Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: PreviousFirst...4748495051525354555657Next
Current Page: 54 of 57
Re: OT: Led Zeppelin stuff
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: April 7, 2023 17:36

Quote
Paddy
Quote
GasLightStreet
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Just let the Guru speak:



Took him almost a full minute to say, "Led Zeppelin is Jimmy Page".

Now, without trying to disrespect the guru, I don't think he's got it quite right there.

They never took off?

He projects yet doesn't need to. Zep were and are so much bigger than the Stones.

Goddamn. Sometimes Keith needs to learn "No comment".

When I saw that clip a few years back I understood Keith’s “they never took off” comment as a reference to their music. It’s too heavy for Keith and also as a pun/ reference to the Zeppelin in their name, supposed to fly. I didn’t think he meant their popularity. He’d probably or possibly has said the same for Deep Purple & Black Sabbath.

I think he just comes off as shallow and petty. A person in his position should be above that but sadly he seems to enjoy putting down other acts.

Re: OT: Led Zeppelin stuff
Posted by: dcba ()
Date: April 7, 2023 18:57

[quote
Quote
lem motlow

I’m starting to think Zep was a little over their heads.
Page uses at least six or seven different open tunings and some that are hybrids that he made his own version of known tunings,Stu was a good boogie piano player but pretty basic.

Yeah that’s the heart of the matter. Page thinks the more sophisticated a song is the better. Keith or Stu - or Malcolm Young - thought you have to keep things simple because that’s the very nature of rock’n roll.

Page thought that injecting middle-east scales or myolydian modes in his stuff made it better. In retrospect it makes his music sound dated and stuck in a particular era : the mid-70s.

And live Led Zep went from great to embarrassing in an awfully short period of time: in 69 they were great - though blues-based i.e. not very orginal - in 75 they were already crawling onstage.
A 40 minute Dazed followed by a 30 minute drum solo? Yeah how could that take off unless audiences were on Quaalude?


"Dude, theyyyyyy reeeeeeally rooooooooock tonight......."

Re: OT: Led Zeppelin stuff
Posted by: lem motlow ()
Date: April 8, 2023 10:45

You’re right, you’ve convinced me Led Zeppelin sucks.
I look forward to your next posts which are gonna be about what? How Muhammad Ali wasn’t that great of a fighter?

At least when I attack the Beatles everyone knows it’s trash talking, no one actually believes the Beatles weren’t any good.
You on the other hand seem to really believe what you’re saying, proving with each post that you are in fact a true moron.

Re: OT: Led Zeppelin stuff
Date: May 16, 2023 00:26




Re: OT: Led Zeppelin stuff
Posted by: Tate ()
Date: May 16, 2023 05:06

I love Led Zeppelin, always have... I think they are every bit as brilliant as the Beatles and the Stones, and I enjoyed all of their live material I've ever been able to get my hands on.

Re: OT: Led Zeppelin stuff
Posted by: GasLightStreet ()
Date: May 16, 2023 05:33

Quote
dcba
[quote
Quote
lem motlow

I’m starting to think Zep was a little over their heads.
Page uses at least six or seven different open tunings and some that are hybrids that he made his own version of known tunings,Stu was a good boogie piano player but pretty basic.

Yeah that’s the heart of the matter. Page thinks the more sophisticated a song is the better. Keith or Stu - or Malcolm Young - thought you have to keep things simple because that’s the very nature of rock’n roll.

Page thought that injecting middle-east scales or myolydian modes in his stuff made it better. In retrospect it makes his music sound dated and stuck in a particular era : the mid-70s.

And live Led Zep went from great to embarrassing in an awfully short period of time: in 69 they were great - though blues-based i.e. not very orginal - in 75 they were already crawling onstage.
A 40 minute Dazed followed by a 30 minute drum solo? Yeah how could that take off unless audiences were on Quaalude?


"Dude, theyyyyyy reeeeeeally rooooooooock tonight......."

You just didn't get it. And still don't. Obviously.

Yet... their tours - a good bit more people than the Stones, not as many as Elvis and Elton John. So, you know, obviously Zep wasn't embarrassing: more people showed up for Zep than the Stones on their tours.

Besides, look at the ticket requests for the 2007 O2 show - the Stones can't do that request amount in about 10 tours.

Re: OT: Led Zeppelin stuff
Posted by: dcba ()
Date: May 16, 2023 11:30

Quote
GasLightStreet


You just didn't get it. And still don't. Obviously.

