The Stones cained it with the sales of their 60's singles, though i'm not sure it matched the same amount of album sales by Zep...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-14 18:30 by brownsugar86.

They are certainly the two I have learned more songs from than any. Highly influenced by them both. Got to jam with John Paul Jones a couple times, he is fantastic as a musician. The Stones were obviously on the scene first but they were both lucky enough to have been around when it was all new and magic and viral in it's growth.

Got to have some respect for Zep calling it quits when Bonzo died. They have both provided many many hours of listening bliss to me, who cares which one is better than the other. That sort of competition is not natural, we can love them both. peace

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.

Yeah, they only released a mere eight studio albums (one a double) and a double live album in ten years while they were active.



[thepowergoats.com]

A meaningless title. I hear the influence of Zep in many more bands than the Stones, but I don't mean that as a compliment.

Loved Led Zeppelin. Their first album to me is the soundtrack of the Summer of '69. Very adventurous, very powerful. I could watch Page and Bonham click with each other all night. Led Zeppelin was like the early Stones on steroids.

But the Rolling Stones are the peoples band. They stuck around after all the others fell. I don't care for that title 'The Greatest Rock and Roll Band In The World'. If you would have told them in '1963 that they would be called that they might have thrown up. They are so much more than rock and roll.

Quote
Naturalust
Got to have some respect for Zep calling it quits when Bonzo died. They have both provided many many hours of listening bliss to me, who cares which one is better than the other. That sort of competition is not natural, we can love them both. peace

who do you think you are putting my thoughts into words...

Quote
Naturalust
They are certainly the two I have learned more songs from than any. Highly influenced by them both. Got to jam with John Paul Jones a couple times, he is fantastic as a musician. The Stones were obviously on the scene first but they were both lucky enough to have been around when it was all new and magic and viral in it's growth.

Got to have some respect for Zep calling it quits when Bonzo died. They have both provided many many hours of listening bliss to me, who cares which one is better than the other. That sort of competition is not natural, we can love them both. peace

That about sums it up for me too

What a drag it is gettin' old

Imo The Stones are in that upper echelon of all time greats along with The Beatles, Elvis and Dylan. If there were a Mount Rushmore of rock I think those four acts should be there. Zeppelin was a great band but as I got older I maintained interest in bands like The Stones, Who and Kinks but lost interest in Zeppelin.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-14 23:09 by FrankM.

Quote
jamesfdouglas

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.

Yeah, they only released a mere eight studio albums (one a double) and a double live album in ten years while they were active.

Ah the former fan is back from the dark. I like your self photo you shared, was that after your wrote that thread about being a former fan? Don't get me wrong I like Zep, but The Stones have far more dynamism and versatility, more longevity, and more down to earth and accessible. While Zeppelin had great riffs and that magic power of force, as was said above, Plant's trips to Middle Earth gets a bit tiresome. Zep was active from '68-80 and put out some amazing music. Physical Graffiti is a masterpiece. But when stacked agains the Stones stuff it comes under the mark. Yeah, Zep sold more albums, but that doesn't automatically hand the crown. Again, for me, imo, the top three in the royal court would be The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and The Who.

Quote
whitem8
Ah the former fan is back from the dark. I like your self photo you shared, was that after your wrote that thread about being a former fan?

I never said I was going anywhere.
You said Zeppelin didn't release a lot of music when they were active - I proved you wrong (shrug).

Here's a nice tall glass of 'suck it'.


[thepowergoats.com]

The Glimmer Twins wrote their songs...

Quote
jamesfdouglas

Quote
whitem8
Ah the former fan is back from the dark. I like your self photo you shared, was that after your wrote that thread about being a former fan?

I never said I was going anywhere.
You said Zeppelin didn't release a lot of music when they were active - I proved you wrong (shrug).

Here's a nice tall glass of 'suck it'.

I bit too lemony for my taste.

