than the Who in every possible way... and that's coming from a Who fan

kek

>>116164809 (OP)

great insight there from the fourth most talented member of The Who

The Who are better than the Stones in every possible way...and believe me, I'm a big Stones fan!

Lmao

>The Stones are better than the Who in every possible way... 

>proceed to get eternally BTFO at their own Rock and Roll Circus

https://youtu.be/RJv2-_--EY4 [Embed]

https://youtu.be/n06f6et66NQ [Embed]



time to rope, anon –– you're never recovering from this one.

>>116164809 (OP)

I hate this retarded immature competition. I like both bands.

>>116164809 (OP)

I hate this retarded immature competition. I hate both bands.

I like this retarded immature competition. I hate both bands

I like this retarded immature competition. I like both bands

>>116164809 (OP)

>'ate immigrants

>'ate the EU

>'ate political correctness

>'ate the stones

>simple as

>album quality

Honestly, about equal, despite how many more albums The Stones have, especially considering Pete split his material between The Who and his solo records at his creative peak.

>non-album quality

The Stones win in regard to singles, but The Who have better non-album material overall, as evidenced by Odds and Sods, the Rarities albums and the various deluxe editions.

>Live performances

The Who win, no question

>Influence

They were probably as influential as each other taken on the whole, but The Who were clearly more influential in regards to punk, metal, britpop, power pop, etc. 

So overall, in the main metrics of evaluation, I think The Who clearly wins. And I love both bands.

Townshend could say this, but Daltrey is a worthless hack.

the rolling stones >>>>> the who >>>>>>>> the beatles >>>> aerosmith 



and I'm from India before anyone asks.

>>116164809 (OP)

To be fair... The Rolling Stones were probably the least experimental of the British invasion bands.

They tried their psych shit when it was trendy, but after the backlash they never tried again.

The Who were overall better. But something like Brown Sugar, Honky Tonk Women or All Down The Line? Pure swinging rock and roll? They could have never done that

>>116164809 (OP)

I only like The Who's first three albums. The Rolling Stones have at least a dozen good albums.

The Kinks were the best.

And this pays my bills in what way, again?

Imagine being the guy who plays the tambourine during a 9 minute John Entwistle solo having the audacity to comment on other people's musical ability.



John entewhistle is dead, grandpa

>>116164809 (OP)

kek

they both had retarded drummers

get a job you lazy liberal

kek

>>116164809 (OP)

the Stones is some pretty forgettable trash tho desu

Paint It Black and Sympathy for the Devil are probably their only memborable songs. bitches hate those jams so they definitely aren't pub-friendly.

Based that they played A Quick One, my favorite album of theirs

lol ok kid nice opinion. call me when youre old enough to go out for beer



stones make sexy music. its quite simple.



the who makes ballistic self discovery art school post blues. cant really compare the two

>Daltrey: Only love can make it rain, the way the beach is kissed by the sea

>Jagger: YOU CAN COME ALL OVER ME

>>116164809 (OP)

stones songs > who albums > who songs > stones albums