I try though. I re-did a listening session of the L.A.77 residency taped by the great Mike Millard and imo most of the performances were lame when compared to what the stones did onstage in 75 or 78.
Imo again Led Zep had a very narrow margin of greatness : in 69 they were basically a blues band... yawn) and by 75 they were into these self-indulgent overstretched 3hrs gigs that simply could not be exciting all the way through.

In 70 and 71 there were some fantastic perfs though : Berkeley71 taped by TMOQ or the Sept.70 Msg gig that turned into a Hendrix tribute.

Re: OT: Led Zeppelin stuff
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: May 16, 2023 14:30

Quote
GasLightStreet
Quote
dcba
[quote
Quote
lem motlow

I’m starting to think Zep was a little over their heads.
Page uses at least six or seven different open tunings and some that are hybrids that he made his own version of known tunings,Stu was a good boogie piano player but pretty basic.

Yeah that’s the heart of the matter. Page thinks the more sophisticated a song is the better. Keith or Stu - or Malcolm Young - thought you have to keep things simple because that’s the very nature of rock’n roll.

Page thought that injecting middle-east scales or myolydian modes in his stuff made it better. In retrospect it makes his music sound dated and stuck in a particular era : the mid-70s.

And live Led Zep went from great to embarrassing in an awfully short period of time: in 69 they were great - though blues-based i.e. not very orginal - in 75 they were already crawling onstage.
A 40 minute Dazed followed by a 30 minute drum solo? Yeah how could that take off unless audiences were on Quaalude?


"Dude, theyyyyyy reeeeeeally rooooooooock tonight......."

You just didn't get it. And still don't. Obviously.

Yet... their tours - a good bit more people than the Stones, not as many as Elvis and Elton John. So, you know, obviously Zep wasn't embarrassing: more people showed up for Zep than the Stones on their tours.

Besides, look at the ticket requests for the 2007 O2 show - the Stones can't do that request amount in about 10 tours.

I think you could also look at it in a completely other way though. As the Stones tour very frequently, the demand for one Led Zep show would be understandably massive. Think of the pent up demand if the Stones hadn't played any shows for decades.

OR...if Zeppelin had been continuously touring all these years, would you have the 2007 O2 sort of demand? Of course not.

Re: OT: Led Zeppelin stuff
Posted by: Big Al ()
Date: May 16, 2023 15:46

Quote
treaclefingers


I think you could also look at it in a completely other way though. As the Stones tour very frequently, the demand for one Led Zep show would be understandably massive. Think of the pent up demand if the Stones hadn't played any shows for decades.

OR...if Zeppelin had been continuously touring all these years, would you have the 2007 O2 sort of demand? Of course not.

Wasn't it something like two million people who applied for those Zeppelin tickets? It seems like a crazy amount, but when you consider that they hadn't toured since 1980, accumulated millions of worshippers since, and that the o2 was a one-off, it makes perfect sense.

Re: OT: Led Zeppelin stuff
Posted by: bobo ()
Date: May 16, 2023 16:15

Whatever people say but to me this is the most overrated band to walk the earth. 3-4 songs I can listen to.

Re: OT: Led Zeppelin stuff
Posted by: ThePaleRider ()
Date: May 17, 2023 03:16

Quote
bobo
Whatever people say but to me this is the most overrated band to walk the earth. 3-4 songs I can listen to.
No, that would be AC/DC. They are the best band in the world for 3-4 songs. Then they are the worst band in the world.

Re: OT: Led Zeppelin stuff
Posted by: GasLightStreet ()
Date: May 17, 2023 05:36

Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
GasLightStreet
Quote
dcba
[quote
Quote
lem motlow

I’m starting to think Zep was a little over their heads.
Page uses at least six or seven different open tunings and some that are hybrids that he made his own version of known tunings,Stu was a good boogie piano player but pretty basic.

Yeah that’s the heart of the matter. Page thinks the more sophisticated a song is the better. Keith or Stu - or Malcolm Young - thought you have to keep things simple because that’s the very nature of rock’n roll.

Page thought that injecting middle-east scales or myolydian modes in his stuff made it better. In retrospect it makes his music sound dated and stuck in a particular era : the mid-70s.

And live Led Zep went from great to embarrassing in an awfully short period of time: in 69 they were great - though blues-based i.e. not very orginal - in 75 they were already crawling onstage.
A 40 minute Dazed followed by a 30 minute drum solo? Yeah how could that take off unless audiences were on Quaalude?


