Tell Me :
Talk
How so?
rocknroll has artists?
They're both great but it's sort of like apples and oranges. Two very different styles and approaches to music. The Stones are more "rock and roll," while Zep is more "rock," more of a metal sound, even though they did do a lot of softer stuff too.
without a doubt. I would guess 99 percent of the population think Led Zeppelin is the name of one of the band members.
"that Led, he's a great guitar player!".
Hahaha Lord of the Rings image....spot on!!!
Well, take just one, the so called Led Zeppelin 4, which is really just called Led Zeppelin. It has sold 23 million copies.
It's two completely different things. The Stones are this, Led Zep that, The Beatles this, The Who that and so on. Led Zep can't compete in the modern era? Which one? This one? What about the modern area of then? There's all kinds of reasons and excuses one can come up with.
That's just it. You mean now, not then. Then it was the modern era. If Zep had stuck together with a new drummer and slogged on like the Stones have it would be a completely different story. They wouldn't be as popular as they are now and have been. Can't say that about the Stones.
The bolded part reminded me of the Paul McCartney song Rock Show:
What's That Man Movin' Cross The Stage?
It Looks A Lot Like The One Used By Jimmy Page
Its Like A Relic From A Different Age
Could Be . . . . . Oo-Ee . . . . . .
yeah, each album individually were monsters. I think only a couple of albums come close to that in the Stones catalogue, Some Girls and Tattoo You, and Hot Rocks of course, if we include compilations.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
OT: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
jazzbass
()
Date: July 14, 2012 00:35
For the true crown of Worlds Greatest Rock and Roll Band.
Obviously, the Stones are my choice, but one of my good friends argues that Zeppelin deserves the title.
I'm asking that you guys help me with some ammo to support my position for this debate.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-19 02:47 by jazzbass.
Obviously, the Stones are my choice, but one of my good friends argues that Zeppelin deserves the title.
I'm asking that you guys help me with some ammo to support my position for this debate.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-19 02:47 by jazzbass.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: July 14, 2012 00:45
Your position on that 'debate'? Where is the debate? It's been talked about here plenty of times but not exactly like that, that silly title. You're going to load up on people saying how great the Stones are here and what, make a friend read it and say to them 'See, I told ya"? That's no worse than stupid US newspaper polls that determine something for the entire country based on a small number of people.
The Beatles and Led Zeppelin stopped. So they don't have the plethora of shit that amounts after releasing 26 albums like the Stones. Record sales is a joke to bother comparing.
The Beatles and Led Zeppelin stopped. So they don't have the plethora of shit that amounts after releasing 26 albums like the Stones. Record sales is a joke to bother comparing.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
lmatth8461
()
Date: July 14, 2012 01:06
Ditto, The Stones Led Zep and The Who are the three greatest rock bands ever, in my opinion...which is the point. Which band is the 'best' is entirely subjective.
If you think the Stones are the best, you're correct....and if your friend thinks Zep are the best, he's correct too!
If you think the Stones are the best, you're correct....and if your friend thinks Zep are the best, he's correct too!
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
keefbajaga
()
Date: July 14, 2012 01:08
Love Led Zep, but no way that they are the "Greatest R&R Band In The World", they were just a bunch of good guys
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
carlostones10
()
Date: July 14, 2012 01:24
New Kids on the Block.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
jazzbass
()
Date: July 14, 2012 01:30
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Record sales is a joke to bother comparing.
How so?
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
tkl7
()
Date: July 14, 2012 01:55
Led Zeppelin? Didn't they steal their songs from other artists?
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: July 14, 2012 02:05
Quote
tkl7
Led Zeppelin? Didn't they steal their songs from other artists?
rocknroll has artists?
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: July 14, 2012 02:14
Like them both, but The Stones for sure carry the crown. They lasted longer, played more live gigs, and put out far more music. Really Zep was kind of lame in that they didn't release a lot of music for the amount of time they were active. Also, they were a bit of a one trick pony with not near the amount of personality or dynamism as The Stones.
The holy trinity for me are The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and The Who. With the Kinks coming in on the top five.
The holy trinity for me are The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and The Who. With the Kinks coming in on the top five.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
Munichhilton
()
Date: July 14, 2012 02:26
Both are Elvis disciples.
Now thats good rockin' tonight!
Now thats good rockin' tonight!
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
pgarof
()
Date: July 14, 2012 02:27
Quote
whitem8
Like them both, but The Stones for sure carry the crown. They lasted longer, played more live gigs, and put out far more music. Really Zep was kind of lame in that they didn't release a lot of music for the amount of time they were active. Also, they were a bit of a one trick pony with not near the amount of personality or dynamism as The Stones.
The holy trinity for me are The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and The Who. With the Kinks coming in on the top five.[/quote
Your forgetting pink floyd, noe if there was a contest these would be pretty hard to beat.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: July 14, 2012 02:30
Pink Floyd is great but they wouldn't be in my top five.
