Quote
Beast of Babylon
The moment jack black said at the Kennedy Center Honors, they were "the greatest rock band in history....better than the beatles and better than the stones".....i turned it off, and threw up in my mouth a little bit. Comparing the beatles and stones to Zepplin is like comparing ice cream to horse manure.....the beatles changed how music was played, recorded, distributed, written and its culture impact. The stones did almost the same thing, but in a different way....by mastering a sound and testing and succeeding in every genre, rock, blues, country, funk, disco and punk. they also created and recreated and recreated and recreated what a live concert should be.

to me, putting them in the same post, let alone sentence is just plain wrong

led zeppelin tried just as many styles as the stones and had hits in all of them. the stones never really had any hits in punk, funk or country really. beast of burden, miss you and emotional rescue are all disc tunes

On second thought, The Stones will never get in. Ever since I bought Beggars Banquet Mick has been rattling on to anybody who will listen about how he and I killed the Kennedy's.

Why is it so important what this clown said? The best band in the world is the one youn ike the most, and for most of us s the Stones.

Quote
keefriffhard4life
led zeppelin tried just as many styles as the stones

They sure did.

Quote
keefriffhard4life
and had hits in all of them.

Oh really? What "hit" songs are we talking about here?

Quote
keefriffhard4life
beast of burden, miss you and emotional rescue are all disc tunes

I don't even know what that means.

Beast of Burden: #8 US Charts
Miss You: #1 US Charts, #3 UK Charts
Emotional Rescue: #3 US charts, #9 UK Charts

Every single of the songs you mentioned were Top 10 hits, two of them were Top 3 Hits in the US. Not enough success for you?

I love Zeppelin but they achieved equal or more success with their genre dabbling than the Stones? Honestly? Looking at the collection on their best-of comp "Mothership"...try to tell me what other genres are represented in that set besides rock, blues rock or hard rock? Am I missing something? Zeppelin may have dabbled in a few genres here and there but none of that is represented in their "biggest hits" that you'd find on this type of compilation.

Anyone listening to 40 Licks or the newest GRR! can see the wide variety of sounds the Stones tried over their career. John Niven of the Daily Record recently put it nicely in a review of the first London show:

Quote
John Niven
And the run of songs, from Midnight Rambler to Miss You, Start Me Up, Brown Sugar, Sympathy For The Devil, You Can’t Always Get What You Want and Jumpin’ Jack Flash. You can’t believe one band wrote them all.

I find this to be true of the Stones. Can't say the same about Zeppelin.

If The Stones 50th mini tour sounded anything like Zep's O2 reunion people would have been greatly disappointed. Robert Plant on his best day couldn't wipe Mick's butt. It's a miracle Zep made such great records with a wimpy LV. IMO the test of time has not been good for the Leds whose tempos and stage professionalism are questionable.

Quote
keefriffhard4life


led zeppelin tried just as many styles as the stones and had hits in all of them. the stones never really had any hits in punk, funk or country really. beast of burden, miss you and emotional rescue are all disc tunes

you are wrong sir, miss you went to number one of the disco charts and the b side faraway eyes went to 1 on the country charts.....Have u never heard of sweet virginia, dead flowers, factory girl? Respectabul?

They were a great band.
what is surprising to me is that Page has become the one who can't let go. How many more ultimate absolute master and RE-master hyper complete Box Sets are going to get from him?
I have been following Plant for years; what a catalogue he has put together.

Quote
Beast of Babylon

Quote
keefriffhard4life


led zeppelin tried just as many styles as the stones and had hits in all of them. the stones never really had any hits in punk, funk or country really. beast of burden, miss you and emotional rescue are all disc tunes

you are wrong sir, miss you went to number one of the disco charts and the b side faraway eyes went to 1 on the country charts.....Have u never heard of sweet virginia, dead flowers, factory girl? Respectabul?

i mentioned miss you and that was supposed to say DISCO not disc when i typed it. sorry. please give me a link to the country chart showing far away eyes as a #1 hit or even charted single. sweet virginia, dead flowers and factory girl were not singles and never charted anywhere so not sure what you are trying to tell me. respectable was not a hit here in the states

Quote
Justin

Quote
keefriffhard4life
led zeppelin tried just as many styles as the stones

They sure did.

Quote
keefriffhard4life
and had hits in all of them.

Oh really? What "hit" songs are we talking about here?

Quote
keefriffhard4life
beast of burden, miss you and emotional rescue are all disc tunes

I don't even know what that means.

Beast of Burden: #8 US Charts
Miss You: #1 US Charts, #3 UK Charts
Emotional Rescue: #3 US charts, #9 UK Charts

Every single of the songs you mentioned were Top 10 hits, two of them were Top 3 Hits in the US. Not enough success for you?