"Dude, theyyyyyy reeeeeeally rooooooooock tonight......."

You just didn't get it. And still don't. Obviously.

Yet... their tours - a good bit more people than the Stones, not as many as Elvis and Elton John. So, you know, obviously Zep wasn't embarrassing: more people showed up for Zep than the Stones on their tours.

Besides, look at the ticket requests for the 2007 O2 show - the Stones can't do that request amount in about 10 tours.

I think you could also look at it in a completely other way though. As the Stones tour very frequently, the demand for one Led Zep show would be understandably massive. Think of the pent up demand if the Stones hadn't played any shows for decades.

OR...if Zeppelin had been continuously touring all these years, would you have the 2007 O2 sort of demand? Of course not.

No.

The public's love for Zep is way bigger than the Stones. If Zep had been touring... you're taking logic out of the facts. Zep will always be bigger than the Stones.

Re: OT: Led Zeppelin stuff
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: May 17, 2023 05:46

Quote
GasLightStreet
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
GasLightStreet
Quote
dcba
[quote
Quote
lem motlow

I’m starting to think Zep was a little over their heads.
Page uses at least six or seven different open tunings and some that are hybrids that he made his own version of known tunings,Stu was a good boogie piano player but pretty basic.

Yeah that’s the heart of the matter. Page thinks the more sophisticated a song is the better. Keith or Stu - or Malcolm Young - thought you have to keep things simple because that’s the very nature of rock’n roll.

Page thought that injecting middle-east scales or myolydian modes in his stuff made it better. In retrospect it makes his music sound dated and stuck in a particular era : the mid-70s.

And live Led Zep went from great to embarrassing in an awfully short period of time: in 69 they were great - though blues-based i.e. not very orginal - in 75 they were already crawling onstage.
A 40 minute Dazed followed by a 30 minute drum solo? Yeah how could that take off unless audiences were on Quaalude?


"Dude, theyyyyyy reeeeeeally rooooooooock tonight......."

You just didn't get it. And still don't. Obviously.

Yet... their tours - a good bit more people than the Stones, not as many as Elvis and Elton John. So, you know, obviously Zep wasn't embarrassing: more people showed up for Zep than the Stones on their tours.

Besides, look at the ticket requests for the 2007 O2 show - the Stones can't do that request amount in about 10 tours.

I think you could also look at it in a completely other way though. As the Stones tour very frequently, the demand for one Led Zep show would be understandably massive. Think of the pent up demand if the Stones hadn't played any shows for decades.

OR...if Zeppelin had been continuously touring all these years, would you have the 2007 O2 sort of demand? Of course not.

No.

The public's love for Zep is way bigger than the Stones. If Zep had been touring... you're taking logic out of the facts. Zep will always be bigger than the Stones.

You're pointing to a one off show for a massive band that hadn't done a show in decades and saying that the demand for it implies that the Stones can't do that. You have absolutely no way to know what demand for the Stones would be were it s the first time they toured in decades, that was my point.

The other side of what I said was CLEARLY you wouldn't have had 2 million requests for tickets if Zep was a regular touring band. You have to see that...right?

Also, I was never 'contesting' whether Zep was bigger or not, I'm not interested in that, but believe that globally the Stones would be bigger.

What I am saying though is that you're being incredibly hyperbolic and that reduces the credibility in your hypothesis.

Sorry Skippy...I calls'em as I sees'em!

Re: OT: Led Zeppelin stuff
Posted by: RisingStone ()
Date: May 17, 2023 13:05

I am a big fan of Zeppelin. I was definitely more keen on them than the Stones when they were around in the Seventies.

That being said, I can’t help but admit that the Stones beat Zep in the long run. Zep flew high in their heyday, higher than the Stones perhaps (or any other groups of their contemporaries), but their prime was too short.

Their comparison reminds me of the story of “the rabbit and the tortoise”.

Re: OT: Led Zeppelin stuff
Posted by: stonesriff ()
Date: May 17, 2023 14:46

Quote
GasLightStreet
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
GasLightStreet
Quote
dcba
[quote
Quote
lem motlow

I’m starting to think Zep was a little over their heads.
Page uses at least six or seven different open tunings and some that are hybrids that he made his own version of known tunings,Stu was a good boogie piano player but pretty basic.

Yeah that’s the heart of the matter. Page thinks the more sophisticated a song is the better. Keith or Stu - or Malcolm Young - thought you have to keep things simple because that’s the very nature of rock’n roll.

