CACTUS was better than led zeppelin anyways

Quote
andrewt

Quote
treaclefingers
When Jack said it, I thought it was kind of funny, and I don't think he, or the audience actually believed what he was saying.

He was being an actor playing the part of the "Zeppelin Dude"
everyone knew in high school.

Yes...I also believe that.

I've got one more thing to say about this (maybe) ... The Kennedy Center does a lot better job of picking musicians/bands than the mis-named Rock-And-Roll Hall of Fame. And anyone who doesn't think Led Zeppelin is a great rock band is nuts, IMO. Are they better than the Stones?... No.

I think people from England overstate Led Zep's success. They copped an array of American Blues and played it in a very powerful way, which makes them an unforgettable band. But greatest of alltime? Surely anyone aspiring to that title must create something completely original, something totally their own, which Led Zep never did.

I don't like ranking music or judging art as better or worse, but I do consider originality to be fair game, and it is there that Led Zeppelin always fell flat with me.

@Laughingsam...if you really believe that Led Zeppelin have never created anything comepletely original then that tells me that you've never really listened to their complete catalog and are in no position to make such a rediculous claim.

Quote
NoCode0680


Right, but that's your opinion, not science. What you consider long and tedious somebody else thinks is awesome.

Well a 30 minute version of NQ filled with "inspired" (= tedious) improvisational work by JPJ followed by a 40 minute drum solo may be considered boring by a majority of ppl...

Probably, LZ is the greatest HARD rock band ever. I like them, but how could we compare their music with the Stones music in terms of breadth and depth? The Stones is obviously a more significant band, IMO.

The Stones longevity, in connection with their music’s quality, it represents a very important part of band’s legacy. After 50 years, personally i still cannot find a really bad Stones album. I could mention Stones albums perfect, excellent, very good, good, or simply decent, but not even ONE bad album. Matter of taste? Of course. Everyone could agree or disagree. End of story.

But, hey, we have another “story” here… Some folks are considering the factor “sales” as a catalytic measure. Interesting method… By this logic, Julio Iglesias is much better artist than Bob Bylan…

And what about all these different - and very often conflicting- statistics and lists we can see around? According one of them, Queen, AC/DC and Bee Gees have been huger sellers than LZ. So have we to change our (different) opinions about the quality and the significance of all these bands, accordingly what sources each of us does consider as more/less reliables? How many Stones albums/singles/any type of disc have been sold for the time beeing? Some say 200 millions , others say over 260 (there is a vast difference here). And, according a french source (chartsinfrance.net), until 2008 the Stones had sold 169.1 million albums worldwide (the catalogue is about albums sales only), while the LZ has sold 165.5 millions. Is it valid? Who knows? Georgelicks knows, maybe.

In any case, the method of counding a band’s or a solo artist’s importance by estimating sales MAINLY, it’s a bit childish, to me. But if you, folks, do persist in this method, then, in fairness, count ticket sales too…

Beyond uncomfirmed details, the truth is that in different terms the Stones and the LZ are admirably popular. The LZ had been monster sellers during the 70’s. The Stones never had been monster album/singles sellers, but they still have a notable endurance as stable sellers, in decades.

In addition, the Stones is by far the most successful live act in history. And, please, don’t try to contrast the information about “20 million people who wanted to see the LZ at O2 arena” with the fact that the Stones as live act have attracted over 31 millions people since 1989… Not only (and for sure not mainly) because there are strong doudts about the accuracy of the “20 million” story among industry’s people, but mainly because of the simple logic: conjectures are conjectures and facts are facts...

Anyone can claim that if the Stones were doing their first and only gig after hree dacades, then 22 or 32 or 42 million people would like to see them on the historical event. Just a conjecture. Also anyone can claim the if the LZ were a active band in the last 25 years, then they would have attract 50 million people in their concerts. Another conjecture. You cannot deny or confirm conjectures. Only the facts are denying or confirming…

“Sales lovers” throwed down the glove, so someone had to take that – right?

Imo what killed LZ is their relentless appetite for money. Hence the tour after tour schedule when they should have stayed home to recharge the batteries, the BS gimmickry (the main one being the bow act during D&Confused).

They paved the way for bs bands like Kiss and in retrospect LZ was probably the first band to go "Spinal Tap" all the way.

And what really kills it for me is each time they tried to move away from the heavy blues formula of the early days to venture in new territories (folk reggae) it sounded like a parody (Dyer Maker anyone? )

And Stairway To Heaven is the most pompous ridiculous song ever!