I love Zeppelin but they achieved equal or more success with their genre dabbling than the Stones? Honestly? Looking at the collection on their best-of comp "Mothership"...try to tell me what other genres are represented in that set besides rock, blues rock or hard rock? Am I missing something? Zeppelin may have dabbled in a few genres here and there but none of that is represented in their "biggest hits" that you'd find on this type of compilation.

sorry that should have said disco not disc. the songs i mentioned crossed over into the disco/dance charts.

looking at mothership d'yer mak'er is a reggae tune. kashmir mixes in middle eastern influences. all of my love is a ballad. i do agree after looking at this compilation it paints a narrow picture of zeppelin but they also did folk, country and even some of their stuff bordered on funk. i'm not even sure what to classify fool in the rain as



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-28 12:50 by keefriffhard4life.

I have tried many times to get into the Led Zep stuff, bought some CDs, the Live double DVD, but I was never able to listen to them for more than half an hour. Every now and then I try again and I am sure I will again. But it somehow really is not my cup of tea, so it is difficult to be objective.

I can admit, that Led Zeppelin were a great band, very popular one obviously, and that they did quite an impressive work. BUT...without The Beatles and The Stones, there would be no Led Zeppelin, while without Led Zeppelin we would have the same Beatles and Stones. Sure, the same can be said about The Stones and people like Muddy Waters, Howlin Wolf and such, or about The Beatles and Elvis, Little Richard and so on, but I can see a huge difference.

The biggest difference I see is in the amount of creativity. The Beatles and The Stones took great lessons in their predecessors, but they used it in a very creative way and did a lot of absolutely original stuff. Well, most of it, even though the roots are always obvious. But that is more than fine. Led Zep on the other hand tended much more towards plagiarism, some of the gretest riffs are just stolen stuff without much added value.

I am not an expert on Zeppelin, but I remember a youtube video that was posted here some time ago, comparing famous Zeppelin tunes with the tunes they got the "inspiration" from. And they were pretty much exactly the same. One can not do that with the Stones' or The Beatles' back catalogue. So from that point of view there is absolutely no comparison for me. I hope no Led Zeppelin fans will be offended :-)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-28 22:38 by Happy24.

LZ was honored for stealing more from the blues artists than any other rnr band.

I love Zep, and something about playing their monster riffs extremely loud is very cathartic. I think they were massively talented in reinterpreting the blues with a heavy 70's vibe that was very unique. Having said that, I have no illusions how much they "borrowed", which is fine, that is what blues, folk, and country is about, borrowing and reinterpreting. Fine. However, they should have given credit where credit was due.
The argument about them being better than The Stones is somewhat silly, as they are completely different bands in so many ways. The Stones, while being very blues based, were never as heavy, and were more rock, than hard rock. And yes, I do think The Stones were far more prolific and had a lot more variety in their music. George Harrison was talking with Page and Plant and said, "why don't you guys do ballads? You need to do a ballad." And they wrote The Rain Song. Zep was not a very diverse band and didn't toy with many different styles. Yes, they did embrace the middle eastern sound, but that was as far as their experiments went. Probably their most diverse album, and my least favorite was In Through the Out Door. And it was a bore. What they did well was play good hard rock blues based riffs with Plant wailing.
The Stones were far deeper. I love Zep, but it is The Stones albums that I regularly go back to, to play in their entirety. But! The new Celebration Day DVD is AMAZING! LOVE IT!.

LZ had their roots in blues, like the Stones, but, they were unbelievably talented and unique in a very different way. The volume of Stones music is massive, and much of it is great, but what the Stones did was ride that bridge from blues to rock and roll, then ride it to disco, reggae and punk and back to rock and roll and blues even. The Stones pioneering was in their rhythm and attitude. I think LZ broke some trails with their sound, and did it with four absolutely unquestionably fantastic musicians. Two different paths, these bands, both great. I can certainly see how LZ earned their way to this honor. I did not care much for Jack Black's tribute, nor the Kid Rock/ Lenny Kravitz bit. I liked Buddy Guy's tribute much better.

Whatever... What else is Jack Black gonna say? Here's the second greatest rock band in the world.

Quote
whitem8
I love Zep, and something about playing their monster riffs extremely loud is very cathartic. I think they were massively talented in reinterpreting the blues with a heavy 70's vibe that was very unique. Having said that, I have no illusions how much they "borrowed", which is fine, that is what blues, folk, and country is about, borrowing and reinterpreting. Fine. However, they should have given credit where credit was due.
The argument about them being better than The Stones is somewhat silly, as they are completely different bands in so many ways. The Stones, while being very blues based, were never as heavy, and were more rock, than hard rock. And yes, I do think The Stones were far more prolific and had a lot more variety in their music. George Harrison was talking with Page and Plant and said, "why don't you guys do ballads? You need to do a ballad." And they wrote The Rain Song. Zep was not a very diverse band and didn't toy with many different styles. Yes, they did embrace the middle eastern sound, but that was as far as their experiments went. Probably their most diverse album, and my least favorite was In Through the Out Door. And it was a bore. What they did well was play good hard rock blues based riffs with Plant wailing.
The Stones were far deeper. I love Zep, but it is The Stones albums that I regularly go back to, to play in their entirety. But! The new Celebration Day DVD is AMAZING! LOVE IT!.