In the 1970s, when Led Zeppelin were an active force they outsold the Stones both on record sales, concert attendance figures and revenue (particularly in the USA). Led Zeppelin are my favourite band by a goodly margin, but I'd never consider them to be a "rock n roll" band as the Stones are. Zeppelin were heavier and did not swing (musically) like the Stones have and do. The Stones, to my mind, are a "pop" take on the Blues, whereas Zeppelin were a sledgehammer take on the Blues. Zeppelin took their music somewhere else a whole lot darker, the Stones were intent on popular appeal and defining their own musical boundaries.

Cheers,
SonicD

i'd like to change what i had earlier in this thread from

my top 5 worlds greatest rock bands:
1 rolling stones
2 aerosmith
3 the who
4 the doors
5 the kinks


to
my top 5 worlds greatest rock bands:
1 rolling stones
2 aerosmith
3 the who
4 ac/dc
5 the kinks

Quote
SonicDreamer
Zeppelin were heavier and did not swing (musically) like the Stones have and do.D

Uh oh. Take cover.

THE STONES WRITE THEIR OWN SONGS!

Quote
melillo
THE STONES WRITE THEIR OWN SONGS!

and have other people write songs for them, that they are 'inspired by'.

I love them both. And a lot of other bands too.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
jamesfdouglas

Quote
whitem8
Ah the former fan is back from the dark. I like your self photo you shared, was that after your wrote that thread about being a former fan?

I never said I was going anywhere.
You said Zeppelin didn't release a lot of music when they were active - I proved you wrong (shrug).

Here's a nice tall glass of 'suck it'.

I bit too lemony for my taste.

Yeah I agree to much lemon for me as well. Maybe a Kumon class will help james compute that from 1968-1980 is not ten years but 13 ...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-15 17:21 by whitem8.

I play at least 5 Stones-albums/Week,and maybe 5 of Led Zep/Year...that tells it all...

2 1 2 0

Quote
whitem8

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
jamesfdouglas

Quote
whitem8
Ah the former fan is back from the dark. I like your self photo you shared, was that after your wrote that thread about being a former fan?

I never said I was going anywhere.
You said Zeppelin didn't release a lot of music when they were active - I proved you wrong (shrug).

Here's a nice tall glass of 'suck it'.

I bit too lemony for my taste.

Yeah I agree to much lemon for me as well. Maybe a Kumon class will help james compute that from 1968-1980 is not ten years but 13 ...

So what album did they release in 1968? None. Oh.
Well then, what did they release in 1980? Nothing oh.

So... I guess that means I was referring the timespan between 1969 and 1979? Ten... plus years?

whitem8, I hereby invite you to take a long, hard haul off of my farts.
Have a good day, you antagonizing little bitchy internet troll person.

[thepowergoats.com]

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.

NOT...EVEN....CLOSE

This is stupid, it's like going to the Bronx and asking..."Yankees or Red Sox"?

Quote
BluzDude
This is stupid, it's like going to the Bronx and asking..."Yankees or Red Sox"?

hmmm...i think you should try a different analogy. there's no presumption here that folks hate lz....

please submit a more appropriate one. thanks.

I think it's silly to try and say who's better, neither is, they're absolutely on the same level. For those who try to diminish Led Zeppelin's accomplishments, they released 8 studio albums in 10 years, one of them a double. They owned the 70's, they've outsold the Stones in record sales by a lot, and equally as influential to other bands. Yes, Led Zeppelin were finished by 1980, but what of relevence, new material, have the Stones put out since Tattoo You, nothing. I love both of these bands, they're completely different from each other, unique and iconic.

Quote
jamesfdouglas

Quote
whitem8

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
jamesfdouglas

Quote
whitem8
Ah the former fan is back from the dark. I like your self photo you shared, was that after your wrote that thread about being a former fan?

I never said I was going anywhere.
You said Zeppelin didn't release a lot of music when they were active - I proved you wrong (shrug).

Here's a nice tall glass of 'suck it'.

I bit too lemony for my taste.

Yeah I agree to much lemon for me as well. Maybe a Kumon class will help james compute that from 1968-1980 is not ten years but 13 ...

So what album did they release in 1968? None. Oh.
Well then, what did they release in 1980? Nothing oh.

So... I guess that means I was referring the timespan between 1969 and 1979? Ten... plus years?

whitem8, I hereby invite you to take a long, hard haul off of my farts.
Have a good day, you antagonizing little bitchy internet troll person.