The Beatles
The Rolling Stones
The Who
Bob Dylan
The Kinks
David Bowie
The Beatles
The Rolling Stones
The Who
Bob Dylan
The Kinks
David Bowie
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
Tonstone
()
Date: July 14, 2012 02:37
Don't want to debate RS v LZ. each to there own,
To me music is about the moment -how you feel - determines what you reach out and grab from that Cd rack to play.The only thing about LZ that a few friends of mine say is that they are still searching for that 'Great LIVE recording from LZ. where I can say at least we have 'Ya Ya's' and ''Brussels' that satisfy me as defintive live statements.
I have 'Blueberry Hill' and 'How The West Was One' by LZ to try and compare sort of similar time periods- So for me the Stones shade them - but that is only my preference.But to LZ fans they will say 'Graffiti' is better than 'Exile. Who cares enjoy them all and play em loud'
'IF YOU CAN'T ROCK ME SOMEBODY WILL'
To me music is about the moment -how you feel - determines what you reach out and grab from that Cd rack to play.The only thing about LZ that a few friends of mine say is that they are still searching for that 'Great LIVE recording from LZ. where I can say at least we have 'Ya Ya's' and ''Brussels' that satisfy me as defintive live statements.
I have 'Blueberry Hill' and 'How The West Was One' by LZ to try and compare sort of similar time periods- So for me the Stones shade them - but that is only my preference.But to LZ fans they will say 'Graffiti' is better than 'Exile. Who cares enjoy them all and play em loud'
'IF YOU CAN'T ROCK ME SOMEBODY WILL'
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
stonesdan60
()
Date: July 14, 2012 10:33
Quote
jazzbass
For the true crown of Worlds Greatest Rock and Roll Band.
Obviously, the Stones are my choice, but one of my good friends argues that Zeppelin deserves the title.
I'm asking that you guys help me with some ammo to support my position for this debate.
They're both great but it's sort of like apples and oranges. Two very different styles and approaches to music. The Stones are more "rock and roll," while Zep is more "rock," more of a metal sound, even though they did do a lot of softer stuff too.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
howled
()
Date: July 14, 2012 10:43
All anybody needs is Chuck Berry.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
keefriffhard4life
()
Date: July 14, 2012 11:18
my top 5 worlds greatest rock bands:
1 rolling stones
2 aerosmith
3 the who
4 the doors
5 the kinks
1 rolling stones
2 aerosmith
3 the who
4 the doors
5 the kinks
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
brownsugar86
()
Date: July 14, 2012 15:22
Who is the bigger band of the two in the UK in terms of Joe Public knowing them????
I would say Stones but I'm biased because I know more about them.
I would say Stones but I'm biased because I know more about them.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: July 14, 2012 16:21
Quote
brownsugar86
Who is the bigger band of the two in the UK in terms of Joe Public knowing them????
I would say Stones but I'm biased because I know more about them.
without a doubt. I would guess 99 percent of the population think Led Zeppelin is the name of one of the band members.
"that Led, he's a great guitar player!".
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
James Kirk
()
Date: July 14, 2012 16:32
Both great/legendary bands.
For what it's worth.
1/ The Stones the more important band in critical circles. They are always ranked higher than Zep by music critics in greatest of all time polls.
2/ The Stones are much bigger media stars. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards are much bigger stars than Robert Plant and Jimmy Page.
3/ LZ was a flash in the pan compared to the Stones. LZ was dominant in the 70's, but didn't have to compete in the modern era.
4/ LZ crosses over into heavy metal which is kind of the white trash (not well respected) of rock and roll.
5/ The Stones culturally had a much larger impact than LZ. While he Stones were at the front of the counter culture movement LZ was just a rock band.
In my opinion both bands music is among the best of the genre. In my humble opinion the Stones are a bit better. To me they are the smarter of the two bands and their rebellious/anti authority/sarcastic style beats LZ's Led Zeppelin's hippie/Lord of the Rings image any day.
Again, I like LZ very much, but I'm just making a case for the Stones. I just think the Stones are the better/more important of the two bands.
For what it's worth.
1/ The Stones the more important band in critical circles. They are always ranked higher than Zep by music critics in greatest of all time polls.
2/ The Stones are much bigger media stars. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards are much bigger stars than Robert Plant and Jimmy Page.
3/ LZ was a flash in the pan compared to the Stones. LZ was dominant in the 70's, but didn't have to compete in the modern era.
4/ LZ crosses over into heavy metal which is kind of the white trash (not well respected) of rock and roll.
5/ The Stones culturally had a much larger impact than LZ. While he Stones were at the front of the counter culture movement LZ was just a rock band.
In my opinion both bands music is among the best of the genre. In my humble opinion the Stones are a bit better. To me they are the smarter of the two bands and their rebellious/anti authority/sarcastic style beats LZ's Led Zeppelin's hippie/Lord of the Rings image any day.
