Keith vs Page = Keith
Jagger vs Plant = Plant
Wyman vs Jones = Wyman
Watts vs Bohnam = ?

What do you think?

based on what? playing ability or liquid and drug intake?

performance

No need to compare: two great bands!

C

Well I feel like comparing so lets do it!

Well i don't know Led Zeppelin that good but the Jagger vs Plant would definately be Jaggers advantage!!!!
Keith vs Page would be Keith for because Page's playing isn't my cup of tea but because i'm a guitar player myself i know that Page is one hell of a guitarist, technically better than Keith.

Cheers,
Wuudy

cool,calm,collected Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Jagger vs Plant = Plant


You've gotta be @#$%& kidding me.

<Jagger vs Plant = Plant>

Never! No one's above Mick on performance, and certainly not Plant, even though he's great.

Different strokes for different folks. Whats good for one band is maybe not good for another

Zep were a great band (and if you have to be honest probably individually better from a purely technical point of view) but to be honest I wouldnt want to hear 10-20 minute guitar solos at a Stones concert. I'd be bored rigid - and thank God Charlie never did a drum solo either.

Whilst LZ's musicians may be technically more gifted and despite the fact I enjoy their music, I much prefer each individual Stone musically.

spaguetti vs. ravioli
bourbon vs. vodka
humble pie vs. thin lizzy
bono's mullet vs. elvis' sideburns
.
.
.

watts is the best

jagger is better than plant

keith is the best rythm guitarist ever, but it's true that jimmy page's solos are better than keith's (except keith's solo on satisfaction during the voodoo lounge tour which was incredible : he changed it every night, but it always rocked....)

liddas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > No need to compare: two great bands!
>
> C

Yes, nothing more to say ...

Why always the versus thing. I mean, it's not like they're competing or anything? They're both great(although ofcourse I prefer the Stones). But if you want me to compare them.. OK!

Keith vs Page = Keith because he's got much more character. He's the ultimate rockstar!! Nobody beats Keith.

Jagger vs Plant = Obviously Jagger; the world's greatest rock 'n' roll singer!

Wyman vs Jones = Wyman for his ultra-cool rock 'n' roll touch to every song.

Watts vs Bohnam = Watts for his class and great drumming.

Ok?

Man you gave me a great laugh.Jagger rules.I can't stand Plant's voice

Led Zeppelin is a great, great band - but no one comes near The Stones. Listen to The Stones' best live bootlegs, and you know that no one else has played rock as good as this.

I say that it depends on many things (althogh for me, with the faces, who and acdc, they are the best bands):
- Last page-plant tours: better than the stones.
- If I need to hear hard rock: led zep.
- If I need to hear soul-blues: stones.
- Page vs keith: i would not say page is bad in rythm guitar or less than keith (hear for example the song remains the same: keith has not been able to play something like that never). They are different, they are masters of the open tunign songs, they are both great. Maybe keith has a more recognizable style. In any case, in these days, page can do at the same time what ronnie and keith do today.
- Watts vs. bohnam: both great, different styles
- Jagger-plant: here I clearly say jagger, although there are songs that others except them can sing (going to california, rocks off...)
- Wyman-Jones: jones plays more instruments really great, both are incredible and imaginative bass players.

barcelona Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> spaguetti vs. ravioli
> bourbon vs. vodka
> humble pie vs. thin lizzy
> bono's mullet vs. elvis' sideburns
> .
> .
> .
>

Spaghetti, vodka, Humble Pie and Elvis' sideburns, tankyouveddymuch!!

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
and thank
> God Charlie never did a drum solo either.
>

LOL, my sentiments exactly Gazza!

No comparison Led Zeppelin were the best Folk-Rock group you will ever hear and the Stones are the best rock (i hate that word) band you will ever hear.

I'm a big Zep fan but I don't think you can really compare the two bands at all - they strike me as pretty much total opposites in every way.

Plant is very heavy-handed compared to Mick. Totally different styles of singing, and Mick is far more theatrical on stage (especially back in the '70s when they both ruled the world).

Page is very flash and has a very folky side to his playing; they only Stones guitarist he reminds me of is Taylor, in that they're both fantastic blues soloists. Keith & Ron tend to play it very simple and their style of weaving is far more subtle.