Of course. Not to knock Zep -- great at what they did for the brief period they did it -- but they are simply not in the same conversation with the Rolling Stones.

Quote
Rokyfan
Of course. Not to knock Zep -- great at what they did for the brief period they did it -- but they are simply not in the same conversation with the Rolling Stones.

are they possibly in the same dialogue?

I've noticed several comments about what a brief/short career Led Zeppelin had. They were together for like 12-13 years. It's not THAT short. Not everybody has a 50 year career. And a band should be judged by quality and not quantity anyway. Longevity is impressive, and 50 years is an astonishing achievement, which doesn't have a lot to do with the quality of the music.

Bands with shorter/comparable careers to the Mighty Zep. These are sort of rounded up/down, and mainly is the bands tenure as a professional/recording band and not years prior to success that they played, if applicable.

Hendrix - 3 years
Beatles - 8 years
The Clash - 8 Years
Cream - 2 Years
Creedence Clearwater Revival - 4 Years
The Doors - 4 Years
Nirvana - 5 Years
Janis Joplin - 3 Years
The Police - 5 Years
Talking Heads - 11 Years
Velvet Underground - 6 Years (3 Years if you only count the Lou Reed years)
The Byrds - 8 Years

The Band and Pink Floyd both lasted about 13 years. With Pink Floyd I'm only counting Piper through The Wall, while I like The Final Cut, it's more a Roger Waters solo album with David and Nick guesting, Richard is not present. And while I enjoy some of the Gilmour era Floyd, I don't really consider it Pink Floyd.

janis was many things...but a band she was not

Quote
StonesTod
janis was many things...but a band she was not

Hendrix wasn't a band either. But for those two I just went with their career as front man/woman. They certainly belong in any rock conversation.

Quote
NoCode0680

Quote
StonesTod
janis was many things...but a band she was not

Hendrix wasn't a band either. But for those two I just went with their career as front man/woman. They certainly belong in any rock conversation.

you sorta make up the rules as you go along...i like that.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
NoCode0680

Quote
StonesTod
janis was many things...but a band she was not

Hendrix wasn't a band either. But for those two I just went with their career as front man/woman. They certainly belong in any rock conversation.

you sorta make up the rules as you go along...i like that.

Not sure what rules I'm making up. My only point was that there are great entertainers/groups that had shorter careers than Zeppelins supposedly "brief" career, as if length of career is a measure of a band's worth.

Quote
NoCode0680

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
NoCode0680

Quote
StonesTod
janis was many things...but a band she was not

Hendrix wasn't a band either. But for those two I just went with their career as front man/woman. They certainly belong in any rock conversation.

you sorta make up the rules as you go along...i like that.

Not sure what rules I'm making up. My only point was that there are great entertainers/groups that had shorter careers than Zeppelins supposedly "brief" career, as if length of career is a measure of a band's worth.

you had other points, too.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
NoCode0680

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
NoCode0680

Quote
StonesTod
janis was many things...but a band she was not

Hendrix wasn't a band either. But for those two I just went with their career as front man/woman. They certainly belong in any rock conversation.

you sorta make up the rules as you go along...i like that.

Not sure what rules I'm making up. My only point was that there are great entertainers/groups that had shorter careers than Zeppelins supposedly "brief" career, as if length of career is a measure of a band's worth.

you had other points, too.

Mainly just that I don't see how longevity (while certainly impressive) is not really something I take into account when I consider how great an act was. If it seemed like I was trying to make any other points, it wasn't on purpose.

Quote
NoCode0680

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
NoCode0680

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
NoCode0680

Quote
StonesTod
janis was many things...but a band she was not

Hendrix wasn't a band either. But for those two I just went with their career as front man/woman. They certainly belong in any rock conversation.

you sorta make up the rules as you go along...i like that.

Not sure what rules I'm making up. My only point was that there are great entertainers/groups that had shorter careers than Zeppelins supposedly "brief" career, as if length of career is a measure of a band's worth.

you had other points, too.

