Quote
dcba
More gasoline on the LZ bonfire : wtf is this song named "Hot Dog"???? ><

The Stones would have never put such a trash on a disc!

The stones have, in their past, sucked WAY harder than Zeppelin ever, ever did.





[thepowergoats.com]

I can name one instance they did suck, but, not under the Zep name. The 'Walking Into Clarksdale' was a terrible album all the way around, except maybe a track or two. Had Zeppelin survived the 80's and the 90's there would have been a lot more suckage. It's only because they released 8 studio albums for about 10 years. Look at the Stones for the first 10 years, that takes them through Exile.

Zep is talented though, it's all apples and oranges baby. Jagger still has more personality, vitality and charisma on the stage than Plant ever had even at this ripe age.

Quote
ifyacantrockme
I can name one instance they did suck, but, not under the Zep name. The 'Walking Into Clarksdale' was a terrible album all the way around, except maybe a track or two. Had Zeppelin survived the 80's and the 90's there would have been a lot more suckage. It's only because they released 8 studio albums for about 10 years. Look at the Stones for the first 10 years, that takes them through Exile.

Zep is talented though, it's all apples and oranges baby. Jagger still has more personality, vitality and charisma on the stage than Plant ever had even at this ripe age.

I really liked Walking into Clarksdale!

Quote
champ72

Quote
ifyacantrockme
I can name one instance they did suck, but, not under the Zep name. The 'Walking Into Clarksdale' was a terrible album all the way around, except maybe a track or two. Had Zeppelin survived the 80's and the 90's there would have been a lot more suckage. It's only because they released 8 studio albums for about 10 years. Look at the Stones for the first 10 years, that takes them through Exile.

Zep is talented though, it's all apples and oranges baby. Jagger still has more personality, vitality and charisma on the stage than Plant ever had even at this ripe age.

I really liked Walking into Clarksdale!

agreed i liked it too. when it first came out i hated it. sold my cd. last year i was at a store having a buy 3 get 1 free used cd sale. had 3 in my hand and couldn't find a 4th cd. finally i saw walking into clarksdale and said "why not try it again its technically free today". played it again and love it. still have the same opnion that i did the first time though that it sounds like page and plant are doing two different things (plant his middle eastern influenced stuff and page some very blues influenced stuff) and just fused them but this time for some reason it worked. maybe my expectations were too high when it first came out

Yeah, another fan of Walking into Clarksdale! Great sound and interesting listen. Much better than In Through the Out Door!

Quote
jamesfdouglas

Quote
Wild Slivovitz

Quote
jamesfdouglas

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)

So what's your point? Please keep your insults for yourself.

Um, you're the one insulting Robert Plant.
Either way, you can keep telling me how to post here. And I'll offer you a nice, tall glass of f--- off.

It's not a big problem for me if you like to post insults on a Stones' forum because someone says Mick Jagger is better than Robert Plant. If you're happy like that, then go ahead. That's a little disapponting because I used to read your posts with interest, but I can live with it. Have a nice day and as for me you can keep your "glasses" for yourself.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-04 13:47 by Wild Slivovitz.

I just downloaded the two brand new SB tapes that were just released in Japan (Landover'77 May 25 & 30) and frankly it's 5 five hrs of boredom and head-scratching.

What's appalling is they try hard to bring a great rock show but nothing really takes off.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-04 13:09 by dcba.

Quote
jamesfdouglas
And I'll offer you a nice, tall glass of f--- off.

Wow, lots of real tough guys on this site. Relax and put on some Stones music and play it darn loud instead.

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

No, its not wrong - Jack Black just has a different opinion to you.

Quote
dcba
I just downloaded the two brand new SB tapes that were just released in Japan (Landover'77 May 25 & 30) and frankly it's 5 five hrs of boredom and head-scratching.

What's appalling is they try hard to bring a great rock show but nothing really takes off.

That's not quite fair. The 1977 shows were notoriously erratic due to Pagey's delicate condition. Keith had his own struggles in that department, so there's no need to be harsh is there?

led zeppelin were a far better band than the beatles,its not even close really.

ringo on drums or john bonham,john paul jones on bass or paul-thats not even a contest.

jimmy page on guitar or john and george.....one of these guys gets mentioned as one of the best of all time,the other two..not so much.

the vocals.the beatles had sweet harmonies but if they tried a blues or hard rock song it was laughable.helter skelter sounds like a little child throwing a fit and that blues song,yes i'm lonely i wanna diyyy is, well they tried.not exactly you shook me or since i've been loving you though is it?

the stones hold up much better.charlie and bills rhythm section is second to none and keith,ronnie and mick taylor are some of the best guitarists in rock and roll.micks vocals can go from a ballad like angie to a rocker like jjf and he's also one of the best blues singers ever.

there are millions of people who think led zep is the best band ever and its a legitimate arguement.the only people who think the beatles are this shining beacon of excellence that no one dare challenge are beatles fans.the rest of us couldnt give a toss,i would rank them in the bottom of the top ten.

and please,please dont tell me about how many records they've sold because i'll just mention that madonna and elton john have sold more than hendrix and the who.

