The Stones are by far the best band; with BAND being the key word. What makes the Stones so special is that they're at their best as a unit. The Beatles were pretty much 3 solo artists+Ringo. Nothing really wrong with that, but not really a band. Led Zeppelin, ughh. While I love Page's guitar playing, I can't stand Plant ad his shrill screams. Bonham was a good drummer but had a tended to overplay a bit. Pink Floyd wouldn't even crack my top 100.

BAck to the boys. The thing the Stones can do that the others couldn't even come close to is they can tackle pretty much any genre of music(Blues,RnR, country+western, soul, reggae, funk, punk, etc.) and make it sound authentic.

Quote
fiftyamp
The Beatles were pretty much 3 solo artists+Ringo. Nothing really wrong with that, but not really a band.

Not originally, but certainly by Revolver things were getting that way (& yes, from The White Album onwards they were pretty much solo artists with other members sometimes helping out). For this reason, & the fact that I love the energy & innocence of the early years I'd choose The Beatles recordings up to & including 'Help!' over the later stuff any day (Lennon's voice sounded much better too, with the voice that sung 'Anna' & 'Money' with such great passion being a thing of the past by '66). The Stones of course if anything gelled even more as a band by the end of the 60s.

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
Rockman
EASY ....Try shaggin' ta Stairway Ta Heaven .....

LOL, before I am really going to give it a try ... did you ?

a classic shaggin song is 'Under The Boardwalk'...
but around here in North Carolina, "shagging" has a different meaning...
its a dance, and they have 'shag contests' at 'shag clubs'

thought ya'll might enjoy that..

Quote
fiftyamp
The Stones are by far the best band; with BAND being the key word. What makes the Stones so special is that they're at their best as a unit. The Beatles were pretty much 3 solo artists+Ringo. Nothing really wrong with that, but not really a band. Led Zeppelin, ughh. While I love Page's guitar playing, I can't stand Plant ad his shrill screams. Bonham was a good drummer but had a tended to overplay a bit. Pink Floyd wouldn't even crack my top 100.

BAck to the boys. The thing the Stones can do that the others couldn't even come close to is they can tackle pretty much any genre of music(Blues,RnR, country+western, soul, reggae, funk, punk, etc.) and make it sound authentic.

Led Zeppelin wasn't a unit? They totally were, I'm sorry. When listening to LZ1-IITOD, the wide range of styles indeed matches if not tops The Stones. I can't think of any earnest sounding Stones Reggae, and I still don't understand how some of the same-sounding 3-chord Some Girls songs are 'punk'. The Stones never were, nor ever could be considered 'punk'. Mick did know how to make a disco tune though (Zep wisely never bothered).

Back to Zep... They very much were a unit. They were a four-headed musical monster, all living members agree. So much so that when one of them died, they called it quits. The logic being that without an irreplacable member, which all four of them were, the band is no longer Led Zeppelin.

Kind of like The Who.
Oh, wait...

Still, apart from the 4 reunions in 31 years (Live Aid '85, Atlantic Records 40th Ann. '88, Jason Bonham's wedding '90, O2 concert '07) they've pretty much kept their legacy intact without spoiling it. Only once has any of them come up with (imo) a sub-par solo disc (Plant's Shaken and Stirred), but even that came no where near the suckage of, say, Primitive Cool. In fact, tainting the Zep Legacy is the main reason why Plant will not do a reunion tour.

Even if they did do it, based on the O2 show, they would likely be the only dino-rock outfit with only the original lineup represented.
Robert Plant, Jimmy Page, John Paul Jones and Jason Bonham. 4 musicians. No Vegas back-up army, no keyboard player hiding under the stage (that means you, U2), no crutches.

As for the Stones, their legacy apart from their hits from the 60's and 70's (plus Start Me Up), will be remembered, but those alone don't hold up tp either The Bealtes or Led Zeppelin's incredible catalouges. This does not mean they don't have their true legacy... box office records.

The Vega$ Era IS what separates them from everyone else now, the sheer dollars sucked in by them will likely never be seen again,

[thepowergoats.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-06 21:09 by jamesfdouglas.

I really like Zeppelin, and am even going to a Robert Plant show next month.

Legacy is huge for that band. I agree though with some of the other comments...legacies truly take hold AFTER it is all over.

Enjoy the Plant Show!!


[thepowergoats.com]

jamesfdouglas - You make a good argument but I have to put the Stones ahead of LZ. I beleive they are more authentic sounding in different genres than Zep. That said Zep was a musical four headed monster. But the nod has to go to the Stones. Even the Vegas era as some are calling Stones have crafted some fine music. And the Stones did finally get the reggae right with You Don't Have to Mean It.