Page thought that injecting middle-east scales or myolydian modes in his stuff made it better. In retrospect it makes his music sound dated and stuck in a particular era : the mid-70s.

And live Led Zep went from great to embarrassing in an awfully short period of time: in 69 they were great - though blues-based i.e. not very orginal - in 75 they were already crawling onstage.
A 40 minute Dazed followed by a 30 minute drum solo? Yeah how could that take off unless audiences were on Quaalude?


"Dude, theyyyyyy reeeeeeally rooooooooock tonight......."

You just didn't get it. And still don't. Obviously.

Yet... their tours - a good bit more people than the Stones, not as many as Elvis and Elton John. So, you know, obviously Zep wasn't embarrassing: more people showed up for Zep than the Stones on their tours.

Besides, look at the ticket requests for the 2007 O2 show - the Stones can't do that request amount in about 10 tours.

I think you could also look at it in a completely other way though. As the Stones tour very frequently, the demand for one Led Zep show would be understandably massive. Think of the pent up demand if the Stones hadn't played any shows for decades.

OR...if Zeppelin had been continuously touring all these years, would you have the 2007 O2 sort of demand? Of course not.

No.

The public's love for Zep is way bigger than the Stones. If Zep had been touring... you're taking logic out of the facts. Zep will always be bigger than the Stones.


IF IF IF If my aunt had a di*k, she'd be my uncle.

Re: OT: Led Zeppelin stuff
Posted by: Nikkei ()
Date: May 17, 2023 15:19

I had a LZ phase when I was about 19 which sort of overlapped with the reunion hype. Agree that the demand for such a one-off is absolutely incomparable with a band that does worldwide megatours every few years. The fact that the Stones could do that puts them in another sphere anyway, only the 1970s are comparable when you look at numbers. I wasn't around then and when I say LZ phase that means that there was an end to it. Musically they were exceptional but there's not one song they did that had any hit potential. The Stones were always a league above.

OT: Robert Plant court case 1967
Posted by: Elmo ()
Date: July 10, 2023 10:34


Re: OT: Robert Plant court case 1967
Posted by: doitywoik ()
Date: July 10, 2023 16:18

Is this just the photo or is there also text that I can't access? (I know nothing about RP's court case in 1967).

Re: OT: Robert Plant court case 1967
Posted by: Elmo ()
Date: July 10, 2023 17:27

It’s ‘premium content’ on the newspaper’s website. Just enter your email address, there’s no fee to pay and I doubt you will go to this website again!

Re: OT: Robert Plant court case 1967
Posted by: doitywoik ()
Date: July 10, 2023 17:31

Thanks, Elmo!

Re: OT: Led Zeppelin stuff
Posted by: peoplewitheyes ()
Date: September 2, 2023 16:39

Have you seen this? Japanese guy with Page obsession

Mr Jimmy Trailer

Also a Rolling Stone article:
[www.rollingstone.com]

Re: OT: Led Zeppelin stuff
Posted by: stanlove ()
Date: September 2, 2023 18:26

Quote
GasLightStreet
Quote
dcba
[quote
Quote
lem motlow

I’m starting to think Zep was a little over their heads.
Page uses at least six or seven different open tunings and some that are hybrids that he made his own version of known tunings,Stu was a good boogie piano player but pretty basic.

Yeah that’s the heart of the matter. Page thinks the more sophisticated a song is the better. Keith or Stu - or Malcolm Young - thought you have to keep things simple because that’s the very nature of rock’n roll.

Page thought that injecting middle-east scales or myolydian modes in his stuff made it better. In retrospect it makes his music sound dated and stuck in a particular era : the mid-70s.

And live Led Zep went from great to embarrassing in an awfully short period of time: in 69 they were great - though blues-based i.e. not very orginal - in 75 they were already crawling onstage.
A 40 minute Dazed followed by a 30 minute drum solo? Yeah how could that take off unless audiences were on Quaalude?


"Dude, theyyyyyy reeeeeeally rooooooooock tonight......."

You just didn't get it. And still don't. Obviously.

Yet... their tours - a good bit more people than the Stones, not as many as Elvis and Elton John. So, you know, obviously Zep wasn't embarrassing: more people showed up for Zep than the Stones on their tours.

Besides, look at the ticket requests for the 2007 O2 show - the Stones can't do that request amount in about 10 tours.