I love Zeppelin. I wouldn't put them up there with the Stones, but they would be in my top 10. They seem to have transcended to the point where they are one of the cool bands to like among the younger crowd. Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, and The Beatles. The Stones just haven't got to that point yet I don't think and I don't understand why. Once they cease to be a (at least a half functioning) band, that'll change for sure.

Quote
Laughingsam
I think people from England overstate Led Zep's success. They copped an array of American Blues and played it in a very powerful way, which makes them an unforgettable band. But greatest of alltime? Surely anyone aspiring to that title must create something completely original, something totally their own, which Led Zep never did.

I don't like ranking music or judging art as better or worse, but I do consider originality to be fair game, and it is there that Led Zeppelin always fell flat with me.

I guess Elvis and Sinatra were retreads as well, being they didn't write their own music, only reinterpreted songs by others.

Wait, didn't Zeppelin do that too?

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Laughingsam
I think people from England overstate Led Zep's success. They copped an array of American Blues and played it in a very powerful way, which makes them an unforgettable band. But greatest of alltime? Surely anyone aspiring to that title must create something completely original, something totally their own, which Led Zep never did.

I don't like ranking music or judging art as better or worse, but I do consider originality to be fair game, and it is there that Led Zeppelin always fell flat with me.

I guess Elvis and Sinatra were retreads as well, being they didn't write their own music, only reinterpreted songs by others.

Wait, didn't Zeppelin do that too?

you have to understand that sam was laughing when he wrote that....

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...

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Laughingsam
I think people from England overstate Led Zep's success. They copped an array of American Blues and played it in a very powerful way, which makes them an unforgettable band. But greatest of alltime? Surely anyone aspiring to that title must create something completely original, something totally their own, which Led Zep never did.

I don't like ranking music or judging art as better or worse, but I do consider originality to be fair game, and it is there that Led Zeppelin always fell flat with me.

I guess Elvis and Sinatra were retreads as well, being they didn't write their own music, only reinterpreted songs by others.

Wait, didn't Zeppelin do that too?

you have to understand that sam was laughing when he wrote that....

Well, the sun ain't yellow it's chicken as far as I'm concerned.

Quote
dcba
Imo what killed LZ is their relentless appetite for money. Hence the tour after tour schedule when they should have stayed home to recharge the batteries, the BS gimmickry (the main one being the bow act during D&Confused).

They paved the way for bs bands like Kiss and in retrospect LZ was probably the first band to go "Spinal Tap" all the way.

And what really kills it for me is each time they tried to move away from the heavy blues formula of the early days to venture in new territories (folk reggae) it sounded like a parody (Dyer Maker anyone? )

And Stairway To Heaven is the most pompous ridiculous song ever!

However, the appetite ended when Bonzo died...they could have replaced him (like The Who did with Moon/Kenney Jones)...they could have come back a few years later...but they never did. And they had their first American tour in three years scheduled at the time of Bonzo's death.

Big Zeppelin fan and I always respected the way they ended it and - save for a few one-off appearances here and there the next 30 years - how they stuck to their word.

"We wish it to be known that the loss of our dear friend, and the deep sense of undivided harmony felt by ourselves and our manager, have led us to decide that we could not continue as we were."

Quote
rambler44

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

very well put....

The thing about zepplin to me is this..... Page is amazing and he sure as hell can play.....Plant on the other hand, i find annoying and hypocritical....to call out jagger for still touring???? what a bum. jagger can out perform him any night of the week, twice on sundays.

treaclefingers

Quote

@Laughingsam...if you really believe that Led Zeppelin have never created anything comepletely original then that tells me that you've never really listened to their complete catalog and are in no position to make such a rediculous claim.

I listen to them all the time. I qualified them as an "unforgettable" and "powerful" band. Just because I don't consider them the best or believe there's something to be said for innovation and originality, doesn't mean I don't like Led Zeppelin. I don't think their song writing abilities compare with The Stones, The Beatles, or The Who. That doesn't mean I don't like them.

I offered my opinion and I'm not surprised by the few responses as I've always known Led Zeppelin fans to become belligerent, mouth-frothing lunatics when comfronted with the slightest criticism of their band.

excellent Cover by Heart

Quote
Laughingsam
I've always known Led Zeppelin fans to become belligerent, mouth-frothing lunatics when comfronted with the slightest criticism of their band.

LZ and The Beatles' fans are the worst offenders for this type of behavior. They feel empowered by their position simply because they know they have the support of the huge (cultish) fanbase to back them up.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-29 23:31 by Justin.

