I could do without the 30 minute drum solos, lousy keyboard solos and 30+ minute versions of Dazed & Confused, but apart from that, between 1969 and 1975, Zep were definitely one of the greatest and most powerful live rock bands in the world, only rivaled by the Stones and The Who.

It must have been a real blast to see them in 1971, opening a show with Immigrant Song/Heartbreaker. The bootleg recordings don´t lie.

"It means nothing." As does almost everything written on this board. So why keep posting on this thread if you've nothing to add?

As for number ones doubledoor if you are speaking of singles when the bands were concurrently active in the US the Stones had 4 and Zeppelin none. In the UK the Stones one to none.

Albums in the UK for the Stones that hit #1 during the same time period were 6 to Zeppelin's 8. US was Stones 8 to Zeppelin's 6. That said Zeppelin's fourth album has sold 23 million copies in the US and peaked at #2 whereas Sticky Fingers hit #1 in the same year selling 3 million.

Since Zeppelin split the Stones have had one album top the US charts as have Zeppelin and the Stones one top the UK charts and zippo for Zep.

LZ outsold the Stones massively; the albums were required possessions for teen schoolboys in 70's and 80's. LZ is easier to get. The guitar with more distortion, the solos faster, the drums louder, heavier. I like LZ a good bit, but I have always missed any kind of subtlety or finesse with them. The message is literally pounded into your brain. Many people prefer it that way. But you got the Stones saying "betcha momma never saw you scratch my back", and Zep saying "squeeze my lemon till the juice runs down my leg". I don't mind the in-your-face style of Plant and Page, but find there's a lot more to discover with the Stones; they hold up well through years.

yes we can not forget the subtle message of "star star". still trying to figure out what the song is talking about

Quote
squando
"It means nothing." As does almost everything written on this board. So why keep posting on this thread if you've nothing to add?

As for number ones doubledoor if you are speaking of singles when the bands were concurrently active in the US the Stones had 4 and Zeppelin none. In the UK the Stones one to none.

Zeppelin didnt release singles in the UK.

And does anyone over the age of 12 care about no.1 singles anyway?

By that yardstick, Westlife and Take That would be 'better' than the Stones.

Quote
BluzDude

Quote
LOGIE

Quote
georgelicks

Quote
boogie69
That's still just an opinion, there is no way to truly prove who is more popular or better, regardless of the sales figures of music, concert tickets, merchandise, whatever. You think the Stones are better because you like them better, but that doesn't prove anything, it's still just an opinion.

At least someone with common sense here, Stones fans say "they're the best and no one can't touch them", Zeppelin fans say "they're the biggest rock band of the history", Beatles' fans say "they are bigger than Jesus", Pink Floyd fans say "The Dark Side Of The Moon is the greatest album ever" and the list goes on.
That's why an open poll is a good indicative of the public preferences, my opinion, your opinion, a kid that loves Zep's, an old fart that loves the Stones, different opinions and all valid.

The FACT is: in ANY open poll, the Stones are behind the Beatles, Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Queen (except U.S), Elvis, U2, and even Dylan now.
Why? Because everyone has a differet opinion.

Yes, but when that opinion is based upon myth and lack of knowledge, it becomes much less credible.

People who have never seen Led Zeppelin have a romanticised view of what they would be like in concert, based no doubt, on the strength of the tiny amount of official live footage that has been allowed out by the band. Footage, I might add, that has been over-dubbed to hell and cleaned up beyond recognition from the original tapes.

They sound like they've got a whole TEAM of Blondie Chaplins standing behind them!

Reality is a lot different.

Obviously you have never seen the band, Having seen them 18 times in the 70's, I can tell you, that in the room, there has never been a fuller sounding band.

I don't dispute the fact that technically, Led Zeppelin managed to achieve a great sound, but you know as well as I do that it would be impossible for one single guitar to produce anything like the onslaught that we hear in the two commercially available DVD releases.

Imagine too, if the only films available of the Rolling Stones entire live history were a cleaned-up live gig from 1973 and a similarly polished collection of selections from their 69, 72 and 78 tours. Their subsequent status as a live band would be off the scale.

However, it's sad to say, but in recent years, over-exposure and a succession of duff, lazily-produced live albums, has practically wrecked the wonderful legacy that the Stones had as a performing act, to the point where their current circus status draws no comparison whatsoever to Page & Plant's former glory years.

Alas, for those too young to know any different, this unfair comparison, between the current Stones and the Zeppelin from thirty years ago, is all they have to go by.

"Zeppelin didnt release singles in the UK."

I am aware of that. What of it?

"And does anyone over the age of 12 care about no.1 singles anyway?"