Mainly just that I don't see how longevity (while certainly impressive) is not really something I take into account when I consider how great an act was. If it seemed like I was trying to make any other points, it wasn't on purpose.

you're being too modest

Quote
NoCode0680
I've noticed several comments about what a brief/short career Led Zeppelin had. They were together for like 12-13 years. It's not THAT short. Not everybody has a 50 year career. And a band should be judged by quality and not quantity anyway. Longevity is impressive, and 50 years is an astonishing achievement, which doesn't have a lot to do with the quality of the music.

Bands with shorter/comparable careers to the Mighty Zep. These are sort of rounded up/down, and mainly is the bands tenure as a professional/recording band and not years prior to success that they played, if applicable.

Hendrix - 3 years
Beatles - 8 years
The Clash - 8 Years
Cream - 2 Years
Creedence Clearwater Revival - 4 Years
The Doors - 4 Years
Nirvana - 5 Years
Janis Joplin - 3 Years
The Police - 5 Years
Talking Heads - 11 Years
Velvet Underground - 6 Years (3 Years if you only count the Lou Reed years)
The Byrds - 8 Years

The Band and Pink Floyd both lasted about 13 years. With Pink Floyd I'm only counting Piper through The Wall, while I like The Final Cut, it's more a Roger Waters solo album with David and Nick guesting, Richard is not present. And while I enjoy some of the Gilmour era Floyd, I don't really consider it Pink Floyd.

2 changes. the police was actually 10 years. first single 1977 and last sessions by the band were sometime in 1986 plus they did a reunion tour. the doors counting just the morrison years was actually 6 years.

you forgot to mention buffalo springfield who were around less than 2 years

Quote
StonesTod
you're being too modest

On the contrary, I'm convinced that I'm the Greatest Human Being in history.... better than The Beatles and better than The Stones. Jack Black told me so.

Jimmy Page is a great player, Bonham fantastic drummer, can't stand Plant's voice but the thing with Zep is they were plagiarists of the worst kind. Yes the Stones copied some riffs, copied the Staple Singers chorus in The Last time. But Led Zeppelin were into wholesale thievery both from past blues greats and contemporary artists alike. I lost a hell of allot of respect for them when I found it out. They should never be considered in the same league as the Beatles or the Stones or even The Who.

Quote
Ket
Jimmy Page is a great player, Bonham fantastic drummer, can't stand Plant's voice but the thing with Zep is they were plagiarists of the worst kind. Yes the Stones copied some riffs, copied the Staple Singers chorus in The Last time. But Led Zeppelin were into wholesale thievery both from past blues greats and contemporary artists alike. I lost a hell of allot of respect for them when I found it out. They should never be considered in the same league as the Beatles or the Stones or even The Who.

you're so unforgiving. and in this season of forgiveness, no less....

Quote
Ket
Jimmy Page is a great player, Bonham fantastic drummer, can't stand Plant's voice but the thing with Zep is they were plagiarists of the worst kind. Yes the Stones copied some riffs, copied the Staple Singers chorus in The Last time. But Led Zeppelin were into wholesale thievery both from past blues greats and contemporary artists alike. I lost a hell of allot of respect for them when I found it out. They should never be considered in the same league as the Beatles or the Stones or even The Who.

That's sort of the trade-off with Zeppelin, musical skill vs creativity. You put Zeppelin up against The Beatles, Stones, The Who, etc, and Zeppelin are the best (at least I think) as far as musicianship/skill goes. But apparently they couldn't write their way out of a wet paper bag. And creativity does count for something, which is why I prefer The Stones and other bands over Zeppelin. But I do enjoy them, just not as much as I did as a teenager.

Reminds me of Clapton, great player, but not a prolific writer. Sure, he wrote a few GREAT songs, but it wasn't his strong suit. When it hit him it hit him, but not on a daily basis or anything. He left that to the old blues guys, J.J. Cale, and others. The difference between Clapton and Zeppelin, is that (to the best of my knowledge) Clapton always made sure people got taken care of for their work. He gave credit, often in the form of "Written By Robert Johnson: Arranged By Eric Clapton" or something like that. I saw an interview recently with Martin Sharp (the Australian artist who met Clapton and gave him the lyrics for Tales Of Brave Ulysses) in which he said he didn't even expect to get paid for it until he got a surprise royalty check in the mail. Long story short, Clapton seems to give credit where credit is due. I'm sure there's probably an example of Clapton not being the most thoughtful gentleman as far as writing credits go, but for the most part he seemed to be on the up and up.

It seems to me there's a trade-off with so many virtuoso type guitarists. With the exception of Hendrix and a few others, they don't seem to be the best writers. Usually it's the pretty good or really good guitarists that write the best songs. Perhaps because they aren't as focused on the noodling and write riffs/harmonies instead. I'm sure there are more examples, so don't beat me over the head. It just seems like guitar players with a good rhythm background (Keith, Townshend, Lennon, etc) write the better songs.