Tell Me :
Talk
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.
Yes, Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, The Who, Pink Floyd and the Ki...
The Kinks? Really??
[thepowergoats.com]
Love the kinks...and yes, missed PF.
On the surface it may seem like a "one of these things is not like the other" proposition. But I think you are not making the necessary distinction between base popularity and talent. I'd put them there on the strength of the Muswell Hillbillies alone. But then again, I'm a fan.
the kinks yes for artistic merit
I do! For fun! It's fun to argue about which band is best, as if I were still 10 years old....soooooooo....
The Rolling Stones is the best Rock'n'Roll Band ever. No contest!
Had every one of their albums at one time or another and saying they are as diverse as The Stones is about as stupid as saying The Sopranos was a funnier tv show than Seinfeld.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-19 01:06 by FrankM.
You could try SRTS: The Led Zeppelin Message Board & Forum....they might eat you alive though
It'd sure be fun though. There's nothing better than getting two hardcore fans from each opposing band and duking it out.
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.
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.
Exactly!
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!"
OK, I guess I was just coming full circle with my list, lol
Again, you have selective hearing my friend...I'll tell you what, why don't you take a trip to the Bronx and discuss with the folks how the Red Sox have a more diverse team then the Yankees, after all, this is not a LZ forum.
My point exactly. I didn't mean to say that Zeppelin never "touched" on many different genres. In terms of number of genres, The Stones from what I see have maybe touched on one more genre than Zeppelin- it's really the volume which makes The Stones more diverse.
I guess it's easier to call me ignorant than it is to back up your argument.
Finally you agree with me.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
FrankM
()
Date: July 18, 2012 02:30
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.
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.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
Justin
()
Date: July 18, 2012 02:37
I've actually heard it on many boards, Frank and not just this one. This thread reminded me of it so I wanted to bring it up since we have a significant number LZ fans here.
It can be very easy to label LZ as "all the same"...I did that when I was early in my LZ discovery but a little more education showed me that they in fact had a good variety in their catalog--especially later in their studio output: "Presence" and "In Through The Outdoor" comes to mind. So I was more than happy to revise my statements.
But for fans to hand over the title of "most" diverse to LZ over the Stones..I don't get. Like I said earlier, both bands had their fair share of diversions. Whether "who did it better" is NOT the point. Let's just start with 'who did it more often' first.
It can be very easy to label LZ as "all the same"...I did that when I was early in my LZ discovery but a little more education showed me that they in fact had a good variety in their catalog--especially later in their studio output: "Presence" and "In Through The Outdoor" comes to mind. So I was more than happy to revise my statements.
But for fans to hand over the title of "most" diverse to LZ over the Stones..I don't get. Like I said earlier, both bands had their fair share of diversions. Whether "who did it better" is NOT the point. Let's just start with 'who did it more often' first.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
slowhand
()
Date: July 18, 2012 02:41
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.
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.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
pinkfloydthebarber
()
Date: July 18, 2012 02:59
'''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.'''
ya see this is the apples and oranges thing
you can't say the Stones as a band weren't versatile or diverse enough to compete with LZ.
or vice versa
it ain't no landslide win either way
that is all
whose the better band, who's the better singer, better drummer, better musician blah blah blah
you cant write off one against the other, that's unfair and just kinda ridiculous
they are both good at what they do or did
ok personally though i like both but prefer the stones
why?
the stones are much more fun for me. a more likable spirit to the music. IMHO
admittedly i am part of the older generation
i am worried with each new generation and the spawn of mass music distribution, and about a million bands out there who everyone is always getting into one moment after another...that 'old' music is becoming less relevant
if the younger generation likes the stones or zeppelin AT ALL we should count ourselves lucky
are we all just headed for a massive sub-conscious playing of whatever comes to mind, occasionally totally ripping off "the greats" with out knowing because no one really is aware of what came before? bands' meaningfulness lost in an iTunes playlist of songs that shuffle along with people never knowing the names or lyrics?
have we reached the uber-niche culture where it's now cool for everyone to like dozens of bands only their buddies online know about, and yeah... you like Led Zeppelin, but have you actually heard any of their albums all the way through??
or yeah the Rolling Stones are catchy, but can you sing along to more than just their hooks?
etc. etc.
i mean that would suck, man
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-18 03:00 by pinkfloydthebarber.
'''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.'''
ya see this is the apples and oranges thing
you can't say the Stones as a band weren't versatile or diverse enough to compete with LZ.
or vice versa
it ain't no landslide win either way
that is all
whose the better band, who's the better singer, better drummer, better musician blah blah blah
you cant write off one against the other, that's unfair and just kinda ridiculous
they are both good at what they do or did
ok personally though i like both but prefer the stones
why?
the stones are much more fun for me. a more likable spirit to the music. IMHO
admittedly i am part of the older generation
i am worried with each new generation and the spawn of mass music distribution, and about a million bands out there who everyone is always getting into one moment after another...that 'old' music is becoming less relevant
if the younger generation likes the stones or zeppelin AT ALL we should count ourselves lucky
are we all just headed for a massive sub-conscious playing of whatever comes to mind, occasionally totally ripping off "the greats" with out knowing because no one really is aware of what came before? bands' meaningfulness lost in an iTunes playlist of songs that shuffle along with people never knowing the names or lyrics?