Zeppelin did not draw more people to their shows that the Stones did. That is a Zeppelin myth making. Stones charged more and were just as big a draw.

Not sure where you get that Elton John was drawing more than the Stones or Zeppelin.
Ticket requests for one off show of a band who had not played in 30 years was out of this works. You don’t say.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-09-02 21:36 by stanlove.

Re: OT: Led Zeppelin stuff
Posted by: stanlove ()
Date: September 2, 2023 21:39

Quote
24FPS
I always found it amusing that the Stones, at least Mick & Keith seemed a little jealous of Led Zeppelin. Much like John Lennon always seemed jealous of the Stones after he no longer had a group.

When did Jagger say anything to make it seem like he was jealous of Zeppelin?
Now we know how Zeppelin reacted when they both toured at the same time in 1972. They threw tantrums and were still bitter about it years later. Probably to this day.

Re: OT: Led Zeppelin stuff
Posted by: Mr. Jimi ()
Date: September 3, 2023 04:32

I wrote this in a Led Zeppelin forum a couple of years ago and some people freaked out.

Led Zeppelin wins head to head (year to year), however . . .

Let's first compare each year of their shared existence, not count 1968, and we will return to the "however".

I know its silly and rather impossible to say anything is better than anything else when it comes to music and/or art, but what the heck lets have some fun.

1969. WINNER- Rolling Stones.

Even though Zeppelin released 2 albums and toured extensively, the Stones were in the midst of a 4 year run that created their myth and solidified their legend and popularity with the public as a whole, not just the rock music scene. From 1968 to 1972, they released Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, and Exile on Main St. In 1969 Brain Jones died, they played the free concert at Hyde Park, they embarked upon the infamous 1969 tour and of course Altamont happened. The Stones were beloved by the rock press and began to entrench themselves into the public collective consciousness. They were already a famous pop group for the previous 5 years but by 1969 they became a mature rock band and seemingly alone at the pantheon of rock music. The Beatles were disintegrating and Dylan was in exile. Zeppelin was building its following and creating their own myth and legend, but 1969 goes to the Rolling Stones. RS 1, LZ 0

1970. WINNER- Rolling Stones.

Stones released Get yer ya ya's Out, toured Europe, and released the film, Gimme Shelter. The film and the Altamont press solidified the Stones as a dangerous band in the public's eye and they became even more famous for it. Zeppelin III was released, LZ toured extensively and by the fall of 1970 the rock scene was definitely taking notice. Their following was increasing and so were album sales mostly from the first two albums. They were growing as a band, but alas 1970 goes to the Stones. RS 2, LZ 0

1971. WINNER- Rolling Stones.

This was the most difficult year to judge. Zeppelin's fourth album is iconic, but it had yet to catch on. Zeppelin's touring almost gives them the advantage but the release of the iconic Sticky Fingers, album art, the tongue logo, number 1 single, Mick's marriage to Bianca and the start of the jet setting celebrity life style, etc gives the edge to the Stones. RS 3, LZ 0

1972. WINNER- Rolling Stones.

Another tough year. Zeppelin's music is now starting to trickle down to the high schoolers, as all rock music had started to do. Zeppelin offered the kids blues, rock, myth, and mystery. Their 1972 tour was well received but it was eclipsed by the Stones 1972 tour. The Stones released Exile on Main St. Their touring band which included Nicky Hopkins, Bobby Keys, and Jim Price, had become as tight as it ever was going to get. The Stones 1972 tour was glorified by the rock press and they became media darlings. Their celebrity continued to cross over into the public consciousness. Mick Jagger may have been one of the most famous people in the world at that point. RS 4, LZ 0

1973. WINNER- Led Zeppelin.

The 1973 tour propelled Zeppelin into the upper echelons of Rock acts. The Rock press started to come around and the public at large started to take notice of the band for its fan following, album sales, and concert attendance records, etc. The Stones dropped a notch with the release of Goats Head Soup even though they had a number 1 single. They toured Australia and Europe. It was the last year Mick Taylor played lead guitar. The last year of a touring band line up (1970-1973) that created a sound that defined their careers. RS 4, LZ 1

1974. WINNER- Led Zeppelin.

Neither band did much. The Stones released Its Only Rock n roll another step back from their golden run of 1968 to 1972. Taylor left the Stones and they scrambled to find a replacement. Both bands recorded and neither band toured. The Stones popularity amongst the youth began to wain, while Zeppelin continued to increase, so Zeppelin gets the nod. Also did Keith turn Jimmy on to heroin in 1974? Yeah, thanks Keith, what an assh**e. RS 4, LZ 2