Even Jimmy calls LZ's sound a "weave." I guess he never heard of the ban people here put on that word.

"The stones have, in their past, sucked WAY harder than Zeppelin ever, ever did."

Not sure there's a scientific way to tell who sucked harder but assuming you are right it might have to do with the fact that LZ quit after eleven years or so. Did The Stones suck bad in the first eleven years of their existence? Even Satanic Majesties was better than In Through The Out Door.


"led zeppelin were a far better band than the beatles,its not even close really."

Again there is no scientific way to prove who is better but you are certainly in the minority since The Beatles probably have the biggest fan base in the world- don't ask me why.

Quote
FrankM

Again there is no scientific way to prove who is better but you are certainly in the minority since The Beatles probably have the biggest fan base in the world- don't ask me why.

i'm not so sure about that-you would have to go ask every music fan on the planet to get a true answer.the beatles usually win those "best group" polls but thats because their fans have a justin bieber quality to them in that they actually respond to that nonsense.

having a conversation on a message board is one thing but i cant imagine clicking one of those dopey polls"yay,we're the best again..go beatles.."

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
FrankM

Again there is no scientific way to prove who is better but you are certainly in the minority since The Beatles probably have the biggest fan base in the world- don't ask me why.

i'm not so sure about that-you would have to go ask every music fan on the planet to get a true answer.the beatles usually win those "best group" polls but thats because their fans have a justin bieber quality to them in that they actually respond to that nonsense.

having a conversation on a message board is one thing but i cant imagine clicking one of those dopey polls"yay,we're the best again..go beatles.."

I'm not even a huge Beatles fan these days but I don't think it's fair to compare Beatles fans with Justin Bieber fans. It's not just about the fans anyway. Poll 100 rock and roll historians and maybe two will say Led Zeppelin was better than The Beatles. Of course you don't have to agree with it.

Quote
Wild Slivovitz

Quote
jamesfdouglas

Quote
Wild Slivovitz

Quote
jamesfdouglas

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)

So what's your point? Please keep your insults for yourself.

Um, you're the one insulting Robert Plant.
Either way, you can keep telling me how to post here. And I'll offer you a nice, tall glass of f--- off.

It's not a big problem for me if you like to post insults on a Stones' forum because someone says Mick Jagger is better than Robert Plant. If you're happy like that, then go ahead. That's a little disapponting because I used to read your posts with interest, but I can live with it. Have a nice day and as for me you can keep your "glasses" for yourself.

My post to you was in this context: HOW have I insulted anyone (before the cheeky 'glass' comment)? How is my picture of Robert Plant holding 4 Grammy's insulting?? It makes no sense, and I was put off by you saying that I was trying to be insulting.

[thepowergoats.com]

I would not think it wise to use Grammies as a mark of validation.

Quote
MKjan
I would not think it wise to use Grammies as a mark of validation.

Absolutely true, MKjan. Who the hell cares about Grammies? Those awards go to the most artistically destitute, merchandised musicians year after year.

Best bands ever are Beatles, Stones, Zepplin, Floyd and The Who. Its up to the individuel to put them in the right order but these 5 are by far better than anyone else, no contest.

If i had to choose which band I would go and see if there was only one choice it would have to be Pink Floyd only because i have seen the stones about 20 times and floyd only once.

I think its a case of the longer they don't play the more you want to see them.

Quote
jamesfdouglas

Quote
Wild Slivovitz

Quote
jamesfdouglas

Quote
Wild Slivovitz

Quote
jamesfdouglas

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)

So what's your point? Please keep your insults for yourself.

Um, you're the one insulting Robert Plant.
Either way, you can keep telling me how to post here. And I'll offer you a nice, tall glass of f--- off.

It's not a big problem for me if you like to post insults on a Stones' forum because someone says Mick Jagger is better than Robert Plant. If you're happy like that, then go ahead. That's a little disapponting because I used to read your posts with interest, but I can live with it. Have a nice day and as for me you can keep your "glasses" for yourself.

My post to you was in this context: HOW have I insulted anyone (before the cheeky 'glass' comment)? How is my picture of Robert Plant holding 4 Grammy's insulting?? It makes no sense, and I was put off by you saying that I was trying to be insulting.

Ah ok, I was referring to the "f'ing idiots" line in first place. Of course Plant's picture is not insulting

zeppelin blows the doors off the beatles,musically a deaf mute knows that.stones greatest by a landslide,zep second.but whats the point,mr black is entitled to his opinion.and yes i love the beatles,there just not stones,zep or the doors.