Again, I like LZ very much, but I'm just making a case for the Stones. I just think the Stones are the better/more important of the two bands.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
brownsugar86
()
Date: July 14, 2012 16:54
Quote
James Kirk
beats LZ's Led Zeppelin's hippie/Lord of the Rings image any day.
Hahaha Lord of the Rings image....spot on!!!
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
dcba
()
Date: July 14, 2012 17:09
Lz started in 1969 (okay late 68) and by 1971 they were already starting to deliver bloated indulgent lifeless shows.
Don't get me wrong : thx to private tapers we know they could really play amazing gigs in 70 72 or even 77 but that sloppiness that could pervade some shows slipped in pretty quickly imo.
And the "improvisation" side of LZ on some numbers (JPJ on "No Quarter" or Bonham's drum solo) was more often than not a recipe for disaster.
Don't get me wrong : thx to private tapers we know they could really play amazing gigs in 70 72 or even 77 but that sloppiness that could pervade some shows slipped in pretty quickly imo.
And the "improvisation" side of LZ on some numbers (JPJ on "No Quarter" or Bonham's drum solo) was more often than not a recipe for disaster.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: July 14, 2012 17:22
Quote
jazzbassQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Record sales is a joke to bother comparing.
How so?
Well, take just one, the so called Led Zeppelin 4, which is really just called Led Zeppelin. It has sold 23 million copies.
It's two completely different things. The Stones are this, Led Zep that, The Beatles this, The Who that and so on. Led Zep can't compete in the modern era? Which one? This one? What about the modern area of then? There's all kinds of reasons and excuses one can come up with.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
James Kirk
()
Date: July 14, 2012 17:36
Nobody is saying they LZ can't compete in the modern era, but the fact is they didn't. Nobody knows what Zep would have looked like in the 80's,90,'s 00's and until today...If that Page/Plant record that came out in the late 90's is any indication they were better off keeping their image intact and not re-entering the scene. That "reunion" record was a huge disappointment on the charts. It barely registered in some countries around the world and only reaching #8 in the United States before quickly falling out of the charts.
The record seemed like a relic from a different era. LZ can kind of be a one trick pony.
The record seemed like a relic from a different era. LZ can kind of be a one trick pony.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: July 14, 2012 17:41
Quote
James Kirk
Nobody is saying they LZ can't compete in the modern era, but the fact is they didn't.
That's just it. You mean now, not then. Then it was the modern era. If Zep had stuck together with a new drummer and slogged on like the Stones have it would be a completely different story. They wouldn't be as popular as they are now and have been. Can't say that about the Stones.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
brownsugar86
()
Date: July 14, 2012 17:42
I know it's about who you prefer, but does anyone know who actually sold more overall??
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: July 14, 2012 17:44
Quote
James Kirk
Nobody is saying they LZ can't compete in the modern era, but the fact is they didn't. Nobody knows what Zep would have looked like in the 80's,90,'s 00's and until today...If that Page/Plant record that came out in the late 90's is any indication they were better off keeping their image intact and not re-entering the scene. That "reunion" record was a huge disappointment on the charts. It barely registered in some countries around the world and only reaching #8 in the United States before quickly falling out of the charts.
The record seemed like a relic from a different era. LZ can kind of be a one trick pony.
The bolded part reminded me of the Paul McCartney song Rock Show:
What's That Man Movin' Cross The Stage?
It Looks A Lot Like The One Used By Jimmy Page
Its Like A Relic From A Different Age
Could Be . . . . . Oo-Ee . . . . . .
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: July 14, 2012 17:48
Some listings have Led Zep at over 300 million, the Stones at 200 million.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: July 14, 2012 17:53
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Some listings have Led Zep at over 300 million, the Stones at 200 million.
yeah, each album individually were monsters. I think only a couple of albums come close to that in the Stones catalogue, Some Girls and Tattoo You, and Hot Rocks of course, if we include compilations.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
dcba
()
Date: July 14, 2012 18:00
I just dug out the excellent NYC 1971-09-03 show and one thing that strikes me is that the Page/Plant complicity onstage sounds kinda fake. Like two ambitious men who understood the money they could make out of their business partnership.
It's well-known Page hired Plant for their 1st US trek (late 68 - early 69) because he hadn't found anybody and he badly needed someone.
Well that's one thing you can't say about the Mick/Keith duo. They were completely symbiotic!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-14 18:00 by dcba.
It's well-known Page hired Plant for their 1st US trek (late 68 - early 69) because he hadn't found anybody and he badly needed someone.
Well that's one thing you can't say about the Mick/Keith duo. They were completely symbiotic!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-14 18:00 by dcba.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
2120Joe , ade , Broesel2404 , caschimann , goingmad , LiveAtHidepark , mike567 , Nobbi82 , novica , roobar58 , StonyRoad , TW2019
Guests:
1577
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10