What's up with all these awards organizations ?

Seems like there's a new one coming along every couple of years or so, although I'm aware the KC Honors have been around about 35 years.

How much longer until everyone gets a trophy or a medal just for "participating," like a kid in phys-ed class ?

Quote
Edith Grove
What's up with all these awards organizations ?

Seems like there's a new one coming along every couple of years or so, although I'm aware the KC Honors have been around about 35 years.

How much longer until everyone gets a trophy or a medal just for "participating," like a kid in phys-ed class ?

And what's up with all the country music award shows? There's like 5 of them. Seems like every time I switch on the tube Reba is standing on stage in a gold dress with an envelope in her hand.

Geez, all this time I was digging the Stones, Beatles, Who, Costello, Replacements, Dylan, etc, but now Jack Black says Zeppelin was the greatest. Who knew?

Seriously, why does anyone care what this B-lister says about anything?

Some people are so threatened when someone says something else is better than The Stones that they feel the need to insult the person that said it. It's rather sad.

edit: I remember reading in the news awhile ago that fans of Justin Bieber would "attack" people on twitter if they said not-so nice things about him. Bieber, Stones, fandom is all the same.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-28 18:27 by GumbootCloggeroo.

Quote
DoomandGloom
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.

i watched the Led zep O2 show and was bitterly disapointed having been a led zep fan in the 70s .

when i say watched , i mean fast forwarded the lot and deleted it .

the midnight rambler of the stones O2 shows alone was worth more than the whole led zep show .


rolling stones 1 - led zep 0

Quote
DoomandGloom
Robert Plant on his best day couldn't wipe Mick's butt.

+1
I couldn't have said it any better!

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
Some people are so threatened when someone says something else is better than The Stones that they feel the need to insult the person that said it. It's rather sad.

edit: I remember reading in the news awhile ago that fans of Justin Bieber would "attack" people on twitter if they said not-so nice things about him. Bieber, Stones, fandom is all the same.

Just curious, what percentage of Bieber fans are female?

Yeah, Jack Black is a kidder. He even said that LZ was greater than his own band Tenacious D.
He reacted to the audience laughing when he said better than The Beatles, better than The Stones...
and then went to the punchline, that you had to listen to all nine albums of LZ in a row like he had.
Still, it was annoying, I agree.

Nocode, I went there to look up the selection process too, after the Kennedy Center shows.
So there's really no way to tell. I agree The Stones are more on their radar now, after the
12/12/12 show and the 5 shows.

~"Love is Strong"~

Zeppelin were as heavily influenced by 1950's rock n' roll as they were by the blues, IMO. Jimmy Page was a huge fan of the likes of Scotty Moore and James Burton.

Quote
NoCode0680
Since there is no way to scientifically measure the greatness of a band

We do have one tool : live tapes, audience-made or pro-made. They give a pretty accurate image of what LZ was like on a stage.

LZ started strong (1969) then progressively declined = each tour was worse than the previous one. Shows were getting longer and more tedious (1975 1977) apart from flashes of brilliance usually in the same places aka strong markets (NYC or L.A.).

Quote
71Tele
Seriously, why does anyone care what this B-lister says about anything?

why does anyone care about what anyone says? - present company included

Quote
NoCode0680
Since there is no way to scientifically measure the greatness of a band, and all art is subjective, then it goes without saying that what Jack said was personal opinion (or paid opinion) and nobody should get their panties in a bunch over it.

Well spoken. Don't have to agree with it, but Jack, like everyone, is entitled to an opinion...

Quote
ChrisM

Quote
NoCode0680
Since there is no way to scientifically measure the greatness of a band, and all art is subjective, then it goes without saying that what Jack said was personal opinion (or paid opinion) and nobody should get their panties in a bunch over it.

Well spoken. Don't have to agree with it, but Jack, like everyone, is entitled to an opinion...

almost perfectly-spoken, except i'd opt for the panties being in a twist rather than a bunch, but that's just a matter of taste and opinion, too....

Quote
dcba

Quote
NoCode0680
Since there is no way to scientifically measure the greatness of a band

We do have one tool : live tapes, audience-made or pro-made. They give a pretty accurate image of what LZ was like on a stage.

LZ started strong (1969) then progressively declined = each tour was worse than the previous one. Shows were getting longer and more tedious (1975 1977) apart from flashes of brilliance usually in the same places aka strong markets (NYC or L.A.).

Right, but that's your opinion, not science. What you consider long and tedious somebody else thinks is awesome. There are those out there that find 12 minute versions of Midnight Rambler to be long and tedious. We have tools to give us a picture as you say, with which to form our own opinions. But you can't put a Stones and a Zeppelin concert in a laboratory centrifuge and have it analyze the data to tell you which one rocks more.

