Quote
StonesTod

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...

Well you still got the Stones Tod...........hope they didn't stole some tunes

__________________________

Quote
NICOS

Quote
StonesTod

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...

Well you still got the Stones Tod...........hope they didn't stole some tunes

as keith would say: they stole them well....

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
melillo
THE STONES WRITE THEIR OWN SONGS!

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

Yes, because The Last Time is so...original!

Yeah. Good ol' Inspiring Ronnie. Funny how Mick Taylor never got a 'inspired by' credit. Just goes to show you what asssholes Mick and Keith really are. Greedy ol' todgers. Always have been. At least they gave Ronnie credit later on. But damn. "Inspired by"? What a load.

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

seriously, i'm not even kidding.

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

Nah. That just tells that you listen to at least 5 Stones albums a week, which I find incredibly difficult to believe, and maybe 5 Zep LPs a year, which, considering how many LPs they have, makes sense.

This thread had me put on Whole Lotta Love and Ramble On.

Led Zeppelin are excellent, but I can only tolerate in moderate doses.

Sacrilege I know, but I prefer some of Robert Plant's recent solo stuff.

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.

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.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

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.

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
treaclefingers

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

seriously, i'm not even kidding.

then you are a fool

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

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.

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.

Well, technically I didn't say that. I do know she was lost, although admittedly lost at first, however eventually she was never found. Therefor she lost the lost status. Overruled overruled.

I don't see any reason why you would make a title VERSUS in a thread. Where as the Rolling Stones embrace generations not only in music but also in embarking cultural opposition against the "establishment" which they even liked and are well settled in by now Led Zeppelin gave us musical ecstasy and developed themselves as the first heavy rock band around the globe.
As much as I like Led Zeppelins music I can't see the development in that genre and if they would have continued they eitehr would have broken up sooner or later or play in noname festivals to the last round of fans. They myth remained only because they never came back except for the one off concert at the 02.
The Rolling Stones transformed themselves from a rockband to a show band and more or less since Steel Wheels to a Big band. They still came around with good albums and they still outplayed previous tours.
So for the sake of the postwar generation the Rolling Stones remain the only band giving us 5 decades, even though they had they offsprings.

Quote
melillo

Quote
treaclefingers

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

seriously, i'm not even kidding.

then you are a fool

you take yourself quite seriously...there is medication available.

Stones vs Led Balloon = Oranges + Lemons.

Love 'em both, but once Plant blew his vocal cords out around '72,
the mothership 'twasn't so mighty no more.

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.

Fantastic record ("No Qarter") and fantastic tour!

C

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).

Don't know how to do the linking thing. Sorry to re-print an earlier post, but here's my response to the "apples and oranges, etc." cop-out...


A few years ago, my brother-in-law and I were getting to know each other, talking music and so on, and he decided to throw a big one at me: "You know, the Stones are great and all, but they don't really compare to Led Zeppelin..."

I thought this was so outrageous that I couldn't really respond--but it has been eating at me for years now and it occasionally flares into an active argument. The happy thing for me is that because I was provoked, and because I have had to think about it, I can say that it has become more and more and more obvious to me that, while all things are relative and matters of taste and that they come in shades of gray and that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, that LED ZEPPELIN DOESN'T EVEN COME CLOSE TO THE STONES. NOT EVEN IN THE SAME WEIGHT CLASS. NOT NOW, NOT EVER. And mind you, I say this as a person who spent two years in boarding school positively drenched in Led Zeppelin during the 1980's. I'm actually a big fan...

So? Top four albums?

Zep IV
Zep II
Zep I
Zep III? Or Physical Graffiti? or Houses?

vs.

Beggar's Banquet
Let It Bleed
Sticky Fingers
Exile

Zeppelin IV is one of the all-time greats and deserves its rep and sales, but "Stairway" is, to my mind, a big, bloated, pretentious mess (Amen to you, Rockman). And as awesome and thundering as it is, "When The Levee Breaks" is a poor man's "Gimme Shelter."