Quote
Laughingsam
I offered my opinion and I'm not surprised by the few responses as I've always known Led Zeppelin fans to become belligerent, mouth-frothing lunatics when comfronted with the slightest criticism of their band.

this differs from stones fans how?

Quote
StonesTodd

Quote
Laughingsam
I offered my opinion and I'm not surprised by the few responses as I've always known Led Zeppelin fans to become belligerent, mouth-frothing lunatics when comfronted with the slightest criticism of their band.


this differs from stones fans how?

2 ways:

1 - Stones fans aren't as rabidly insecure as Zeppelin fans

2 - The Stones made some not so great music over their 50 years (Dirty Work, for example). Stones fans themselves are likely to criticize some of the band's musical blunders and are far more accepting when others criticize.

Most Zep fans I know believe the band walked on water and everything they did was fantastic.

Quote
Laughingsam


Most Zep fans I know believe the band walked on water and everything they did was fantastic.

That's because they did, and it was

Quote
Beast of Babylon
The thing about zepplin to me is this..... Page is amazing and he sure as hell can play.....Plant on the other hand, i find annoying and hypocritical....to call out jagger for still touring???? what a bum. jagger can out perform him any night of the week, twice on sundays.

Plant called Jagger out for still touring? When was that? Isn't Plant still touring? Why would Plant say that?

I love Led Zep - JP played some of the greatest rock riffs ever and also some of the most beautiful melodies ever strummed on an acoustic guitar (Going to California, The Rain Song etc.)
But while musically sprawling, most of the lyrics to their songs are stupid. JP was into all that treacly pseudo-mystical, cornball stuff...whereas Jagger, the primary lyricists for the Stones, was more cynical and intellectually curious yet also sexually suggestive in his songs.....
The Stones music was smarter, ballsier and about something.
I can't help thinking of Middle Earth when I hear a LZ song.
There's a reason why we all remember those 'Zeppelin dude' guys in high school with the comb in their back pocket - LZ was more macho ROCK, adolescent.
JP had his Alistair Crowley and his teenage groupies..... Mick had his teenage groupies but also Gore Vidal and Marianne, Bianca and Keith had Anita, Hunter Thompson etc...Mick and Keith were more cultivated.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-30 06:09 by stupidguy2.

Quote
NoCode0680

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.

....very well said...my fellow PJ fan

It's all just somebody's opinion, but for me Led Zeppelin is my favorite band of all time, followed shortly by the Stones, Beatles and Who, in that order.

And it's a long, looooooong way down to the next tier... AMEN

Quote
stupidguy2
I love Led Zep - JP played some of the greatest rock riffs ever and also some of the most beautiful melodies ever strummed on an acoustic guitar (Going to California, The Rain Song etc.)
But while musically sprawling, most of the lyrics to their songs are stupid. JP was into all that treacly pseudo-mystical, cornball stuff...whereas Jagger, the primary lyricists for the Stones, was more cynical and intellectually curious yet also sexually suggestive in his songs.....
The Stones music was smarter, ballsier and about something.
I can't help thinking of Middle Earth when I hear a LZ song.
There's a reason why we all remember those 'Zeppelin dude' guys in high school with the comb in their back pocket - LZ was more macho ROCK, adolescent.
JP had his Alistair Crowley and his teenage groupies..... Mick had his teenage groupies but also Gore Vidal and Marianne, Bianca and Keith had Anita, Hunter Thompson etc...Mick and Keith were more cultivated.

Nice stuff...great post.

Quote
stupidguy2
I love Led Zep - JP played some of the greatest rock riffs ever and also some of the most beautiful melodies ever strummed on an acoustic guitar (Going to California, The Rain Song etc.)
But while musically sprawling, most of the lyrics to their songs are stupid. JP was into all that treacly pseudo-mystical, cornball stuff...whereas Jagger, the primary lyricists for the Stones, was more cynical and intellectually curious yet also sexually suggestive in his songs.....
The Stones music was smarter, ballsier and about something.
I can't help thinking of Middle Earth when I hear a LZ song.
There's a reason why we all remember those 'Zeppelin dude' guys in high school with the comb in their back pocket - LZ was more macho ROCK, adolescent.
JP had his Alistair Crowley and his teenage groupies..... Mick had his teenage groupies but also Gore Vidal and Marianne, Bianca and Keith had Anita, Hunter Thompson etc...Mick and Keith were more cultivated.

After the first album, Plant wrote a vast majority of Zeppelin's lyrics...not JP.