1975. WINNER- Led Zeppelin.

Zeppelin's music had by now engulfed teenage life. At least in most of America, Led Zeppelin would be entrenched in the High School experience for the next 15 to 20 years. Although they only toured America in the spring and finished the touring year at the legendary Eals Court shows in May, the shear weight of Physical Graffiti propelled them into the stratosphere in the rock scene. The Stones released a compilation album and toured America in the summer. It was a huge tour but again Physical Graffiti pushes the scales on this year. 1975 belongs to Led Zeppelin. RS 4, LZ 3

1976. WINNER- Led Zeppelin.

The Stones Released Black and Blue, a commercial flop and toured Europe. Zeppelin's release of Presence did not fair well. Robert was in recovery so Zeppelin didn't tour. The release, however, of the film Song Remains the Same pushes Zeppelin's popularity with the rock scene and public at large. 1976 goes to Zeppelin. RS 4, LZ 4

1977. WINNER- Led Zeppelin.

Keith famously got busted in Toronto and suddenly the future of the Stones was in doubt. They release Love you Live to mixed reviews and established NYC as home. The growing punk scene declares them as dinosaurs. The other dinosaur in the room, Zeppelin, embarked on their largest US tour. Robert goes into mourning. The massive 1977 tour gives this year to Zeppelin. RS 4, LZ 5

1978. WINNER- Rolling stones.

While the Robert mourned, Led zeppelin's future was in doubt. The Stones released Some Girls, one of their best selling albums, release their last number 1 single and embark on a short summer stadium tour with Keith's future in doubt from the Toronto bust. RS 5, LZ 5

1979. WINNER- Led Zeppelin.

While the Stones recorded Emotional Rescue, Zeppelin released In through the out door and played the Knebworth comeback shows. Zeppelin wins the year as the Stones take a year off. RS 5, LZ 6

1980. DRAW

Stones release Emotional Rescue, which is a commercial flop and a step back from Some Girls, they do not tour. Zeppelin tours Europe and plans the ill-fated tour of America. John dies, and Zeppelin is no more. I cannot give this year to either band. RS 5, LZ 6, Draw 1.

Led Zeppelin wins the head to head battle, but, now here is the HOWEVER from the beginning; The Rolling Stones I believe win out for their entire career and because of their stardom. Let's face it, even the mighty Zeppelin in their prime cannot not compete with the celebrity that was Mick Jagger. The Stones were on a different level of celebrity. I once asked my mother in-law if she knew who Jimmy Page, Robert Plant, Led Zeppelin were and she had no idea who I was talking about. I asked her if she knew who the Rolling Stones were and she said of course. She even mentioned Mick Jagger and how she disliked him- Ha. Same answers from my 93 year old dad. The Stones were cultural icons even before Zeppelin came on the scene. The Stones continued career propel them over Zeppelin in the rock world and the public at large in the long run, but head to head our Zeppelin wins out . . . any thoughts?

Re: OT: Led Zeppelin stuff
Posted by: Hairball ()
Date: September 3, 2023 05:27

Nice work Mr. Jimi. thumbs up

In my neck of the woods in the greater SoCal/Los Angeles area between '73-'77, Led Zeppelin were indeed far more popular and superior than the Rolling Stones.
I'd even give Led Zeppelin the advantage in 1971 due to the dominating Led Zeppelin IV - Stairway to Heaven must have been played 24/7 on radio stations everywhere.
In the big picture though, the Stones prevail mainly due to their longevity, and their early years prior ro Led Zeppelin even forming.

Would be interesting to read your take on the Beatles vs. Stones in the years 1963-1970 - guaranteed to cause a ruckus no doubt! smiling smiley

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

Re: OT: Led Zeppelin stuff
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: September 3, 2023 05:27

Apologies if this is already on this thread but this is just so fantastic:




Re: OT: Led Zeppelin stuff
Posted by: DGA35 ()
Date: September 3, 2023 06:01

Quote
treaclefingers
Apologies if this is already on this thread but this is just so fantastic:



What, you didn't bother to scroll through 54 pages?? smiling smiley

I always said that if Plant doesn't want to do a reunion tour, they should recruit Ann Wilson, what a voice.

My sister said Heart played a high school dance in Hope back in the early 70s when they moved from Seattle to Vancouver because Ann's boyfriend was a draft dodger! She remembered they played several Zeppelin songs. This was obviously before Dreamboat Annie came out. They played a lot of high school dances around the lower mainland back then.