I believe they released eight studio albums between '69 and '79 which is active compared to today's bands but not all that active compared to the older bands. Between '64 and '74 The Stones released nearly double the amount of studio albums (14).

Exactly my point Frank. If you read about the history of Zeppelin they officially became Led Zep in 1968, they were playing as the New Yardbirds, but they began recording Zep 1: "the band completed the Scandinavian tour as The New Yardbirds, playing together for the first time in front of a live audience at Gladsaxe Teen Clubs in Gladsaxe, Denmark, on 7 September 1968." Wall, Mick (2009). When Giants Walked the Earth: A Biography of Led Zeppelin. London: Orion
"Later that month, they began recording their first album, which was based on their live set. The album was recorded and mixed in nine days, and Page himself covered the costs." Same book pg. 72-73 So I guess that would be safe to say that is when they started as Zeppelin.
Then the end of Zeppelin was officially announced December 14 1980: ""We wish it to be known that the loss of our dear friend, and the deep sense of undivided harmony felt by ourselves and our manager, have led us to decide that we could not continue as we were", and was simply signed "Led Zeppelin". So thank you FrankM for also pointing out the prolific nature of the Rolling Stones when compared to Led Zeppelin. Which was my point.

Sorry James, but seems to me that is pretty clear. It is amusing how your resort to childish and grade school insults and labeling people trolls when someone challenges something you say with facts. So if Zep began recording their album in 1968 (yes it wasn't released until 1969) and officially announce their break-up on December 14 1980, that would be over ten years, and when compared to some other big bands their output wasn't a lot. Again, I can totally relate to the picture of yourself showing us your level of frustration with the board. I didn't set out to confront or antagonize you, however, I also will state my opinions and stand my ground. Sorry that frustrates you so much. I will avoid trying to frustrate you, life is too short to get worked up about a fun fan blog.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-16 00:28 by whitem8.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
melillo
THE STONES WRITE THEIR OWN SONGS!

and have other people write songs for them, that they are 'inspired by'.

are you kidding me, zeps first album and many others btw are complete rip offs and were only credited after they got caught years later

Quote
melillo

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
melillo
THE STONES WRITE THEIR OWN SONGS!

and have other people write songs for them, that they are 'inspired by'.

are you kidding me, zeps first album and many others btw are complete rip offs and were only credited after they got caught years later

so...we can't like them anymore??? that's not fair...

Quote
FrankM

Quote
jamesfdouglas

Quote
whitem8

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
jamesfdouglas

Quote
whitem8
Ah the former fan is back from the dark. I like your self photo you shared, was that after your wrote that thread about being a former fan?

I never said I was going anywhere.
You said Zeppelin didn't release a lot of music when they were active - I proved you wrong (shrug).

Here's a nice tall glass of 'suck it'.

I bit too lemony for my taste.

Yeah I agree to much lemon for me as well. Maybe a Kumon class will help james compute that from 1968-1980 is not ten years but 13 ...

So what album did they release in 1968? None. Oh.
Well then, what did they release in 1980? Nothing oh.

So... I guess that means I was referring the timespan between 1969 and 1979? Ten... plus years?

whitem8, I hereby invite you to take a long, hard haul off of my farts.
Have a good day, you antagonizing little bitchy internet troll person.

I believe they released eight studio albums between '69 and '79 which is active compared to today's bands but not all that active compared to the older bands. Between '64 and '74 The Stones released nearly double the amount of studio albums (14).

the stones didn't release 14 albuns. they released like 10. the other 4 were albums created from singles and ep's that the label made for america but they contain a lot of songs that were released in the uk already. lets also look at this:
first rolling stones album contains 2 original tunes
no 2 contains 3 original tunes
12x5 contains 5 original tunes
now contains 4 original songs
uk out of our heads contains 4 original tunes
us out of our heads contains 6 original tunes


if there weren't any repeats among the original tunes, which we know is a lie, then the rolling stones had a total of 24 original tunes over 6 albums. i know zeppelin stole a lot of stuff but if they did straight up covers and only a handful of original tunes per album they could have released a ton of albums