have we reached the uber-niche culture where it's now cool for everyone to like dozens of bands only their buddies online know about, and yeah... you like Led Zeppelin, but have you actually heard any of their albums all the way through??
or yeah the Rolling Stones are catchy, but can you sing along to more than just their hooks?
etc. etc.
i mean that would suck, man
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-18 03:00 by pinkfloydthebarber.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
pinkfloydthebarber
()
Date: July 18, 2012 03:14
or, on the other hand, are the stones, zeppelin and some others the true anchors of classic rock and roll?
like "classical" music, the masters live on in eternity. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, etc. their music is centuries old now, and yet people study their compositions all over the world in music observatories, universities and at the local music scene
will it be the same with bands like the stones or zeppelin etc?
if anything, future generations may even look at their music in different ways than we do
will enough people will find it important enough to not let it become irrelevant?
that's what I hope, at least
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-18 03:19 by pinkfloydthebarber.
like "classical" music, the masters live on in eternity. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, etc. their music is centuries old now, and yet people study their compositions all over the world in music observatories, universities and at the local music scene
will it be the same with bands like the stones or zeppelin etc?
if anything, future generations may even look at their music in different ways than we do
will enough people will find it important enough to not let it become irrelevant?
that's what I hope, at least
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-18 03:19 by pinkfloydthebarber.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: July 18, 2012 03:30
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.
Who cares who's better, it's all just opinion anyway...we have it all.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
jamesfdouglas
()
Date: July 18, 2012 04:29
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.
Yes, Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, The Who, Pink Floyd and the Ki...
The Kinks? Really??
[thepowergoats.com]
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: July 18, 2012 04:46
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??
Love the kinks...and yes, missed PF.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
rocker1
()
Date: July 18, 2012 04:48
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??
On the surface it may seem like a "one of these things is not like the other" proposition. But I think you are not making the necessary distinction between base popularity and talent. I'd put them there on the strength of the Muswell Hillbillies alone. But then again, I'm a fan.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
keefriffhard4life
()
Date: July 18, 2012 06:42
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??
the kinks yes for artistic merit
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: July 18, 2012 08:27
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.
I do! For fun! It's fun to argue about which band is best, as if I were still 10 years old....soooooooo....
The Rolling Stones is the best Rock'n'Roll Band ever. No contest!
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
FrankM
()
Date: July 19, 2012 00:55
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.
Had every one of their albums at one time or another and saying they are as diverse as The Stones is about as stupid as saying The Sopranos was a funnier tv show than Seinfeld.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-19 01:06 by FrankM.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
Justin
()
Date: July 19, 2012 01:03
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...
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
FrankM
()
Date: July 19, 2012 01:07
I guess LZ fans are too busy listening to "Hotdog"- Zeppelin's great contribution to country music.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
BluzDude
()
Date: July 19, 2012 01:10
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.
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.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
Munichhilton
()
Date: July 19, 2012 01:10
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...
You could try SRTS: The Led Zeppelin Message Board & Forum....they might eat you alive though
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
Justin
()
Date: July 19, 2012 01:17
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
It'd sure be fun though. There's nothing better than getting two hardcore fans from each opposing band and duking it out.
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.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
FrankM
()
Date: July 19, 2012 01:19
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.
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.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
BluzDude
()
Date: July 19, 2012 01:25
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.
Exactly!
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
Justin
()
Date: July 19, 2012 01:29
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
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!"
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
BluzDude
()
Date: July 19, 2012 01:31
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!"
OK, I guess I was just coming full circle with my list, lol
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
BluzDude
()
Date: July 19, 2012 01:33
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.
Again, you have selective hearing my friend...I'll tell you what, why don't you take a trip to the Bronx and discuss with the folks how the Red Sox have a more diverse team then the Yankees, after all, this is not a LZ forum.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
FrankM
()
Date: July 19, 2012 01:35
The only one with selective hearing is you Bluz.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
Justin
()
Date: July 19, 2012 01:40
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?
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?
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
BluzDude
()
Date: July 19, 2012 01:42
Yes, That's the way and Caraselambra is the same music at just different speeds, Frank, I am surprised at how ignorant you are.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
FrankM
()
Date: July 19, 2012 01:45
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?
My point exactly. I didn't mean to say that Zeppelin never "touched" on many different genres. In terms of number of genres, The Stones from what I see have maybe touched on one more genre than Zeppelin- it's really the volume which makes The Stones more diverse.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
BluzDude
()
Date: July 19, 2012 01:47
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)
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
FrankM
()
Date: July 19, 2012 01:48
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.
I guess it's easier to call me ignorant than it is to back up your argument.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
BluzDude
()
Date: July 19, 2012 01:49
You are when I did and you ignore it
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
FrankM
()
Date: July 19, 2012 01:50
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)
Finally you agree with me.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
babyblue , chpoutre , Domonkos , jason8903 , jumpingjackflash5 , LiveAtHidepark , ohmercy61 , poti , Stilllife09 , StonedRambler , thomashanck , TumblinDice76 , wachterc
Guests:
2369
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10