I don't know bud, why not survey all those beyond the age of 12 and get back to us? I was simply answering a question posted by 'doubledoor'.

"By that yardstick, Westlife and Take That would be 'better' than the Stones."

Well it's the yardstick you are putting in place and nobody else that I'm aware of. If you'd bother to read properly thru the thread for a moment you would realise - as I have stated more than once on this thread - I am not stating anyone is better than anybody else beacuse of sales and charts and so on. It is simply discussion. The Stones to me are better than LZ. Or is that 'better'? But once again it is simply opinion.

You have made three (pointless) statements presumably under the assumption that I assume that charts and sales make for better or worse.

And amen to this Logie:

"However, it's sad to say, but in recent years, over-exposure and a succession of duff, lazily-produced live albums, has practically wrecked the wonderful legacy that the Stones had as a performing act, to the point where their current circus status draws no comparison whatsoever to Page & Plant's former glory years."

It is indeed a shame.

"bootleg recordings don´t lie"
that's why I've posted a link to their 1973 Forum show aka one of the greatest LZ gigs ever...
Guess what? It's frankly average. Only CBreakdown has a bit of life in it.
The rest is turgid self-indulgence. The Stones circa`72 kicked LZ's ass EASILY!

"bootleg recordings don´t lie" indeed

Quote
squando
"Zeppelin didnt release singles in the UK."

I am aware of that. What of it?

"And does anyone over the age of 12 care about no.1 singles anyway?"

I don't know bud, why not survey all those beyond the age of 12 and get back to us? I was simply answering a question posted by 'doubledoor'.

"By that yardstick, Westlife and Take That would be 'better' than the Stones."

Well it's the yardstick you are putting in place and nobody else that I'm aware of. If you'd bother to read properly thru the thread for a moment you would realise - as I have stated more than once on this thread - I am not stating anyone is better than anybody else beacuse of sales and charts and so on. It is simply discussion. The Stones to me are better than LZ. Or is that 'better'? But once again it is simply opinion.

You have made three (pointless) statements presumably under the assumption that I assume that charts and sales make for better or worse.

Squando - I'm actually backing up what YOU said, in response to the poster who raised the point of no. 1 singles.

Quote
mickscarey
20minute organ solo; 20 minute drum solo; 20 minute stupid page solo. No thanks

Never saw them live.Was it really like that or only on Moby Dick ?
Plant's voice must have been a real "far out " !(Is "far out " still used nowadays or is it a loction from the 70's only ?)

Quote
Wild Slivovitz

Quote
squando

Zppelin are bigger than the Stones now as they were then. And that is a fact.

I don't mind how big they were. I only know that Stones are better, sorry.

Could you please explain what you meant by writing "better " ? On live ? Musically ? As song writers ?

To my opinion ,neither are better. They have different styles.Led Zep is a must-have from the golden years .



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-10 16:10 by SwayStones.

I have seen Led Zep 3 times, the first because I wanted to, the next 2 times because friends got me tickets. I was not very impressed, and I believe that there is a lot of myth and hype attached to the legacy. They are overrated.

That many of the stats listed on this thread compare them favorably with the Stones and other bands is comforting to me.

After all, the number of dum dums out there far exceed the number of people with taste, so it is to be expected. All is fine.

Quote
MKjan

After all, the number of dum dums out there far exceed the number of people with taste, so it is to be expected. All is fine.

Sure there were some yummies too out there .

Nevertheless....Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones did combat plague of crickets in Nevada ....


More seriously ,Led Zep had some kind of exceptional" interpretive abilities "(is that correct in English ?)and virtuosity and taste for musical innovation.
What do you think ?



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .

Quote
LOGIE


I don't dispute the fact that technically, Led Zeppelin managed to achieve a great sound, but you know as well as I do that it would be impossible for one single guitar to produce anything like the onslaught that we hear in the two commercially available DVD releases.

There's no overdubs on the Supershow or Danish TV Special from 1969.

The supershow Dazed and Confused kicks serious ass! My favourite LZ recording! Even though I really dislike Robert's singing on everything else.

Quote
SwayStones

Quote
MKjan

After all, the number of dum dums out there far exceed the number of people with taste, so it is to be expected. All is fine.

Sure there were some yummies too out there .

Nevertheless....Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones did combat plague of crickets in Nevada ....


More seriously ,Led Zep had some kind of exceptional" interpretive abilities "(is that correct in English ?)and virtuosity and taste for musical innovation.
What do you think ?

haha, I like your response SwayStones, and yes, I also agree with your serious comment too.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
LOGIE


I don't dispute the fact that technically, Led Zeppelin managed to achieve a great sound, but you know as well as I do that it would be impossible for one single guitar to produce anything like the onslaught that we hear in the two commercially available DVD releases.

