Rolling Stones vs Led Zeppelin
- Thread starter ClonerJams
- Start date
Prince had more raw talent, but Michael could create some amazing popular music. Prince wrote what he wanted and some of it happened to be popular.
Lennon and McCartney are unparalleled in songwriting. I wish we had the access we had for Get Back for earlier albums.
Raw musical talent not even close. I have no idea if Michael wrote his own songs but he did have some bangers.
I'll start by saying Led Zeppelin is a great band. I adore their first five albums. But they might be the most overrated. They don't belong on the "S-tier" with the Beatles, Stones, and The Who.
Let me just trot out a few criticisms...
I know everybody stole old blues riffs back in the 1960s and 1970s. There's only so many ways you can put a 12-bar pattern together after a while. But Led Zeppelin is exceptional for the amount of times they were sued and had to settle after plagiarizing other artists, especially on their earlier albums.
They're not nearly as "trailblazing" as some assert. Their first album was in 1969, by which time the formula for hard rock/blues rock was established by popular artists like Paul Butterfield, Canned Heat, Eric Clapton/Cream, the Peter Green-era Fleetwood Mac, Jeff Beck, and, of course, the guitar heroics of Jimi Hendrix.
Led Zeppelin had three exceptional instrumentalist and a memorable vocalist. Those abilities might be the strongest arguments for them. But The Who have a Mt. Rushmore bassist and drummer, and Townshend as a guitarist (and songwriter!) and Daltrey as a vocalist belong up near that same tier or level.
They have five classic albums. That's a lot. Sure, the Beatles have like ten, but that's a good run of quality from their debut through Houses of the Holy. But then it starts to fall apart. Physical Graffiti might be the biggest slog of a double album I've ever tried to listen through... twice. They run out of steam hard after the few listenable tunes on Physical Graffiti taken from earlier sessions and never recover from it. I know they all went through personal tragedies and problems with drugs at that point, and the music reflects it.
Their lyrics are just... dumb. There are exceptions, sure, but they're rare. I can look past a lot if lyrics are clever, but theirs were mostly just aggressive ****-rock and vulgar when they weren't ripping off others.
Let me just trot out a few criticisms...
I know everybody stole old blues riffs back in the 1960s and 1970s. There's only so many ways you can put a 12-bar pattern together after a while. But Led Zeppelin is exceptional for the amount of times they were sued and had to settle after plagiarizing other artists, especially on their earlier albums.
They're not nearly as "trailblazing" as some assert. Their first album was in 1969, by which time the formula for hard rock/blues rock was established by popular artists like Paul Butterfield, Canned Heat, Eric Clapton/Cream, the Peter Green-era Fleetwood Mac, Jeff Beck, and, of course, the guitar heroics of Jimi Hendrix.
Led Zeppelin had three exceptional instrumentalist and a memorable vocalist. Those abilities might be the strongest arguments for them. But The Who have a Mt. Rushmore bassist and drummer, and Townshend as a guitarist (and songwriter!) and Daltrey as a vocalist belong up near that same tier or level.
They have five classic albums. That's a lot. Sure, the Beatles have like ten, but that's a good run of quality from their debut through Houses of the Holy. But then it starts to fall apart. Physical Graffiti might be the biggest slog of a double album I've ever tried to listen through... twice. They run out of steam hard after the few listenable tunes on Physical Graffiti taken from earlier sessions and never recover from it. I know they all went through personal tragedies and problems with drugs at that point, and the music reflects it.
Their lyrics are just... dumb. There are exceptions, sure, but they're rare. I can look past a lot if lyrics are clever, but theirs were mostly just aggressive ****-rock and vulgar when they weren't ripping off others.
I consider Led Zeppelin's members at or near the best in Rock history and superior to The Rolling Stones' lineup with Robert Plant and Mick Jaggar being a tie.
Still, impossible for me to answer. Food or water. Which of my children do I love the most.
Still, impossible for me to answer. Food or water. Which of my children do I love the most.
I love both of these bands, but it's The Stones, and it's an easy choice for me.
Zeppelin ******* rocked. They were better musicians. Page, Jones, and Bonham are arguably the greatest to ever play their individual instruments. Plant was a powerful singer. Sex, drugs, rock and roll, Hobbits.
Zeppelin were also some of the most naked plagiarists to ever live. Not a big deal because they still kicked ass, but just covering "Killing Floor" and calling it "The Lemon Song" like you wrote is ******* ridiculous. Zeppelin was an incredible band playing a lot of average songs.