I have always liked Zep just fine, and greatly respect the way they ended it with respect to John.... but this resurgence of Zep due to the recent release and the Honors thing will taper off, and then it will be just the Stones... as it always has been. It is silly to try to debate which is a better band, they are both are great... but The Stones.... are THE STONES!!!

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
I have always liked Zep just fine, and greatly respect the way they ended it with respect to John.... but this resurgence of Zep due to the recent release and the Honors thing will taper off, and then it will be just the Stones... as it always has been. It is silly to try to debate which is a better band, they are both are great... but The Stones.... are THE STONES!!!

why do you think it will "taper off" and be just the stones as its "always been"? here in the states zeppelin has outsold the stones pretty badly over the last 25 years without even touring and only putting out a BBC sessions, 2 live albums and 3 greatest hits

I run a karaoke KJ biz on the side, and I've always made sure that my libraries have as much Zeppelin, Beatles, Stones and Pink Floyd as possible.

Songs by three out of four of these artists are sung ALL THE TIME, EVERY NIGHT by tons and tons of young people (19-27 years average)... and always get a huge positive response from the party crowd.

I hate to say it, but guess which of the four artists' tracks rarley, if ever, gets sung by people?

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
jamesfdouglas
I run a karaoke KJ biz on the side, and I've always made sure that my libraries have as much Zeppelin, Beatles, Stones and Pink Floyd as possible.

Songs by three out of four of these artists are sung ALL THE TIME, EVERY NIGHT by tons and tons of young people (19-27 years average)... and always get a huge positive response from the party crowd.

I hate to say it, but guess which of the four artists' tracks rarley, if ever, gets sung by people?

Then why do you have as much Stones as possible in your library if you are claiming nobody sings it? Maybe you should get another job on the side since you must stink at the karaoke KJ biz.

Quote
FrankM

Quote
jamesfdouglas
I run a karaoke KJ biz on the side, and I've always made sure that my libraries have as much Zeppelin, Beatles, Stones and Pink Floyd as possible.

Songs by three out of four of these artists are sung ALL THE TIME, EVERY NIGHT by tons and tons of young people (19-27 years average)... and always get a huge positive response from the party crowd.

I hate to say it, but guess which of the four artists' tracks rarley, if ever, gets sung by people?

Then why do you have as much Stones as possible in your library if you are claiming nobody sings it? Maybe you should get another job on the side since you must stink at the karaoke KJ biz.

weird to suppose the answer is the stones ? ?

Quote
straycatblues73

Quote
FrankM

Quote
jamesfdouglas
I run a karaoke KJ biz on the side, and I've always made sure that my libraries have as much Zeppelin, Beatles, Stones and Pink Floyd as possible.

Songs by three out of four of these artists are sung ALL THE TIME, EVERY NIGHT by tons and tons of young people (19-27 years average)... and always get a huge positive response from the party crowd.

I hate to say it, but guess which of the four artists' tracks rarley, if ever, gets sung by people?

Then why do you have as much Stones as possible in your library if you are claiming nobody sings it? Maybe you should get another job on the side since you must stink at the karaoke KJ biz.

weird to suppose the answer is the stones ? ?

I don't know but it's pretty weird to stock karaoke songs by an artist if they are not being sung by the people singing karaoke. Now we know that in additon to being a perpetual whiner James could also use a crash course in business 101.

Not that it really matters who is bigger at karaoke bars and clubs but some interesting stuff here. Yes The Beatles are number one and I would expect that. The Rolling Stones are quite a ways down on the list but at least they break the top fifty and are ahead of Zeppelin and Floyd despite what some other whiner might say.





[uskaraokealliance.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-05 20:43 by FrankM.

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
I have always liked Zep just fine, and greatly respect the way they ended it with respect to John.... but this resurgence of Zep due to the recent release and the Honors thing will taper off, and then it will be just the Stones... as it always has been. It is silly to try to debate which is a better band, they are both are great... but The Stones.... are THE STONES!!!

why do you think it will "taper off" and be just the stones as its "always been"? here in the states zeppelin has outsold the stones pretty badly over the last 25 years without even touring and only putting out a BBC sessions, 2 live albums and 3 greatest hits

I read something to the tune of Zep has sold 20 million albums since 1990. Something whack like that. No other band has done anything like that. The only band that has come close to touching Led Zeppelin's popularity in the United States is Journey. Of course, simply in the context of classic rock FM radio, which tends to be a driving force behind some band's on tour. There are about 30 some Zep songs played on the radio. Journey has maybe 5 that are played EVERY DAY, sometimes every hour. Pink Floyd about 10, the Stones about 5, the Beatles about 20. That's programming, of course, but it's also demand.