Charlie is the anti-Bonzo, and vice-versa.

JPJ was much more than a bassist - he was kind of like Brian & Bill rolled into one. Bill, on the other hand, was nothing more than a bassist (though incredibly good, unique, and important to the overall sound).

Was there any sort of Stones/Zep rivalry in the '70s? Kind of like the "Are you a Beatles fan or a Stones fan?" thing back in the '60s?

Zeppelin has its moments, for sure.

Still, isn't the whole thing a bit of a comic book when compared with the Stones?

Hobbits and dragons and maidens vs. Puerto Rican girls, mysterious men of wealth and taste and barroom queens from Memphis?

Always thought Zep was a sledgehammer to the Stones' buzzsaw.

Okay, I love the Stones and I love Charlie and his playing. But come on. Bonham was arguably one of the greatest drummers ever and was such huge part of Zeppelin. No contest, Bonham hands down.

If you look at each indidually Zeppelin had arguably the best at every position.

Not really comparible as bands because they are as different as night and day. Zeppelin should be compared to bands like Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, etc. The Stones to bands like the Beatles, The Who,the Kinks, etc.

The Stones to bands like the Beatles, The
> Who,the Kinks, etc.


Frankly, Stones shouldn't be compared to anyone.

Rev. Robert W. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hobbits and dragons and maidens


And cheatin' women and backdoor men and 11 children on the way.

Some Girl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rev. Robert W. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hobbits and dragons and maidens
>
>
> And cheatin' women and backdoor men and 11
> children on the way.
>
>

Yeah, yeah and "I don't know, but I've been told/Big-legged woman ain't got no soul"

But you still get my point right?

Gotta admit, though: Plant's new record sounds pretty damn good.

Rev. Robert W. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some Girl Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Yeah, yeah and "I don't know, but I've been
> told/Big-legged woman ain't got no soul"
>
> But you still get my point right?
>

I'm not just getting your point, I'm agreeing with it. Zeppelin has the biggest percentage of unintentionally funny lyrics from any band ever. To their credit, many of those lyrics aren't theirs. ;D



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-06 22:37 by Some Girl.

While Zep is more hard rock I think the comparison is based on the two bands being the best on stage performers while also recording great albums. For Stone fans I think the downside of Zep is their over reliance on leads particularly. Page is a great guitarist who can play lead to his own rythem. Live would be comparable to Richards/Taylor but Keith wrote better songs IMHO. Plant is a great singer who uses his voice like a musical instrument, but nobody is a better performer than MJ. And MJ writes better songs, music and lyrics. Plant does not have much to do with the music. Bonham is the power at the center of Zep's sound, but Charlie's style is a better fit for the Stones. I like Juan's coupling of Brian and Bill compared to Jones.
I actually was more into Zep in the early 70's but by the late 70's Zep had faded away. From that point on the Stones were my #1 band, the Who #2 and Zep #3. I was 13 in 1970. We considered Zep and the harder rock to be our music. The Stones were sixties music with the Beatles etc. I loved Sticky Fingers but had no appreciation for EOMS and the next couple until several years later. The ignorance of youth!

I like Led Zeppelin, but I love the Stones. The Stones!
Keith can kick Jimmys ass. He plays better than him even when he's drunk.
And today, Page is a shadow of a man who played with Zep.
Keith does not have a shadow, and that's why he can't be killed with any conventional weapon.

Both are/were great bands. Zep made some huge albums, but I never heard anything live from them that equaled what I would consider to be top end Stones performances that were recorded. IMHO Plant though never could be considered an equal of Jagger. His voice at times was like finger nails on a chalk board, but he has his moments as a vocalist and had a unique style. Page and Bonzo made Zep the powerhouse they were. I love the Zep studio work, but I don't play them as often as the Stones even though I grew up loving both bands. From 1968-1972 these guys were on top of their respective games from a creative standpoint. All I can say is there was some kick ass music coming out of the UK in those days, and not just from the Stones and Zep. While it's a whole post on it's own, what about the original Mac? Until Greeny crashed and burned they were the real deal. Peter Green was the king of the blues.

And Zep are doin wot now?