Yeah, the Stones started off as a mimic of the Beatles, or at least mining the same ground, but something happened as the Beatles were breaking up - Keith Richards discovered American country music via Gram Parsons. This completely altered the band's trajectory, and in my opinion, the entire trajectory of rock music. From Beggar's Banquet (1968) through Some Girls (1980), the Stones made nearly perfect rock and roll (with a couple of drop offs). They straight up invented alt-country with "No Expectations". They set a template for punk with "Street Fighting Man" and "Jumpin' Jack Flash". They had a run of 4 flawless albums littered with some of the greatest songs that were ever written. "Sympathy For the Devil", "Gimme Shelter", "You Can't Always Get What You Want", "Wild Horses", "Dead Flowers", "Moonlight Mile", "Rocks Off", "Shine A Light", "Soul Survivor". That's not even scratching the deep cuts.
And it's not like the Stones were weak musicians. Keith Richards is the master of memorable riffing, and one of the greatest rhythm players ever. Whether it was Mick Taylor or Ronnie Wood, he was always being complimented by a stellar lead guitarist. Charlie Watts and Bill Wyman are arguably the quintessential rock and roll rhythm section, even if they lack the talent and flash of Jones/Bonham or Entwhistle/Moon. Guys like Bobby Keys and Ian Stewart that weren't official members dropping brilliant sax and piano parts. Mick ******* Jagger.
At the end of the day, for me, it's about the songs. There aren't that many Zeppelin tunes you can strip down to one guy and an acoustic guitar and it's still good (there are a few - Tangerine and Hey Hey What Can I Do? come to mind). Pretty much every Stones song can be stripped down to one guy and an acoustic guitar and still kick ass. That's the measure in my mind.
Zeppelin ******* rocked. They were better musicians. Page, Jones, and Bonham are arguably the greatest to ever play their individual instruments. Plant was a powerful singer. Sex, drugs, rock and roll, Hobbits.
Zeppelin were also some of the most naked plagiarists to ever live. Not a big deal because they still kicked ass, but just covering "Killing Floor" and calling it "The Lemon Song" like you wrote is ******* ridiculous. Zeppelin was an incredible band playing a lot of average songs.
Yeah, the Stones started off as a mimic of the Beatles, or at least mining the same ground, but something happened as the Beatles were breaking up - Keith Richards discovered American country music via Gram Parsons. This completely altered the band's trajectory, and in my opinion, the entire trajectory of rock music. From Beggar's Banquet (1968) through Some Girls (1980), the Stones made nearly perfect rock and roll (with a couple of drop offs). They straight up invented alt-country with "No Expectations". They set a template for punk with "Street Fighting Man" and "Jumpin' Jack Flash". They had a run of 4 flawless albums littered with some of the greatest songs that were ever written. "Sympathy For the Devil", "Gimme Shelter", "You Can't Always Get What You Want", "Wild Horses", "Dead Flowers", "Moonlight Mile", "Rocks Off", "Shine A Light", "Soul Survivor". That's not even scratching the deep cuts.
And it's not like the Stones were weak musicians. Keith Richards is the master of memorable riffing, and one of the greatest rhythm players ever. Whether it was Mick Taylor or Ronnie Wood, he was always being complimented by a stellar lead guitarist. Charlie Watts and Bill Wyman are arguably the quintessential rock and roll rhythm section, even if they lack the talent and flash of Jones/Bonham or Entwhistle/Moon. Guys like Bobby Keys and Ian Stewart that weren't official members dropping brilliant sax and piano parts. Mick ******* Jagger.
At the end of the day, for me, it's about the songs. There aren't that many Zeppelin tunes you can strip down to one guy and an acoustic guitar and it's still good (there are a few - Tangerine and Hey Hey What Can I Do? come to mind). Pretty much every Stones song can be stripped down to one guy and an acoustic guitar and still kick ass. That's the measure in my mind.
Can't argue with a thing you say Al_4_State! Good stuff! Granted, I caught a Led Zeppelin show on a good night, but I wouldn't trade that night for the 5 Rolling Stones tours I saw.
But there was nothing like the release of a new Stones album back in the day. And the anticipation of a corresponding Rolling Stones world tour was so awesome! What does everyone think of the new single from Hackney Diamonds??
But there was nothing like the release of a new Stones album back in the day. And the anticipation of a corresponding Rolling Stones world tour was so awesome! What does everyone think of the new single from Hackney Diamonds??
Exile on Main Street is one of the greatest albums of all time and I don’t care what anyone thinks about that.
Yeah I don’t know where you’re at, but for me its hard to decide between Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed, and Exile. I tend to lean Exile though
I prefer the Stones. Zep were incredible musicians but I like the Stones music better.
Also, is it possible to think this way? I think Robert Plant is a better vocal talent than Jagger but I find Plant's voice to be kind of annoying. I know it's possible for me. I feel like I'd like DMB if DM wasn't singing.
Also, is it possible to think this way? I think Robert Plant is a better vocal talent than Jagger but I find Plant's voice to be kind of annoying. I know it's possible for me. I feel like I'd like DMB if DM wasn't singing.