Rolling Stones vs Led Zeppelin

[Al_4_State]

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

It's between Sticky Fingers, Let It Bleed, and Exile. I was team Sticky Fingers for a long, long time. Had an Exile period, and I kinda lean Let It Bleed these days.

It was the one my dad played most as a kid, so it's just etched into me a little more.

 

[Al_4_State]

I can’t bring in much that hasn’t been said already about them musically, so I will casually point out that the Stones have zero songs about Lord of the Rings. They are sex, drugs, and rock and roll. All of the time.

HA! I was thinking on the same lines.

And I love LOTR, for the record.

 

[Turn2]

I can’t bring in much that hasn’t been said already about them musically, so I will casually point out that the Stones have zero songs about Lord of the Rings. They are sex, drugs, and rock and roll. All of the time.

This post has me dazed and confused. There’s a helluva lot of the blues in there too.

 

[jcyclonee]

As for Prince v MJ, it's really a toss up for me. One thing that I keep thinking about is that their music is so much different from each other's. I almost feel like the better comparison for Prince is Tom Petty. The better comparison for MJ would be Madonna or maybe even George Michael.

 

[cayin]

loved both bands growing up. But, the Beatles were still my favorite. I was watching a guitar teacher on You Tube, he mentioned the Beatles were talented musicians in their own right. It wasn't so much that George and John could out pick other guitarist, but the lines they laid out were so innovative, creative, and clever. Other bands would copy them, probably do it better, but they could not create it on their own. The only thing is George was kind of subdued at lot. Finally on Abbey Road, they let him loose. In another interview, Paul talked about what a great drummer Ringo was. Said his timing was amazing, with Ringo, you didn't have to do things over, he would nail right out of the gate. Paul would be disappointed when doing solo work and Ringo wouldn't be available. Anyway, back on topic. I like the Stones better simply because they were better at doing catchy hooks and melodies. LZ didn't have that, but as mentioned were awesome musicians.

 

[Turn2]

As for Prince v MJ, it's really a toss up for me. One thing that I keep thinking about is that their music is so much different from each other's. I almost feel like the better comparison for Prince is Tom Petty. The better comparison for MJ would be Madonna or maybe even George Michael.

Yeah, people are comparing a performer to whatever you want to call the total package that was Prince.

Back on theme, I find it hard today to listen to Zep for more than a handful of tunes. Stones could go all day. Using the “Freebird Test”, “Stairway…” sounds cliche after the opening, “Midnight Rambler” live at the Marquee Club will be the best thing I hear all day.

 

[jcyclonee]

I can’t bring in much that hasn’t been said already about them musically, so I will casually point out that the Stones have zero songs about Lord of the Rings. They are sex, drugs, and rock and roll. All of the time.

This is a very good point. And it's really an amazing thing. This rock band, known for demonstrating excessive hedonistic qualities and being heroes to rebellious young people, wrote multiple songs about such a nerdy subject.

 

[Angie]

HA! I was thinking on the same lines.

And I love LOTR, for the record.

Same, I have read and watched them - but it just isn’t cool.

This post has me dazed and confused. There’s a helluva lot of the blues in there too.

There is. I think, for many bands, they were sort of one and the same at that time. The Who’s box set they released in the 90s was called “30 years of Maximum Rhythm & Blues.” Many bands, Zepp included, slid back and forth between the two pretty seamlessly - a lot of 70s rock was very much driven by rhythm sections.

 

[CascadeClone]

Not a huge Rolling Stones fan. For me, they have a handful of songs I REALLY like, but most of what you hear the most is not that great. And to me, they don't seem like they're actually all that "good" - just really commercially successful.

LZ, I don't love all their stuff either, but it's a lot more unique and much more enjoyable for me. A Top5 all-time guitarist, and probably the #1 balls-out no-shame vocalist.

Like if you hear a LZ song, you KNOW its LZ. But most Stones stuff, if it was done by Aerosmith or Eagles or Fleetwood Mac, would anyone care?

 

[dafarmer]

The Who!

 

[Sigmapolis]

Physical Graffiti was a masterpiece.

Eh. I've heard plenty of better albums and double albums. And Led Zeppelin albums, for that matter.

-- LZ has a reputation as a loud band but their early albums were fun and inventive with varying dynamics, tempo changes, and different riffs and grooves throughout songs to keep them interesting. Later LZ had a bad habit of taking one riff and one tempo and just pounding it at you forever. Physical Graffiti isn't nearly as bad about this as their late-period albums, but it isn't consistently fun like Houses of the Holy.

-- About 1/3rd of the songs of the albums were the scraps/leftovers from earlier recording projects. I wish I wish I wish "Houses of the Holy" was on the album by the same name. It's already an excellent album; knock off "The Crunge" or "D'yer Mak'er" and oh boy. While that is an exception, you can kind of tell parts of Physical Graffiti are a collection of would-be B-sides (if LZ had singles) thrown in there.

-- The production just isn't as crisp and biting as the earlier albums. The guitar and drums especially just don't hit like they on earlier stuff like, say, "Good Times Bad Times" with its epic crunchiness.

-- Plant was losing (or had lost!) his upper register by 1975. He just couldn't hit the notes like he could in 1970. This is when the accusation that his voice is "whiny" really starts to become true.

It's just the point where their inventiveness and majesty gives way to pretention and bombast.

 

[Sigmapolis]

I can’t bring in much that hasn’t been said already about them musically, so I will casually point out that the Stones have zero songs about Lord of the Rings. They are sex, drugs, and rock and roll. All of the time.

This is true.

Some of their sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll songs are philosophical about it, though ("Sympathy for the Devil").

And their offensive songs are so brazenly offensive (and have become more so over time, like "Brown Sugar" and "Schoolboy Blues") that you have to let your jaw drop at the daring and the creativity.

Robert Plant talking about "juice running down his leg" is neither funny nor offensive. It's just stupid and memorable for the wrong reasons. Songs like "Midnight Rambler" that are dark and foreboding and tell the story through the perspective and voice of a serial killer are just... wow.

Speaking of which, there's a surprising number of rock songs written from a serial killer's perspective --

"Midnight Rambler" --The Rolling Stones
"Maxwell's Silver Hammer" --The Beatles
"Psycho Killer" --The Talking Heads
"Night Prowler" --AC/DC

To just pop off a few from the top of my head.

There's a Wikipedia page about it...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_about_or_referencing_serial_killers

 

[0u812]

Personally Led Zeppelin by a fairly good margin. Stones are great, and have a huge catalog.....I tend to appreciate the heavier music, and more technically impressive musicianship.

Stones literally loved the American blues so much thats where their name came from, and what they emulated until they found their own sound and stride. Not a bad thing, but actually quite smart. No different than the Beach Boys ripping off Chuck Berry, in a way....