Zeppelin II, which I always thought of as a masterpiece, also breaks down in some important ways: "Thank You," even with its lovely acoustic/electric dynamics, has syrupy Plant lyrics and vocals. And with all due respect to Bonham, "Moby Dick" is an indulgence. "The Lemon Song" and "Bring It On Home" and "Whole Lotta Love" grab from Howlin' Wolf, Sonny Boy Williamson and Muddy Waters in some creative and successful ways, but apart from the last, they don't seem quite as special as time goes on. Basically more percussive thunder and guitar fireworks layered on Chess classics that are perfect in their own right. Pretty much illustrates the whole (sometimes exciting) Zep formula: take blues (or folk or world) and amp it to the max. Fun, gloriously stupid and excessive, perfect for huge venues, but never a match for the Stones' smarts and sexiness, their wit and sass. I mean, never. And Plant's sensitive/hippie/mystic lyrics drag the whole LZ enterprise down further....

And as fond as I am of Zeppelin I or III, I just can't see any of these four albums matching up favorably with their Stones counterparts from the celebrated '68-'72 renaissance. There just isn't a weak cut anywhere in the Stones' output during the period, nothing to match, say, "Out On The Tiles" or "Celebration Day" or "Moby Dick." So, at the top of each band's catalogue, and in the LP format that defined Led Zeppelin, the Stones take a huge victory.

But what if we're to isolate the double albums? The holy grail of the ambitious (the "white album," Electric Ladyland, Blonde On Blonde, London Calling) rock'n'roll band?

Physical Graffiti vs. Exile? I love the fragments from the 1970 sessions: "Bron-Yr-Aur," "Black Country Woman," and--of course--"Boogie With Stu." If they had used those tracks, "Poor Tom" and "Hey Hey What Can I Do" to create some kind of double Zep III, it might've been one of the alltime greats. And as much fun as "Houses Of The Holy" is, so much of Graffiti is leaden and dull and overwrought. "Down By The Seaside?" "In The Light?" Ugh. And "In My Time Of Dying" demonstrates the over-amped blues thing in an even more pointlessly excessive way. (While I do have a soft spot for "Nobody's Fault But Mine," it's pretty funny to listen back-to-back with Blind Willie Johnson's--armed only with an acoustic guitar, a voice and 1930's technology, he goes toe-to-toe with Zep's assault. Incredible power, there.)

Exile is Exile: It's Go-Go-Honky Tonk-Juke Joint-Revival Hall heaven--set on the French Riviera and the Sunset Strip and co-starring the most beautiful women, the most reckless sidekicks and the best drugs the world has ever seen. All that tucked into the best--and most appropriate--album cover ever designed. Again, the questions being: who's smarter, sexier, tougher, leaner, meaner? Think about that as you listen to the Gothic Moog playing on "In The Light." Spinal Tap all the way, baby.

What about comebacks? What about surviving? Some Girls vs....what? Zeppelin never did come back, never did respond creatively or successfully to punk and the late 70's. After a decline that I would say began with Houses Of The Holy, (again, think about it: even if you consider Houses to be on par with the first four--dubious--they never made a completely successful new LP after 1973) the creative balance and the sound of the group shifted dramatically with In Through The Out Door. So, as great as "In The Evening" is, and as much fun as "Fool In The Rain" can be, think about "All Of My Love" and thank God that they stopped (for the worst reason imaginable) before they started making 80's records.

Live album? Well, now that Zeppelin has opened its archives, the How The West Was Won album stands up pretty wonderfully. But The Song Remains The Same was, like Zeppelin itself, a more bombastic--and more ponderous ("No Quarter?" for what, 20 minutes?) version of that wicked energy and swing that is distilled so wonderfully onto Ya-Ya's. Zeppelin was tremendous onstage and their setlists and overall swagger actually made them rivals to the Stones' far superior songs. But, honestly, even if one prefers Page's virtuosity to Keith's slash-and-burn, would any but the most ardent Zep fan choose Plant over Jagger as a singer and frontman? I mean, really? Anyone? It doesn't take a whole lotta watching Percy cock his hip and flip his big, blond mane back while wailing on, say, the hugely overrated "Since I've Been Loving You," to decide that Jagger of any period--right up to the Millenium Dome of August, 2007--is in another realm, entirely.

