Quote
phd
I ain't so sure that Zeppelin would be # 2 behind The Beatles. I doubt they are more "universal". My example could be the worst, but marketing people, who I am not, do incline so : many more commercials with Stones songs. Another one could be, make a poll among and just ask : you are offered a ticket : would you prefer to attend a Stones show or a Zepp show.

Quote
BluzDude

Quote
glimmertwin81
try it out
go out and ask 10 people to name a member of the rolling stones
and ask 10 people to name a member of led zeppelin

then ask 10 people in which band mick jagger plays
then ask 10 people in which band jimmy page plays

1st Q - 7
2nd Q - 6
Different set of 10 people
3rd Q - 7
4th Q - 5

Asked all to correctly name a song by each group -

Stones - 12
Led Zep - 14 Interesting

both groups were ethnically and age diverse. I can't believe I did this, but that's my OCD.

Quote
glimmertwin81

Quote
BluzDude

Quote
glimmertwin81
try it out
go out and ask 10 people to name a member of the rolling stones
and ask 10 people to name a member of led zeppelin

then ask 10 people in which band mick jagger plays
then ask 10 people in which band jimmy page plays

1st Q - 7
2nd Q - 6
Different set of 10 people
3rd Q - 7
4th Q - 5

Asked all to correctly name a song by each group -

Stones - 12
Led Zep - 14 Interesting

both groups were ethnically and age diverse. I can't believe I did this, but that's my OCD.

so 7 + 7 = 12
and 6 + 5 = 14
?????????????????????????????????????????????????

have you attended a school ?

Quote
melillo
well i am pretty damn sure that the stones are VERY comfortable with theyre place in history, and MICK JAGGER does not lose any sleep worrying about ZEP selling more records,

Quote
tomk
I think the problem for a possible tour like this
would be how to do it. Sticking them in Anaheim Stadium for
10 nights (which the could do easily) or Madison Square Garden
for 20 nights (which they could do easily) probably doesn't
sound like too much fun, especially for a band that seems to
want to keep the integrity entact and not be worried about a great payday,
which it would be anyway. And that's only two cities I mentioned.
Imagine adding the rest of the world.
Remember that tour Neil Young did in, what, 1975, where he
and Crazy Horse only played dumpy bars in Santa Cruz, California?
That's the only way I see them doing this, to keep the music
fun and enjoyable for them.
Like when a friend of mine wandered into a bar in New Orleans in 1969
and Delaney and Bonnie were playing to about 20 people,
and my friend said, "That guitar player looks and sounds like
Eric Clapton. It is Eric Clapton!."
Then again, Zeppelin were never a bar band. They could be, though.

Quote
melillo
they both get played on the radio very much, its a toss up imho

Quote
skipstone
In the newest issue of Classic Rock Led Zeppelin is listed #1 for best live act ever. The Stones are at #9. The Who are rated #2 I believe.

Quote
Gazza
>These things always turn into a who's bigger, who's better argument. To me it is a no brainer. People can claim all they want that LZ is the biggest rock band in history or that they are bigger than The Beatles and Stones combined but that doesn't make it so. It just makes it clear that you are dumber than a box of rocks when you make those statements.

Who said they are bigger than the Beatles and the Stones combined?



Well someone said it in this thread- I didn't say you said it. I can't find it now so someone must have edited it out for fear of having the straight jacket guys show up at their door lol.



>The public concensus (which of course you don't have to agree with) is that the Stones are better.

Public consensus can only measure who's more popular, which can realistically only be done by record sales or ticket sales. Wheres this public consensus that the Stones are 'better'? And why does it bother people so much?



Well people are capable of giving unbiased objective opinions and taking personal preference out of it just as I would admit that the public perception is that The Beatles were better than The Stones without me neccessarily agreeing with it.



>Every credible list where a multitide of musicians/critics/music insiders vote on the greatest artists of all time has The Stones ahead of LZ.

