For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Justin
This is probaly the last place to ask this but: would anyone care to take a stab why exactly LZ is considered a more "diverse" band over the Stones?
Besides the usual blues, folk and celtic genres they infused with full-throttle testosterone... what other tunes and genres are we really talking about here? Both LZ and the Stones dipped their toe in different genres throughout their career--both with questionable results ("D'yer M'yer" anyone?)--but to give the title to LZ as "more" diverse than the Stones is a stretch.
If we had to be conservative, it'd be more fair to say that both bands were equally diverse. And that's not really saying much.
Quote
FrankMQuote
Justin
This is probaly the last place to ask this but: would anyone care to take a stab why exactly LZ is considered a more "diverse" band over the Stones?
Besides the usual blues, folk and celtic genres they infused with full-throttle testosterone... what other tunes and genres are we really talking about here? Both LZ and the Stones dipped their toe in different genres throughout their career--both with questionable results ("D'yer M'yer" anyone?)--but to give the title to LZ as "more" diverse than the Stones is a stretch.
If we had to be conservative, it'd be more fair to say that both bands were equally diverse. And that's not really saying much.
LZ more diverse than The Stones? Then I am the King Of England. The Stones did just about every music genre over the years. Sympathy For The Devil sounds nothing like Wild Horses which sounds nothing like Hot Stuff. To me most Zeppelin stuff sounds about the same.
Quote
treaclefingers
I think the amazing thing is you have The Beatles, the Stones, The Who, The Kinks, Led Zeppelin and a plethora of great second tier bands, all out of England and all out of the 60s.
Who cares who's better, it's all just opinion anyway...we have it all.
Quote
jamesfdouglasQuote
treaclefingers
I think the amazing thing is you have The Beatles, the Stones, The Who, The Kinks, Led Zeppelin and a plethora of great second tier bands, all out of England and all out of the 60s.
Who cares who's better, it's all just opinion anyway...we have it all.
Yes, Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, The Who, Pink Floyd and the Ki...
The Kinks? Really??
Quote
jamesfdouglasQuote
treaclefingers
I think the amazing thing is you have The Beatles, the Stones, The Who, The Kinks, Led Zeppelin and a plethora of great second tier bands, all out of England and all out of the 60s.
Who cares who's better, it's all just opinion anyway...we have it all.
Yes, Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, The Who, Pink Floyd and the Ki...
The Kinks? Really??
Quote
jamesfdouglasQuote
treaclefingers
I think the amazing thing is you have The Beatles, the Stones, The Who, The Kinks, Led Zeppelin and a plethora of great second tier bands, all out of England and all out of the 60s.
Who cares who's better, it's all just opinion anyway...we have it all.
Yes, Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, The Who, Pink Floyd and the Ki...
The Kinks? Really??
Quote
treaclefingers
I think the amazing thing is you have The Beatles, the Stones, The Who, The Kinks, Led Zeppelin and a plethora of great second tier bands, all out of England and all out of the 60s.
Who cares who's better, it's all just opinion anyway...we have it all.
Quote
slowhandQuote
FrankMQuote
Justin
This is probaly the last place to ask this but: would anyone care to take a stab why exactly LZ is considered a more "diverse" band over the Stones?
Besides the usual blues, folk and celtic genres they infused with full-throttle testosterone... what other tunes and genres are we really talking about here? Both LZ and the Stones dipped their toe in different genres throughout their career--both with questionable results ("D'yer M'yer" anyone?)--but to give the title to LZ as "more" diverse than the Stones is a stretch.
If we had to be conservative, it'd be more fair to say that both bands were equally diverse. And that's not really saying much.
LZ more diverse than The Stones? Then I am the King Of England. The Stones did just about every music genre over the years. Sympathy For The Devil sounds nothing like Wild Horses which sounds nothing like Hot Stuff. To me most Zeppelin stuff sounds about the same.
Led Zep was every bit as diverse as The Stones, touch on just about every genre...have you even lstened to their albums? Clearly not, if you did, you wouldn't say such stupid things like most of their music sounds the same.
Quote
Justin
Are there no LZ fans willing to defend their band? I'm genuinely curious why LZ fans are so quick to dismiss the Stones' equally diverse efforts...
Quote
MunichhiltonQuote
Justin
Are there no LZ fans willing to defend their band? I'm genuinely curious why LZ fans are so quick to dismiss the Stones' equally diverse efforts...
You could try SRTS: The Led Zeppelin Message Board & Forum....they might eat you alive though
Quote
BluzDude
Whole lotta Love
Stairway
Hey Hey What can I do
Bron y are Stomp
Fool In The Rain
Since I've Been Loving
You Rock n Roll
...not as diverse as Wild horses,SFTD or Hot Stuff? Give me a eF'n break! That's called selective hearing my friend.
Quote
Justin
I love how in these "debates" no one ever considers a tie. It's always one or the other. One band wins, one band loses. The point I'm making is that both LZ and the Stones had their fair share of diversions. But to give a title as "more" diverse is really pushing it. Diverse yes. "More" diverse as the Stones? I don't think so. "About equally" diverse...I can accept.
Quote
BluzDude
Whole lotta Love
Stairway
Hey Hey What can I do
Bron y are Stomp
Fool In The Rain
Since I've Been Loving You
Rock n Roll
Quote
JustinQuote
BluzDude
Whole lotta Love
Stairway
Hey Hey What can I do
Bron y are Stomp
Fool In The Rain
Since I've Been Loving You
Rock n Roll
All good submissions. Gotta add my favorite "The Rain Song" into the mix. But I dunno buddy... Saying "Whole Lotta Love" is different from "Rock n Roll" is like saying "Jumpin Jack Flash" is different from "Brown Sugar!"
Quote
FrankMQuote
BluzDude
Whole lotta Love
Stairway
Hey Hey What can I do
Bron y are Stomp
Fool In The Rain
Since I've Been Loving
You Rock n Roll
...not as diverse as Wild horses,SFTD or Hot Stuff? Give me a eF'n break! That's called selective hearing my friend.
I think you are confusing speed with diversity. Stairway and Rock n Roll aren't two different genres of music my friend. One is obviously a slower song.
The Stones could fill entire albums with music that isn't any kind of rock and roll.
Quote
Justin
I think what is really tripping people up is that while LZ had just the same amount of diversions as the Stones, the Stones have one-upped them just on the volume of songs PER diversion. Thoughts?
For every 1 song the LZ strayed away from the blues/rock/folk seeds, the Stones did the very same thing but with the addition of maybe two or three more additional songs. For the country genre, for example, the Stones gave us: "Factory Girl" "Dead Flowers" "Far Away Eyes" "Wild Horses" (to some extent) "Sweet Virginia" and "Torn and Frayed." The same can be said about a few other genres they flirted with.
This, I believe, is the crux of the whole "the Stones are more diverse than LZ." In terms of genre-jumping both bands are probably neck and neck but focusing just on volume...the Stones would surely beat out LZ in this regard, no?
Quote
BluzDude
Yes, That's the way and Caraselambra is the same music at just different speeds, Frank, I am surprised at how ignorant you are.
Quote
BluzDude
I think it's only natural that there may be more diversity in the sense you are talking about Justin when you have released 5 times as much material over a career. (unless you are a band like AC/DC or Social Distortion)