What I mean, though, is that if we look at the Popularity, Cultural Impact, Influence and Musical Impact of The Who's studio output versus Stevie Wonder's studio output, the two artists are comparable. It's when we also look at the Popularity, Cultural Impact, Influence and Musical Impact of their respective live performances that The Who come out on top. Does that make sense?

1. Chuck Berry
2. The Beatles
3. Little Richard
4. Bo Diddley
5. Elvis Presley
6. James Brown
7. The Rolling Stones
8. Bob Dylan
9. Smokey Robinson
10. Carl Perkins

And let me add that I'd rather see The Who on this list *any* day than the delightful but ultimately trivial Beach Boys. Or The Yardbirds. Or, most certainly, Ray Charles, Joe Turner, The Drifters, The Temptations, or Paul Simon (talk about *longevity*? he's been making records and performing even *longer* than the Beach Boys!).

How in the world are The Beach Boys more trivial than The Who?

Oh, I suppose having written and performed a phenomenally successful opera gives you a certain gravitas.

And I suppose having written and recorded what could be considered the most acclaimed rock album of all time (at least without a doubt more acclaimed than the original record releases of "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia" and in no way musically inferior to them) gives you even more gravitas. To be fair "Tommy" could be considered pretty "trivial" in some of its parts.

The Who wrote an opera, did they?

--------------
This is difficult for me, because I'm trying not to talk about what I *like*, and I don't really *like* "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia." I would definitely prefer listening to "Sloop John B" than any of The Who's "serious" work.
I'm trying to stick to *importance* here, and it's undeniable that The Who created something new and different and--at the time--quite radical, with "Tommy." Even though I personally didn't like it and would have much preferred they go on cranking out jump-up-dance-and-shout records like "I Can't Explain," "Summertime Blues," and "Magic Bus."

Tommy, upon its release, was more acclaimed than just about any album ever (LIFE magazine saying "for sheer power, invention and brilliance of performance, [Tommy] outstrips anything which has ever come out of a recording studio" and such). Pet Sounds' stature has grown over time, but upon release it was seen as a disappointment.

No matter how you judge it, there are no objective reasons for saying "Pet Sounds" is less important, serious, musical, influential, acclaimed or whatever than "Tommy". The whole "rock opera" thingy was just a minor phenomenon really.

And while the acclaim of "Pet Sounds" grew, "Tommy"'s decreased a little over time. It's still a very acclaimed album but it doesn't match the universal acclaim "Pet Sounds" gets nowadays.

It's not quite "universal." Other than the big hit singles, the rest of "Pet Sounds" is weak if you ask me. I never understood what all the fuss is.

True that.

Edit: Except for Bruce.

"Everybody but Bruce" could still be called pretty universal I guess.

It was absurd to write off a group like the Beach Boys as "trivial". For many they're the greatest American rock band of all time (that is, for many who aren't biased towards the era they grew up in, and are able to gauge all eras objectively).

Personally I dont think the Beach Boys are greater than The Who, but to write them off as trivial certainly implies a lack of education on the history of rock & roll.

That's what I told her, greatest American rock band, but actually, Diane grew up with the Beach Boys. She was 15 years old in 1963.