There's no overdubs on the Supershow or Danish TV Special from 1969.

The supershow Dazed and Confused kicks serious ass! My favourite LZ recording! Even though I really dislike Robert's singing on everything else.

Yes, I take your point!

I agree too, that the Dazed & Confused show is excellent, ironically because of its more earthy and bluesy sound. A great performance all round!

Probably not what most people remember them for, however.

Quote
MKjan

Quote
SwayStones

Quote
MKjan

After all, the number of dum dums out there far exceed the number of people with taste, so it is to be expected. All is fine.

Sure there were some yummies too out there .

Nevertheless....Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones did combat plague of crickets in Nevada ....


More seriously ,Led Zep had some kind of exceptional" interpretive abilities "(is that correct in English ?)and virtuosity and taste for musical innovation.
What do you think ?

haha, I like your response SwayStones, and yes, I also agree with your serious comment too.

I apologize ,but I ain't sure if you were fair or not in your answer .....?



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-10 18:28 by SwayStones.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
LOGIE


I don't dispute the fact that technically, Led Zeppelin managed to achieve a great sound, but you know as well as I do that it would be impossible for one single guitar to produce anything like the onslaught that we hear in the two commercially available DVD releases.

There's no overdubs on the Supershow or Danish TV Special from 1969.

Yep. And no overdubs on the entire 1970 Albert Hall show as well and all the rest of the early stuff. The 1973 MSG material however was heavily doctored with (no overdubs though) but these are only three tracks.

Quote
SwayStones

Quote
MKjan

Quote
SwayStones

Quote
MKjan

After all, the number of dum dums out there far exceed the number of people with taste, so it is to be expected. All is fine.

Sure there were some yummies too out there .

Nevertheless....Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones did combat plague of crickets in Nevada ....


More seriously ,Led Zep had some kind of exceptional" interpretive abilities "(is that correct in English ?)and virtuosity and taste for musical innovation.
What do you think ?

haha, I like your response SwayStones, and yes, I also agree with your serious comment too.

I apologize ,but I ain't sure if you were fair or not in your answer .....?

Well, I was trying to say I think they are overrated as I earlier stated, but there is merit to your statement about their abilities and I recognize this.

Hey squando, chill out dude. Out of all the posts in this thread I summed up everything with three words that other people are going on and on about and you get mad and, oh my, have an opinion that I shouldn't bother keeping on posting.

Opinion doesn't matter. What anyone thinks is better doesn't matter. Someone says this and it's put down. Someone brings up facts and they are put down as a matter of 'opinion' or outdated. Record sales, show attendance, for some reason number ones - that's a baited one there.

It's rather obvious who is the more popular band. But some people can't handle the truth.

Quote
SwayStones

Quote
Wild Slivovitz

Quote
squando

Zppelin are bigger than the Stones now as they were then. And that is a fact.

I don't mind how big they were. I only know that Stones are better, sorry.

Could you please explain what you meant by writing "better " ? On live ? Musically ? As song writers ?

To my opinion ,neither are better. They have different styles.Led Zep is a must-have from the golden years .

The Stones have written much better songs, their performance is much more entertaining, they have released much better records (the so acclaimed Led Zeppelin's "Phisycal Graffiti" wouldn't be anything special in Stones' discography), and are much groovier. Moreover, the Stones are able to play effectively a much wider variety of musical genres keeping their own unique trademark sound. I hope this is an exhaustive explanation of why I like the Stones so much better than led Zeppelin.

Quote
Wild Slivovitz

The Stones have written much better songs, their performance is much more entertaining, they have released much better records (the so acclaimed Led Zeppelin's "Phisycal Graffiti" wouldn't be anything special in Stones' discography), and are much groovier. Moreover, the Stones are able to play effectively a much wider variety of musical genres keeping their own unique trademark sound. I hope this is an exhaustive explanation of why I like the Stones so much better than led Zeppelin.

Thank you ,that's what I was waiting for ,a very exhaustive and complete explanation.

Quote

the Stones are able to play effectively a much wider variety of musical genres

Yes.I do agree.



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .

Quote
Tornandfrayed

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
LOGIE


I don't dispute the fact that technically, Led Zeppelin managed to achieve a great sound, but you know as well as I do that it would be impossible for one single guitar to produce anything like the onslaught that we hear in the two commercially available DVD releases.

There's no overdubs on the Supershow or Danish TV Special from 1969.

Yep. And no overdubs on the entire 1970 Albert Hall show as well and all the rest of the early stuff. The 1973 MSG material however was heavily doctored with (no overdubs though) but these are only three tracks.

