Posted on 11/15/2021 3:28:28 PM PST by nickcarraway
Who frontman Roger Daltrey described the Rolling Stones as a "mediocre pub band" in a recent interview.
His comments follow those of Paul McCartney, who reignited the Beatles-vs.-Stones argument when he called Mick Jagger's group a "covers band" — leading to a lighthearted response from Jagger during a concert.
In conversation with the Coda Collection, Daltrey offered his own views, saying: "Mick Jagger, you've got to take your hat off to him. He's the number one rock 'n' roll performer." He continued with a laugh: "But as a band, if you were outside a pub and you heard that music coming out of a pub some night, you'd think, 'Well, that's a mediocre pub band!'"
Elsewhere in the interview, Daltrey revealed his envy toward Robert Plant, whose experience fronting Led Zeppelin was very different from Daltrey's own experience fronting the Who. “I managed to get the short straw of all the singers in all the bands," he reflected. "No solos! Who songs are all lyrics. Robert Plant — Percy, as we call him — he's a very good friend of mine, and we do joke about it. He said you could go off and read a book when [Jimmy] Page started up on a guitar solo or [John] Bonham stated on a drum solo. And I suddenly thought, 'I wonder what it would have been like being in a band like that!'"
Daltrey also said he was a "hater of the internet," explaining: "I never thought any good would come of it, and I still don't think anything good's come of it. I think if we're not careful it's probably the end of our civilization."
Wow that sounds more like something that jackass Pete Townsend would say.
When you’re a well-seasoned rocker, I guess you can get away with flapping your gums. Either way, he’s on solid ground, except that I’d take Charlie Watts over Keith Moon.
Classic rock food fight.
Pete may be too busy doing computer “research” on deviancy.
He’s not exactly wrong, except I always thought the Stones were the ultimate garage band. That said, I never understood The Who’s popularity either.
He’s not wrong.
The Stones are a very good blues band.
I’ve spoken to him lots of times here in L.A. His “hobby” is to go to the small record shops because he hated people bothering him at Amoeba, One of the small record shops is in Los Feliz/Silverlake area and he just walks there. He’s not a lib, that’s for sure. (grin)
Mods v. Rockers redux, srsly?
I look at a band’s great song rate over their entire catalog . Both these groups are similar in the 10 -15% great range, but the Stones have a more extensive collection. Slight advantage to the Stones. Very subjective obviously.
I think these guys just like to bait each other.
Funny I would’ve describe it exactly the opposite. Who isn’t even qualified to be a backup band stones.
Pete though has said repeatedly that he’s a huge Stones fan.
Exile and then Some Girls were the last “great” Stones albums, everything outside of that since 1972 has mostly been hit or miss.
The Stones are vastly overrated but their longevity is remarkable.
The Doors, while they did have some odd tracks, were far superior musically. Unfortunately Jim joined the 27 Club and the band flopped as a trio, breaking up in ‘73.
Mick doesn’t sing, he screams.
But I am going steady with Bon Jovi.
I’ll put The Who’s output from 68 to 73, up with anything. That includes a lot of the songs that didn’t even make it onto the albums.
Pete did seem to lose interest in The Who after Quadrophenia.
Seems it’s been open season on the Stones since Charlie passed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.