Who cares about these friggin' awards anyway? Like they mean anything...

As for Led Zep, yeah they were big sellers in the 70s and have a couple of decent albums to their name, maybe three, but the fact that their mastermind has done absolutely nothing of interest since, hum...1975...does raise a few questions.

Quote
whitem8
But! The new Celebration Day DVD is AMAZING! LOVE IT!.

Agreed...it's a great set and a wonderful watch.

If your starting a rock band do you want Charlie or John? Do you want Bill or John Paul Jones? The Stones are my band but I'm taking the Zep guys!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-28 21:36 by ohcarol.

Quote
keefriffhard4life
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

Well if their own label can't even paint a fair picture of their wide range of songs...not sure what else that implies. You said so yourself that LZ had hits in every genre they tried yet we can see clearly that their own best of comp paints a very specific picture of the band's sound. LZ may have experimented with different sounds but I think it's pretty clear what they're really known for as represented on their own greatest hits CD.

This has nothing to do with the Stones being better than LZ but speaking specifically about this idea that LZ succeeded at genre jumping better than the Stones. Never bought that.

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
Some people are so threatened when someone says something else is better than The Stones that they feel the need to insult the person that said it. It's rather sad.

You're right on the money, dude!!!

Quote
Justin


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?

Yup, you're missing Dreamland, Mighty Re-arranger and Raising Sand for starters...

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
Wild Slivovitz

Quote
DoomandGloom
Robert Plant on his best day couldn't wipe Mick's butt.

+1
I couldn't have said it any better!

Well... good luck with that.



(f'ing idiots)

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
doubledoor
Zep would never steal the title of greatest band, they would never steal anything. Right?

How many requests for tickets did they have at the 02 show for that one off?

While I am huge Led Zeppelin fan myself and Jack Black is entitled to his opinion that Led Zeppelin is the best band ever, it simply is not true. Yes they did rule the 70's but nothing like when the Beatles and Stones exploded on to the scene.

The Beatles and Stones are woven throughout generations of people from 7-75. Take my 75 year old Mom for example. She can sign along to most Beatles and Stones songs playing but would hardly be able to name 5 Led Zeppelin songs. In fact most people could name 10 Beatles or Stones songs even if they were casual fans. The same can't be said of Zeppelin. Zeppelin has hard core fans, one of which I am, but did not have the impact of the Stones and certainly not the Beatles.

Bottom line is this:
BEST BAND EVER- The Beatles
GREATEST ROCK AND ROLL BAND- The Rolling Stones
And then there is everyone else!

Quote
jamesfdouglas

Quote
Justin


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?

Yup, you're missing Dreamland, Mighty Re-arranger and Raising Sand for starters...

I'm not sure we're including solo albums here...I thought keefriffhard4life was strictly talking about the Led Zeppelin catalog and how successfully diverse that was.

Plant has obviously done some excellent work with his folk/bluegrass projects--but that has nothing to do with LZ...just like "Wandering Spirit" or "Talk is Cheap" has nothing to do with the Stones' catalog.

To my knowledge the last time Zep's catalogue was remastered (reissued) was 1994, the same remasters as the box set. So it's not like they've been reissued a gazillion times. A load enough of box sets but the albums just once.

I've read before that Jack Black is not a Stones' fan. He's a huge Who fan, and apparently a huge Zep fan.

BTW, if you've ever watched his movie, School of Rock, you'll notice that The Stones are never mentioned. What does that tell you?

Jack Black is no different than any person we would meet in real life. To some, LZ, AC/DC and The Who is where it's at...the Stones are pussies in comparison. I know a lot of people who believe this. Subtlety isn't for everyone.

Me, I love all those bands and know better than to compare them all to each other.

Quote
latebloomer
Jack Black fits the profile of the typical Led Zepplin fan, so he would, of course, think they the greatest rock band in history.

The decision to pick Zepplin makes me curious about the process by which the Kennedy Center Honors crew decides who gets invited. Why Zepplin this year, why not the Stones, or any number of other influential bands? It seems somewhat arbitrary, but there must be a method to the whole thing.

Yeah, the Stones before Zep...
Don't mean a thing...

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
Some people are so threatened when someone says something else is better than The Stones that they feel the need to insult the person that said it. It's rather sad.

edit: I remember reading in the news awhile ago that fans of Justin Bieber would "attack" people on twitter if they said not-so nice things about him. Bieber, Stones, fandom is all the same.

take that back!

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
71Tele
Seriously, why does anyone care what this B-lister says about anything?

why does anyone care about what anyone says? - present company included

Well, when you put it that way....