The 1970 Albert Hall show was cleaned up out of all recognition, certainly going by the original bootleg that used to do the rounds. As for The Song Remains The Same, the entire soundtrack is overdubbed to hell, which is why you hardly ever see Jimmy Page play any solos on screen! Those that he does play (in particular, SIBLY) are actually filmed on a soundstage.

How The West Was Won gets closer to their original live sound, though even that has had the benefit of studio trickery.

Yes, they were a great band, though much of it built around hype and myth; the groupies, the three-hour shows, the half-hour drum solos; the last of the great dinosaurs with their out-dated and severely restricted fusion of heavy metal and progressive rock.

But take away all of that hype, and we are left with Page & Plant's solo work.

...and the least said about that, the better!

It's probably been said, but if so it needs re-saying...

This thread is a load of crap!

Quote
georgelicks

Quote
boogie69
That's still just an opinion, there is no way to truly prove who is more popular or better, regardless of the sales figures of music, concert tickets, merchandise, whatever. You think the Stones are better because you like them better, but that doesn't prove anything, it's still just an opinion.

At least someone with common sense here, Stones fans say "they're the best and no one can't touch them", Zeppelin fans say "they're the biggest rock band of the history", Beatles' fans say "they are bigger than Jesus", Pink Floyd fans say "The Dark Side Of The Moon is the greatest album ever" and the list goes on.
That's why an open poll is a good indicative of the public preferences, my opinion, your opinion, a kid that loves Zep's, an old fart that loves the Stones, different opinions and all valid.

The FACT is: in ANY open poll, the Stones are behind the Beatles, Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Queen (except U.S), Elvis, U2, and even Dylan now.
Why? Because everyone has a differet opinion.

Holy crap you must be the thickest guy on the planet. You think an open poll is the best indicator? Yes maybe if you were to go door to door and poll every single person otherwise you are only polling the people who visit the particular website the poll is on. Who goes to those silly websites anyway? You when you are not scouring the internet cherry picking stats that fit your arguments? No one is denying that bands like Floyd, Zeppelin and maybe even Queen (though I don't understand why) are more popular among younger people. These are the people that vote on those polls. Get it Einstein? I don't think anyone over the age of forty will bother voting on those things.

If you were to go door to door and poll every single person in the country as to who were the greatest bands in rock history The Stones would only trail The Beatles. That would be a true poll not just polling teenieboppers who visit a particular website. Of course you can still disagree with the outcome you would just be in the minority opinion that's all.

"Lyin' awake in a cold, cold sweat. Am I overdrawn, am I going in debt?
It gets worse, the older that you get. No escape from the state of confusion I'm in.

First time I saw Zep (73?) they were fabulous. The next time (75? 76?) they SUCKED with those three longgggggggggg solos

Quote
melillo

Quote
out of my head

Quote
squando

Zppelin are bigger than the Stones now as they were then. And that is a fact.

Dude, couldnt be more accurate. Totally agree. I love the Stones way more but the fact remains that Zep always resonates better with more people. They just have a diff mystique about them that keeps on and on. producing more fans all the time. Stones are for a select few nowadays it seems. Zep just constantly attracts new fans for some reason. maybe cuz they had a beginning and end within 12 years or so. just like the beatles. i think the stones even though doing what they love for so long should have stopped long ago. They are like the brett favre of music. dont know when to quit. and yes my fave band ever but shit man, UC was the last really "Stonesy" album anyway. They would be much more loved and appreciated and interesting if they had stopped long time ago. sounds shitty but its true. they would have become instant legends after UC and calling it quits. The world is weird

uh maybe not touring in almost 30 years has something to do with that mystique, the stones work very hard and keep entertaining us,very simple why zep wont tour anymore, THEY CANT HANDLE THE ROAD AND THEY KNOW IT, CASE CLOSED

Excellent point Melillo. I agree completely.

Quote
mickscarey
20minute organ solo; 20 minute drum solo; 20 minute stupid page solo. No thanks

That´s the reason you went to see them in 73 and it was great ?

Or am I mixing up something and Zeppelin was well known in 73 and before
for presenting short,sharp 2:30 rockers ?

And suddenly they turned into solo orgies in 75/76 ?

Must have been a big surprise for you then...

Where is the great Led Zeppelin country song like Wild Horses? Hotdog? Zep was nearly as one dimensional as AC/DC- but they were much better than AC/DC.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-11 00:51 by FrankM.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Led Zepplin a novelty act?

Quote
FrankM
Where is the great Led Zeppelin country song like Wild Horses? Hotdog? Zep was nearly as one dimensional as AC/DC- but they were much better than AC/DC.

Black Country Women
Bron-Yr-Aur Stomp
Gallows Pole
Battle of Evermore
Going to California

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"