Quote
slew
And the Stones did finally get the reggae right with You Don't Have to Mean It.

I wouldn't even call that a reggae song (though it has a Ska-influenced beat, not quite the same thing). They got the reggae right with 'Feel On Baby' imo though...

Quote
slew
jamesfdouglas - You make a good argument but I have to put the Stones ahead of LZ. I beleive they are more authentic sounding in different genres than Zep. That said Zep was a musical four headed monster. But the nod has to go to the Stones. Even the Vegas era as some are calling Stones have crafted some fine music. And the Stones did finally get the reggae right with You Don't Have to Mean It.

Yes, there was some fine stuff made in the Veags era. Terrifying, Baby Break it Down, Thru and Thru, Saint of Me, Out of Control, Theif in the Night. And I actually wasn't thinking of You Don't Have to Mean It either. I'll concur that it does feel real. Points for that!

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
fiftyamp
The Stones are by far the best band; with BAND being the key word. What makes the Stones so special is that they're at their best as a unit. The Beatles were pretty much 3 solo artists+Ringo. Nothing really wrong with that, but not really a band. Led Zeppelin, ughh. While I love Page's guitar playing, I can't stand Plant ad his shrill screams. Bonham was a good drummer but had a tended to overplay a bit. Pink Floyd wouldn't even crack my top 100.

BAck to the boys. The thing the Stones can do that the others couldn't even come close to is they can tackle pretty much any genre of music(Blues,RnR, country+western, soul, reggae, funk, punk, etc.) and make it sound authentic.

The Stones, not even close. LZ has a weak catalog,not including the stuff they stole, and Plants voice is annoying.

LZ does not have a weak catalog - if you don't like them fine but that is a ridiculous assessment!

Quote
slew
LZ does not have a weak catalog - if you don't like them fine but that is a ridiculous assessment!

Yeah, it's pretty laughable to say the least. I personally have no love for The Doors but I can still acknowledge what they accomplished and their level of infulence.

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
jamesfdouglas

Led Zeppelin wasn't a unit? They totally were, I'm sorry. When listening to LZ1-IITOD, the wide range of styles indeed matches if not tops The Stones. I can't think of any earnest sounding Stones Reggae, and I still don't understand how some of the same-sounding 3-chord Some Girls songs are 'punk'. The Stones never were, nor ever could be considered 'punk'. Mick did know how to make a disco tune though (Zep wisely never bothered).

Back to Zep... They very much were a unit. They were a four-headed musical monster, all living members agree. So much so that when one of them died, they called it quits. The logic being that without an irreplacable member, which all four of them were, the band is no longer Led Zeppelin.

Kind of like The Who.
Oh, wait...

Still, apart from the 4 reunions in 31 years (Live Aid '85, Atlantic Records 40th Ann. '88, Jason Bonham's wedding '90, O2 concert '07) they've pretty much kept their legacy intact without spoiling it. Only once has any of them come up with (imo) a sub-par solo disc (Plant's Shaken and Stirred), but even that came no where near the suckage of, say, Primitive Cool. In fact, tainting the Zep Legacy is the main reason why Plant will not do a reunion tour.

Even if they did do it, based on the O2 show, they would likely be the only dino-rock outfit with only the original lineup represented.
Robert Plant, Jimmy Page, John Paul Jones and Jason Bonham. 4 musicians. No Vegas back-up army, no keyboard player hiding under the stage (that means you, U2), no crutches.

As for the Stones, their legacy apart from their hits from the 60's and 70's (plus Start Me Up), will be remembered, but those alone don't hold up tp either The Bealtes or Led Zeppelin's incredible catalouges. This does not mean they don't have their true legacy... box office records.

The Vega$ Era IS what separates them from everyone else now, the sheer dollars sucked in by them will likely never be seen again,

Well, punk is more of an attitude that a genre, my mistake. Even if you only consider the big 4 of BB, LIB, SF, and Exile, that right there blows the whole Zep catalog out of the water. The Beatles are a different story. Much more of a pop band than rock n' roll. Of course they wrote many classic songs, but they couldn't hold it together. Plus they never really played much live.

Quote
fiftyamp

Quote
jamesfdouglas

Led Zeppelin wasn't a unit? They totally were, I'm sorry. When listening to LZ1-IITOD, the wide range of styles indeed matches if not tops The Stones. I can't think of any earnest sounding Stones Reggae, and I still don't understand how some of the same-sounding 3-chord Some Girls songs are 'punk'. The Stones never were, nor ever could be considered 'punk'. Mick did know how to make a disco tune though (Zep wisely never bothered).