Re: OT: Led Zeppelin stuff
Posted by: Mr. Jimi ()
Date: September 3, 2023 06:08

Quote
Hairball
Nice work Mr. Jimi. thumbs up

In my neck of the woods in the greater SoCal/Los Angeles area between '73-'77, Led Zeppelin were indeed far more popular and superior than the Rolling Stones.
I'd even give Led Zeppelin the advantage in 1971 due to the dominating Led Zeppelin IV - Stairway to Heaven must have been played 24/7 on radio stations everywhere.
In the big picture though, the Stones prevail mainly due to their longevity, and their early years prior ro Led Zeppelin even forming.

Would be interesting to read your take on the Beatles vs. Stones in the years 1963-1970 - guaranteed to cause a ruckus no doubt! smiling smiley


Thanks Hairball. Those guys over at that LZ forum went a little nuts. I know, 1971 was tough but LZ 4 came out late in the year, I think in November so that was one of the reasons. As for Stones v Beatles ah not sure even want to go there but off the top of my head I would probably only give the Stones 1969 and 1970, not 1968 mainly because Beggars came so late, think it was release in December, but maybe we'll take on that topic some day.

Re: OT: Led Zeppelin stuff
Posted by: lem motlow ()
Date: September 3, 2023 07:27

Quote
Mr. Jimi
I wrote this in a Led Zeppelin forum a couple of years ago and some people freaked out.

Led Zeppelin wins head to head (year to year), however . . .

Let's first compare each year of their shared existence, not count 1968, and we will return to the "however".

I know its silly and rather impossible to say anything is better than anything else when it comes to music and/or art, but what the heck lets have some fun.

1969. WINNER- Rolling Stones.

Even though Zeppelin released 2 albums and toured extensively, the Stones were in the midst of a 4 year run that created their myth and solidified their legend and popularity with the public as a whole, not just the rock music scene. From 1968 to 1972, they released Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, and Exile on Main St. In 1969 Brain Jones died, they played the free concert at Hyde Park, they embarked upon the infamous 1969 tour and of course Altamont happened. The Stones were beloved by the rock press and began to entrench themselves into the public collective consciousness. They were already a famous pop group for the previous 5 years but by 1969 they became a mature rock band and seemingly alone at the pantheon of rock music. The Beatles were disintegrating and Dylan was in exile. Zeppelin was building its following and creating their own myth and legend, but 1969 goes to the Rolling Stones. RS 1, LZ 0

1970. WINNER- Rolling Stones.

Stones released Get yer ya ya's Out, toured Europe, and released the film, Gimme Shelter. The film and the Altamont press solidified the Stones as a dangerous band in the public's eye and they became even more famous for it. Zeppelin III was released, LZ toured extensively and by the fall of 1970 the rock scene was definitely taking notice. Their following was increasing and so were album sales mostly from the first two albums. They were growing as a band, but alas 1970 goes to the Stones. RS 2, LZ 0

1971. WINNER- Rolling Stones.

This was the most difficult year to judge. Zeppelin's fourth album is iconic, but it had yet to catch on. Zeppelin's touring almost gives them the advantage but the release of the iconic Sticky Fingers, album art, the tongue logo, number 1 single, Mick's marriage to Bianca and the start of the jet setting celebrity life style, etc gives the edge to the Stones. RS 3, LZ 0

1972. WINNER- Rolling Stones.

Another tough year. Zeppelin's music is now starting to trickle down to the high schoolers, as all rock music had started to do. Zeppelin offered the kids blues, rock, myth, and mystery. Their 1972 tour was well received but it was eclipsed by the Stones 1972 tour. The Stones released Exile on Main St. Their touring band which included Nicky Hopkins, Bobby Keys, and Jim Price, had become as tight as it ever was going to get. The Stones 1972 tour was glorified by the rock press and they became media darlings. Their celebrity continued to cross over into the public consciousness. Mick Jagger may have been one of the most famous people in the world at that point. RS 4, LZ 0

1973. WINNER- Led Zeppelin.

The 1973 tour propelled Zeppelin into the upper echelons of Rock acts. The Rock press started to come around and the public at large started to take notice of the band for its fan following, album sales, and concert attendance records, etc. The Stones dropped a notch with the release of Goats Head Soup even though they had a number 1 single. They toured Australia and Europe. It was the last year Mick Taylor played lead guitar. The last year of a touring band line up (1970-1973) that created a sound that defined their careers. RS 4, LZ 1