So, for me, the Stones win the late 1960's and the 1970's pretty handily. Very handily, in fact. During the period where both bands were functioning, the Stones delivered more and better, recorded material overall. Meanwhile, Zeppelin, as good as they were in concert, could do no better than match the Stones. And while the Stones in 1982 entered a period of only project-by-project work that lasted to Spring 2010, they managed to come up with at least five first-class songs for each new release through the 80's, 90's and 2000's, songs that any other band at any other time would kill for (some will debate this, I'm happy to take it up another time). The Rolling Stones are (forgive the American-centric analogy) an alltime great, a "five tool" player, they're Willie Mays. And they're back in New York, with the Mets, in 1972. Are they at their peak? No, but they still have plenty of recorded moments--and many, many more live ones--that demonstrate amply why they're the best ever.

Hmmmm...I'm forgetting something...what can it be? Oh yeah, THE STONES HAD PRODUCED AN EPOCHAL, HALL OF FAME BODY OF WORK BEFORE LED ZEPPELIN HAD EVEN FORMED. ZEPPELIN STEPPED INTO A KIND OF ROCK'N'ROLL STARDOM THAT WAS INVENTED BY THE STONES (and Elvis and the Beatles, of course, though their appeal and their imagery was so different--almost outside rock music). British blues? World music? ("Paint It, Black" vs. "Kashmir" may actually sum up the whole argument.) "Heavy" acoustic music? I love Zeppelin's dense Anglo-Celtic folk-blues thing. I love it. But it's the only part of the whole package that belongs entirely to them--and I'm not sure I'm giving Fairport Convention adequate credit when I say that...

It's funny. At the Joint, in Vegas in 1998, I had the amusing experience of watching the Stones from third row center, while surrounded by Tommy Lee and Pam Anderson, Paul Stanley and Gene Simmons and Lars Ulrich from Metallica--as well as Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp, Eddie Murphy, Jack Nicholson, Dennis Hopper, Leonardo DiCaprio and a gang of others. It was hilarious to watch the most sought-after people on Planet Earth, the ones that supposedly define power and hipness and cool, absolutely melt and cower before the Rolling Stones. And in the case of the metal guys, it occurred to me that while they all always prattle on about Zeppelin and Sabbath as heavy influences, those references are always based on the foundation of love and reverence for the Stones. In many sub-genres of rock'n'roll, but especially in hard rock/heavy metal, before Pagey and Ozzy, before the Yardbirds even, it all starts with the Stones--always. It's dat attitude, baby...

Zeppelin has eight studio albums and a little over ten years of history. They're similar to the Beatles in that they have a catalogue of very manageable size and that it presents a clear and satisfying story of the band. The Stones have nearly fifty years of studio and live albums, singles, concerts and films. It's a sprawling, messy tale, with ups and downs, blind alleys and hidden jackpots. The vast majority of people, when confronted with this, will buy Hot Rocks and then pay for expensive concert tickets and t-shirts. That's a shame, but it has nothing to do with the relative merits of the bands. If it sometimes seems that the Stones' legacy isn't as visible, that's only because the influence and the legacy is woven through every single aspect of the record and concert businesses--and through the idea of rock'n'roll itself. The Stones are an entertainment juggernaut and a multinational corporation. You know what else? THEY ARE THE BEST GARAGE/BAR BAND ON PLANET EARTH. Period. And that--not beating Grand Funk Raiload's attendance record at some Godforsaken Florida football stadium--is the name of the game in rock'n'roll. That's at the very core.

My sense? Elvis, Chuck Berry, Dylan, the Beatles, and the Stones all swirl around at the very top of the heap--maybe, in a weird way, the Beach Boys, too. All matters of taste aside, those are the artists whose historical importance is crucial and indisputable. And it's a long, looooooong way down to the next tier...