Back to Zep... They very much were a unit. They were a four-headed musical monster, all living members agree. So much so that when one of them died, they called it quits. The logic being that without an irreplacable member, which all four of them were, the band is no longer Led Zeppelin.

Kind of like The Who.
Oh, wait...

Still, apart from the 4 reunions in 31 years (Live Aid '85, Atlantic Records 40th Ann. '88, Jason Bonham's wedding '90, O2 concert '07) they've pretty much kept their legacy intact without spoiling it. Only once has any of them come up with (imo) a sub-par solo disc (Plant's Shaken and Stirred), but even that came no where near the suckage of, say, Primitive Cool. In fact, tainting the Zep Legacy is the main reason why Plant will not do a reunion tour.

Even if they did do it, based on the O2 show, they would likely be the only dino-rock outfit with only the original lineup represented.
Robert Plant, Jimmy Page, John Paul Jones and Jason Bonham. 4 musicians. No Vegas back-up army, no keyboard player hiding under the stage (that means you, U2), no crutches.

As for the Stones, their legacy apart from their hits from the 60's and 70's (plus Start Me Up), will be remembered, but those alone don't hold up tp either The Bealtes or Led Zeppelin's incredible catalouges. This does not mean they don't have their true legacy... box office records.

The Vega$ Era IS what separates them from everyone else now, the sheer dollars sucked in by them will likely never be seen again,

Well, punk is more of an attitude that a genre, my mistake. Even if you only consider the big 4 of BB, LIB, SF, and Exile, that right there blows the whole Zep catalog out of the water. The Beatles are a different story. Much more of a pop band than rock n' roll. Of course they wrote many classic songs, but they couldn't hold it together. Plus they never really played much live.

I truly believe that the Stones' catalogue from the first decade of their career surpasses that of any other artists' 10 years (& I say that as someone who loves most of Chuck's Chess 'golden decade' recordings).

Quote
duke richardson
around here in North Carolina, "shagging" has a different meaning...
its a dance, and they have 'shag contests' at 'shag clubs'

Thanks for the warning. Good to know whenever I might end up somewhere in your neighbourhood

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

Quote
slew
LZ does not have a weak catalog - if you don't like them fine but that is a ridiculous assessment!

I am glad you like them, but for me the catalog is weak, and Plants voice....yuck.
Really just go thru Keno's Stones list..... there is no comparison, not even close.

Even a band like Foo Fighters is better than Led Zeppelin...

2 1 2 0

Led Zeppelin was one of those bands that eclipsed the Stones for a short while, like the Police, in popularity. LZ had five great albums and some incredible stage performances. But the Stones are in a different stratosphere. They straddled the British Invasion-hit singles era, the album era (with LZ), the Disco era, and back to a classic rock era that the Stones had a lot to do with re-inventing.

And the Stones have deeper blues roots. The Stones led to the Yardbirds, which birthed Led Zeppelin. And don't downgrade the last 25 years of the Stones. Although their studio output has been sketchy, they have continued to promote the blues and rhythm and blues with the same missionary zeal they started with almost 50 years ago. And the love and support the crowds world over give back to them is testament to their continuing relevance and popularity.

The Who? Pink Floyd? Please. The Beatles and the Stones occupy a pantheon no other bands can approach. Led Zeppelin was pretty damned good, but they are a distant third.

Whether you like them or not, both Springsteen and U2 also deserve to be mentioned as competitors for the other bands mentioned here.

MKjan - I like the Stones better, but I'd never say they have a weak catalog. It outsells the Stones back catalog. That does not mean its better but it certainly is not weak. But you did say in your second post its weak for me which is a better statement.

I have ups and downs with Zep - Plant can get to me.

Springsteen is certainly just as great as The Beatles or The Stones, maybe slightly less inventive due to him emerging on the scene following these bands' peaks during which they completely transformed rock along with some other influental acts such as Bob Dylan, The Who, The Doors,Hendrix, The Allman Brothers etc.Springsteen couldn't invent anything considerably new but he successfully built on other artists' legacy and managed to come up with the very unique sound of his own and in turn did many things better than his predecessors.Springsteen's sventies and eighties run of albums is just as impressive as The Beatles' and Dylan's sixties runs, or The Stones big four.Springsteen is not even among the seventies' most innovative artists(leave that to new wave acts such as The Talking Heads, Television, Patti Smith etc) but the sheer exuberance and consistency of his work puts him above all of his peers.His songwriting was almost impeccable in his heyday and even to this day, he is able to release records every bit as great as some the renowned acts' major works

Quote
Sleepy City

Quote
Hairball
The last 30 years of the Stones existence hasn't really helped their legacy. If anything, it's been tarnished a bit.
Starting with Mick's solo career, and recently with Keith's book...the list goes on and on...downward spiral.