1974. WINNER- Led Zeppelin.

Neither band did much. The Stones released Its Only Rock n roll another step back from their golden run of 1968 to 1972. Taylor left the Stones and they scrambled to find a replacement. Both bands recorded and neither band toured. The Stones popularity amongst the youth began to wain, while Zeppelin continued to increase, so Zeppelin gets the nod. Also did Keith turn Jimmy on to heroin in 1974? Yeah, thanks Keith, what an assh**e. RS 4, LZ 2

1975. WINNER- Led Zeppelin.

Zeppelin's music had by now engulfed teenage life. At least in most of America, Led Zeppelin would be entrenched in the High School experience for the next 15 to 20 years. Although they only toured America in the spring and finished the touring year at the legendary Eals Court shows in May, the shear weight of Physical Graffiti propelled them into the stratosphere in the rock scene. The Stones released a compilation album and toured America in the summer. It was a huge tour but again Physical Graffiti pushes the scales on this year. 1975 belongs to Led Zeppelin. RS 4, LZ 3

1976. WINNER- Led Zeppelin.

The Stones Released Black and Blue, a commercial flop and toured Europe. Zeppelin's release of Presence did not fair well. Robert was in recovery so Zeppelin didn't tour. The release, however, of the film Song Remains the Same pushes Zeppelin's popularity with the rock scene and public at large. 1976 goes to Zeppelin. RS 4, LZ 4

1977. WINNER- Led Zeppelin.

Keith famously got busted in Toronto and suddenly the future of the Stones was in doubt. They release Love you Live to mixed reviews and established NYC as home. The growing punk scene declares them as dinosaurs. The other dinosaur in the room, Zeppelin, embarked on their largest US tour. Robert goes into mourning. The massive 1977 tour gives this year to Zeppelin. RS 4, LZ 5

1978. WINNER- Rolling stones.

While the Robert mourned, Led zeppelin's future was in doubt. The Stones released Some Girls, one of their best selling albums, release their last number 1 single and embark on a short summer stadium tour with Keith's future in doubt from the Toronto bust. RS 5, LZ 5

1979. WINNER- Led Zeppelin.

While the Stones recorded Emotional Rescue, Zeppelin released In through the out door and played the Knebworth comeback shows. Zeppelin wins the year as the Stones take a year off. RS 5, LZ 6

1980. DRAW

Stones release Emotional Rescue, which is a commercial flop and a step back from Some Girls, they do not tour. Zeppelin tours Europe and plans the ill-fated tour of America. John dies, and Zeppelin is no more. I cannot give this year to either band. RS 5, LZ 6, Draw 1.

Led Zeppelin wins the head to head battle, but, now here is the HOWEVER from the beginning; The Rolling Stones I believe win out for their entire career and because of their stardom. Let's face it, even the mighty Zeppelin in their prime cannot not compete with the celebrity that was Mick Jagger. The Stones were on a different level of celebrity. I once asked my mother in-law if she knew who Jimmy Page, Robert Plant, Led Zeppelin were and she had no idea who I was talking about. I asked her if she knew who the Rolling Stones were and she said of course. She even mentioned Mick Jagger and how she disliked him- Ha. Same answers from my 93 year old dad. The Stones were cultural icons even before Zeppelin came on the scene. The Stones continued career propel them over Zeppelin in the rock world and the public at large in the long run, but head to head our Zeppelin wins out . . . any thoughts?


This post is a thing of beauty,it’s one of the top 5 posts I’ve ever seen involving rock and roll on the internet.
When I flip the fck out on some kid born in 1985 trying to explain Led Zeppelin to me and BV is deciding whether to bounce me from his website at least I’ll go away knowing there’s still someone who was there and can tell the real story.
It’s funny you mention getting crap from a Zep fansite, those guys are merciless,I think some of these Stones fans would need a safe space,a warm blanket and a positive reinforcement speech after an encounter with them.

Re: OT: Led Zeppelin stuff
Posted by: StoneZP ()
Date: September 3, 2023 12:54

Quote
treaclefingers
Apologies if this is already on this thread but this is just so fantastic:



Really nice version
Thanks

Goto Page: PreviousFirst...4748495051525354555657Next
Current Page: 54 of 57


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 2045
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 9627 on January 2, 2024 23:10

Previous page Next page First page IORR home