For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
StonesTodQuote
melilloQuote
treaclefingersQuote
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
NICOSQuote
StonesTodQuote
melilloQuote
treaclefingersQuote
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...
Well you still got the Stones Tod...........hope they didn't stole some tunes
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
melillo
THE STONES WRITE THEIR OWN SONGS!
and have other people write songs for them, that they are 'inspired by'.
Quote
melilloQuote
treaclefingersQuote
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
Come On
I play at least 5 Stones-albums/Week,and maybe 5 of Led Zep/Year...that tells it all...
Quote
slowhand
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
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
slowhand
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.
The last (and second) actual relevant thing the Stones released was Street Fighting Man. Rock music doesn't have "relevance". It's art. It's ALWAYS subjective. Relevance belongs in court rooms, not music.
The last thing the Stones did artistically worth a shit was Undercover. Since then it's been by-the-numbers Stones, with some slight exceptions.
That is all.
then you are a foolQuote
treaclefingersQuote
melilloQuote
treaclefingersQuote
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
seriously, i'm not even kidding.
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
slowhand
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.
The last (and second) actual relevant thing the Stones released was Street Fighting Man. Rock music doesn't have "relevance". It's art. It's ALWAYS subjective. Relevance belongs in court rooms, not music.
The last thing the Stones did artistically worth a shit was Undercover. Since then it's been by-the-numbers Stones, with some slight exceptions.
That is all.
You sir, are overrruled.
Are you both saying that "Anybody Seen My Baby?" wasn't relevant? Think it might have been relevant to both Mick, who lost his girl, and the girl, that was lost.
Quote
melillothen you are a foolQuote
treaclefingersQuote
melilloQuote
treaclefingersQuote
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
seriously, i'm not even kidding.
Quote
James Kirk
...If that Page/Plant record that came out in the late 90's is any indication they were better off keeping their image intact and not re-entering the scene.
Quote
BluzDude
Rev Robert, just curious, how many times have you seen the Stones and how many times have you seen Led Zeppelin live?
Quote
whitem8
Rev Robert w, very well written and thought out post. I applaud you! Fantastic!
It is funny having a vs. thread, and I love Zep, but again, The Stones are better. Rev Robert you really thought this one out very well!
Quote
Rev. Robert W.Quote
BluzDude
Rev Robert, just curious, how many times have you seen the Stones and how many times have you seen Led Zeppelin live?
Never stood in the room with Zep--before my time. Only going on DVDs, Song Remains The Same, and recordings. Seen the Stones 26 times since '89.
But even if one concluded that Zep was miles beyond the Stones onstage, the Stones would still eclipse them in every other way. And as I say, in my mind, they were certainly no more than a match for the Stones' onstage power. A power that was tighter, with wit and sexiness--and that actually swung. There's a time for massive stomp, but when "Misty Mountain Hop" and "When The Levee Breaks" becomes "No Quarter" and "In The Light," look out...
I went through a pretty serious love affair with Led Zeppelin, but as time goes on, the disparity between the two bands just widens. After Zep IV, their story gets pretty spotty.
I mean the sales figures and grosses are staggering, but so what? People love McDonald's, too. I see Zeppelin as an enormous cult band. It's music and image that is set up perfectly for teens and twentysomethings. And they were geniuses at staying just out of reach of the media. It's a phenomenon that lends itself to a period of obsession, then a lifetime of nostalgia. Not the same as a body of work that deepens with the passage of time.
Honestly, are you suggesting that Zep was so dramatically better than the Stones in concert as to compensate for all their other deficiencies? I'm glad if you had a great time at a show in '73, but I just can't buy that argument.
But let's give credit where it's due: Side #2 of Zeppelin III still sounds great. Same with "How Many More Times." I mean, seriously, they did have their moments.
It's just that I don't think they belong in that topmost echelon of rock 'n roll with the Stones and a select few others.
PS: I'd like to point out that as smug and self-satisfied as Robert Plant is, I have enormous respect for the way he's built his solo career. A true searcher, and one who has come up with some glorious stuff--particularly in the last few years. In fact, I'm not sure that he hasn't surpassed his Zeppelin work as a solo artist...
Quote
whitem8
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.
Quote
keefriffhard4lifeQuote
FrankMQuote
jamesfdouglasQuote
whitem8Yeah 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 ...Quote
treaclefingersQuote
jamesfdouglasQuote
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.
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
Quote
mtaylor
Zeppelin - they have sold more records than Stones.
In regards to touring, they did set new standards, played to bigger audience than Stones and sorry to say: in the mid-seventies they were considered bigger than Stones. (maybe a luck for Stones that they stopped).