Why do people insist that Mick's solo career has tarnished the Stones' legacy but ignore the horrors of some of The Beatles' solo projects? I don't know about you, but I don't think 'Let's Work' & 'Lucky In Love' have been quite as embarassing as Macca with Rupert & The Frog Chorus.

Probably because the Beatles solo projects came after the Beatles had already called it quits.
Mick on the other hand launched a solo career while the Stones were still together. His solo albums
for the most part are average at best. It caused friction within the band, hurting the legacy in the process.
Keith countered with his own solo albums which somewhat balanced out the damage that had been left by Mick,
but there was too much damage to fully rectify anything...the damage was done...

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

While the Beatles must be number one for pop music, the Stones are definitely number one in legacy for rock music.
Just think of how many artists of the late 60's were obsessed with their music. Just to name a few : Bowie (who recorded a couple of Rolling Stones songs in the 70's and made at least one album deeply influenced by the Stones - Diamond Dogs), Iggy Pop (The Stooges got many songs heavily influenced by the Stones - especially in their late recordings of the 70's), Neil Young (listen to albums such as Zuma for example)...
Then pick a few artists from the 70's such as New York Dolls, Patti Smith, Television (there's a great boot of a live show with Johnny Thunders and Richard Hell playing only Stones songs), Clash...
By the end of the 70's anyone who would play rock music would be influenced by the Stones in a way or another, directly or indirectly.

Quote
slew
MKjan - I like the Stones better, but I'd never say they have a weak catalog. It outsells the Stones back catalog. That does not mean its better but it certainly is not weak. But you did say in your second post its weak for me which is a better statement.

I have ups and downs with Zep - Plant can get to me.

I hear you slew, and glad you like LZ, enjoy... but yes, weak for me...my opinion....and no problem with anyone outselling the Stones at all.... I never attach sales figures to how much I like someone or how strong their catalog must therefore be.....liking or not liking comes from deep within for me.

Kowalski - All good points. Aerosmith, J. Geils, Springsteen and even the Who have been influenced by the Stones. Townshend always says great things about them even with humor sprinkled in his statements. He also "blindly stole" the windmill from Keith (who does not windmill but must have made some type of gesture with his arm that caught Pete's attention). Also any frontman of a band has been influenced by Jagger's performances. They are very revered within the musical community still. I remember when Aerosmith went into the hall of fame and they all mentioned the Stones and that they could not beleive that they could be mentioned in that league.

How many zep songs can you sing along too,um lets see that be none.
Has to be the stones at 2 behind the beatles, only just imo.
But i have a feeling if you asked the general uk public, it
would be queen at Number 2.
I cant stand queen as freddie mercury was far to limp wristed,
so it put me off them.
The stones will always be my fave band, with all there faults.

Quote
terry
How many zep songs can you sing along too,um lets see that be none.

Speak for yourself.

[thepowergoats.com]

Zep has certainly had a bigger influence on bands over the years. I know copies sold doesn't equate to greatness but A LOT OF PEOPLE in the world, more than any other rock band, think Zeppelin is the best.

Based on the remastered releases of the various groups it seems The Beatles are still the biggest band in the world though. I love the Stones but Zep is bigger and always will be. So will always be The Beatles.

But of course the Stones set the template for Zeppelin first, thus Zeps influence is also the Stones influence

Quote
TheBoss918
Agree with it or not, The Beatles are the undisputed greatest band in terms of legacy. But what band holds number two? The Rolling Stones or Led Zeppelin? On the one hand, the Stones are still going and have an incredible amount of great music. Led Zeppelin was around 12 years, but outsold the Stones during that time.

Both bands have some of the best rock songs ever written. Both bands propelled a new musical direction: The Stones, hard rock; Led Zeppelin, heavy metal. Both bands were epic, at their peak, live. Both bands have their Dirty Work's and their In Through The Out Door's. So who is it?

I will refrain from my opinion until a couple of you have shared yours. I know this is a Stones board, so of course I'd imagine it'd lean towards the them. I am more interested in why you think either of the two (or another band) has the rightful claim to the spot.

I know these legacy rankings really don't mean anything, but I figured we could have some fun discussing it.

Um, the beeatles are the most overrated entity in all mankind. So to start off with that you reveal your lack of insight. So go to a beetels board...