Rev Robert, just curious, how many times have you seen the Stones and how many times have you seen Led Zeppelin live?

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...

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!

Well, Zep did have a fantastic drummer, a very good bass player, a very good guitar player and singer. Much better qualities than must other bands ever did have and not at all compareable with McDonlads quality.
And Zep doesn't only attracts teenagers and early twenty y.o. people. People that used to like / love them still do.
In the mid sventies they were without doubt at the same level as Stones.
They only had their 10-15 years lifespan - yes, but basically because of some personal problems - Bonhams death, Page heavy heroin usage etc.
And, huge respect to Led Zeppelin not accepting multi 100 million USD deal going on the road again.

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!

agreed...in particular, the comment on Plant's latter day work.

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...

Don't get me wrong, I totally respect your opinion. I am not saying Zeppelin was better than the Stones. It's all about personal feelings and how the music moves us, that's why I respect opinions of those who like band that I don't (i.e. Grateful Dead). For me, my life was Led Zeppelin in the 1970's.

I saw the Stones 4 times in the 70's and LZ 18 times; and while I can listen to Physical Graffiti over and over again and Exile maybe once a month,that's just how I relate to the band. My guess a lot if it has to do with the kind of music, as a guitar player, I was into playing. For me, sitting in front of Jimmy Page watching him play was pure magic. Sometimes, in recent years, the bands I am most into can't fill up more than a 2000 seat room, so it's whatever turns us on.

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.

You cast the first blow, you were being antoagonizing first, then turn around and point the finger at me. Now THAT"S childish. Sod off.

[thepowergoats.com]

That is interesting James. I seem to recall you posting a picture after my post, as if what I said was foolish. When in fact I gave a researched response that showed that Zep was a band from 1968 until their official announcement in December 1980. And my assertion that they didn't produce a lot of material. So as for your suggestion to sod off, in fact I will James, I am laying new sod on the lawn in your honor. Thanks dear.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-16 23:21 by whitem8.

Quote
keefriffhard4life

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

I don't care how the music was released. If it was released as EP's in the UK and albums over here it's still the same amount of music- just released a different way.

Your point about them doing a lot of covers on their early albums is a more valid point but that's the way the band started. Forget the early albums if you want. Just look at '66 to '74. Nine studio albums in eight years.

I would count the EPS and Singles. Led Zeppelin when compared, during their time as an active band, released only one non album B-side single, Hey Hey What Can I Do? So again, their output wasn't as prolific as say The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. Now to the covers, yes the Stones did a lot of covers, that helped define their sound and image. Led Zeppelin did a lot of songs that were based on music they didn't give credit to. Now it doesn't bother me a bit, because in some ways they were doing the same thing The Stones did, they re-introduced old music in an exciting and new way that resonated. Zep help start a new sound of hard rock blues, but many of their songs were not really all that original. But at the end of the day it comes down to personal tastes, and I do love Zeppelin, but feel The Rolling Stones deserves the crown more than Zeppelin for their originality and longevity.

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).

So by your reasoning Bon Jovi is better than Bob Dylan. Surely they have sold more records than him.

They never were. aren't now and never will be bigger than The Stones.

I don't think it's wise to make a thread like this ? vs ?.........just ask your opinion about a band, I do understand the intention of the poster but you never can explain your friend who's better........it's just a matter of taste.

For me the Zep is just a great band although I don't own one LP of them, I only bought "Immigrant Song" as a single............

According Wiki they only had 4 top40 hits out here ...although I think "Stairway To Heaven" was also a big hit

1969"Good Times Bad Times" b/w
1969"Whole Lotta Love" b/w led Zeppelin II
1970"Immigrant Song" b/w
1971"Black Dog" b/w

Around this time '69-'73 I was completely obsessed by the Stones........so no room for any other band...except for Fleewood Mac...or from '73 and on Bowie and Roxy Music

__________________________

you do you realize that jimmy page was quite the rage...though some ppl could not see the reason why....

To me Page was overrated just like the rest of the band. Just because Bonham banged the drums louder than Watts doesn't mean he was one bit better than him.