How do you define 'credible' - because it agrees with your personal opinion and mine? Some of them do, some of them dont. I see plenty of polls mentioned on here where Stones fans get themselves in a hissy fit because theyre outraged that their favourite band isnt rated higher and is behind someone whom they deem to be unworthy. Happens all the time.



Well for example when Rolling Stone came out with a list of the 100 greatest artists of all time. No list is totally credible just as no list is devoid of all credibility but you can usually tell which ones are just a popularity contest and which ones were mulled over by the peers of the people being voted on. Some have more weight than others imo.



>As far as bigger goes well then you get into some semantics. Yes LZ sold more records and had more commercial success in that area but there is more to being big than that. There are tours, there are singles charts and other factors.

Zeppelin didnt really release singles, which makes it an uneven playing field. They promoted themselves entirely differently to the way the Stones and most acts did. I cant believe anyone in this day and age takes something as successin the singles charts seriously. Westlife have had more #1 singles than the Stones and are something like one behind the Beatles. Mariah Carey is up there too. Who cares?



Well I never heard of Westlife so that should tell you that one statistic is meaningless but if you put all the statistics together they paint a clear picture. How many number one tours does Westlife have? How many albums have they sold? Even if Zepp released more singles they wouldn't have had the success The Stones had. How did the singles they did release do? Any number one hits?



> If you are just going by album sales then you have to say that Bon Jovi is BIGGER than Dylan and we all know that isn't the case since Dylan is larger than life. That's what I mean by "bigger"

Well thats your own definition. You mentioned just above that public consensus, ticket sales and commercial success were important factors. Now youre saying theyre not. Sad as it may be, to the general public, Bon Jovi is 'bigger' than Bob Dylan is. Its a sad indictment of public taste, but the fact that Dylan is more of a legendary figure etc doesnt mean that much in terms of international recognition.



When I say bigger I mean more legendary/more important to the history of music etc.- as in greater. Record sales and other stats mean something but so does common sense. I'm sure we both agree Dylan is far bigger than Bon Jovi by my definition so it seems like we are just using the word bigger in different ways.



>That survey above was interesting though it was just a small sample. So more people knew a member of The Stones than knew a member of Zeppelin. I suspect that if that survey were increased to thousands of people it would be a greater victory for The Stones.

You dont know that until you try it for yourself - but again, why does it bother you or others so much? If you think (rightly) the Stones are better, then thats fine. You shouldnt need record sales. ticket sales or some dopey polls made by journalists who have space to fill and who cant be motivated to actually write something for themselves to justify your taste.

> As far as the song question it may mean that LZ has the most famous song (Stariway) between the two groups. I would suspect if you polled a thousand people and asked them to start naming as many RS and LZ hits that they can think of the average person would be able to name twice as many famous Stones songs as LZ songs.

As they should be. Led Zeppelin recorded eight albums in a period of around a decade and havent existed for 28 years. The Stones have recorded about 350 songs over 45 years and still tour all the time.



Good point but I would guess that The Stones would have more recognizable songs in just their first decade than LZ.



>My dad who doesn't listen to much rock and roll would be able to recognize at least twenty Stones songs- maybe five LZ songs and LZ is not the most played band on the radio. Not even top three on my classic rock radio station. The Stones, Who and Beatles are played far more than LZ.

Different sort of music. I would imagine most of LZ's songs are simply far too long for radio. Not to mention pretentious.

>The Stones along with Dylan are right behind The Beatles and Elvis as far as being the biggest acts in history. We can argue about who is better all day long


You wont get many people on here who are bigger Dylan fans than me, but I could probably name about 40-50 acts who are bigger and better known to the general public than he is. Being deemed to be better, important or significant doesnt mean that much in terms of fame and recognition unfortunately. I doubt too many people these days would know who Robert Johnson, Chuck Berry, Woody Guthrie or Muddy Waters were either.

Proof that you should never underestimate the ignorance of the general public.

Quote
skipstone
If I'm so full of crap then why do I hear Zeppelin on the radio more than the Stones? You talk as if I'm making this bullsh*it up.

Like glimmerboy.