McSeven Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 One of my friends said that its easier for The Stones to go out with thier music and tour at thier age, because their music is not as heavy as Zep. The Stone and Zep both used blues as a strtign point for thier music. In your oppinion. If Zep was playing right now. Why would it be difficult for them rock out in concert as compared to the Stones? Any insight into what my friend said about Zep music is to heavy for Zep to play on a weekly basis, or How easy is it for the Stones to pull off thier songs nightly on a Rock circut? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henrybonzo Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 bare in mind the amount of touring the stones of done since 1980 compared to zep, and after seeing CD i still stand by my statement, fuck the stones! Zep dont need backing musos, Zep dont need a tongue pit, zep just say hey we are playing a one off and 20 million people get involved. proof is in the pudding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 They are TOTALLY different types of band, comparison is impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishhead Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 while watching the O2, again, the other night with a pal of mine, we commented on how tight a space the guys play in and kind of always have. It's like they are in a garage or rec room. Kinda cool and very different than the Stones (now). I'm not saying it is better or worse. It is just what works for them. Also,it was always 4 guys and it was just 4 guys at the O2. The music is really the show (and of course that little space on stage) and it speaks for itself. You don;t watch a Zeppelin show and wish for an inflatable "anything" to come out of the stage or fly across the sky to help get the point across. I have digressed from your original question, but I think the answer to your friend, is that Jones/Page/Plant and Jason Bonham, could easily have continued on, especially after watching the O2. It's just that they, or one of them, chose not to. It really has nothing to do with the lightness or heaviness, of the music. I think it has a little more to do with integrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speed King Pedal Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 My 1st thoughts here is,...There is 'No' Comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ally Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 This debate has been going on for well over 40yrs and it's one that's always puzzled me. They are 2 completely different bands and in their heyday, both were great. As for today, I must have missed the Zeppelin reunion tour. Hate it when that happens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bingo Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 In all honesty, The Stones are probably a better studio band, but they are suspect live. Led Zeppelin everyday of the year will kick their ass in a live performance. Pick any year when both were touring, Zeppelin blows them away....the only close battle might be 1972/73. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaiser Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Led Zeppelin do not exist today so the topic is moot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#1fan Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 In all honesty, The Stones are probably a better studio band, but they are suspect live. Led Zeppelin everyday of the year will kick their ass in a live performance. Pick any year when both were touring, Zeppelin blows them away....the only close battle might be 1972/73. I always thought the stones are one of the worst live bands ever i have never heard a good live recording of them ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McSeven Posted November 30, 2012 Author Share Posted November 30, 2012 The only difference between the Stones and Zep is that the Stones have more backgound singers/Horn Section. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bingo Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 I always thought the stones are one of the worst live bands ever i have never heard a good live recording of them ever. Try this out...it's their moment in the sun live. I agree that most of the time the Stones weren't that good live. I remember back in the day I bought Love You Live....and thought, "fck, my friends can play better then they do live." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z-o-S-o Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Biggest difference is the singing. Last time Jagger hit a high note was in 1969. Plant is expected to hit 'em, even today, because it's a big part of the music Zep played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#1fan Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Try this out...it's their moment in the sun live. I agree that most of the time the Stones weren't that good live. I remember back in the day I bought Love You Live....and thought, "fck, my friends can play better then they do live." not to bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2bitnogoodjive Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 One of my friends said that its easier for The Stones to go out with thier music and tour at thier age, because their music is not as heavy as Zep. The Stone and Zep both used blues as a strtign point for thier music. In your oppinion. If Zep was playing right now. Why would it be difficult for them rock out in concert as compared to the Stones? Any insight into what my friend said about Zep music is to heavy for Zep to play on a weekly basis, or How easy is it for the Stones to pull off thier songs nightly on a Rock circut? Yes, much easier for Jagger to sing Jumping Jack Flash or Satisfaction compared to Plant trying to hit the notes for Communication Breakdown or Heartbreaker these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsj Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 the stones were a rock & roll band, zeppelin were a rock band. i think it was charles sharr murray that wrote that zeppelin were a band for the head and the stones were a band for the heart. i think he has a point, zeppelin aren't really a band for dancing to, the stones are, or can be. anyhow, as has already been said, two very different bands with different formulas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geezer Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Led Zeppelin destroys The Rolling Stones in live performance. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallas Knebs Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 interesting question.. would most likely approach an accurate reply this way: Led Zeppelin: virtuocity and demand unsurpassed vs. Rolling Stones: arthritic monkey & his zombie Super Bowl halftime sellouts whose live releases have never approached #1 and whose front person mimes and hums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McSeven Posted December 2, 2012 Author Share Posted December 2, 2012 I guess my buddy b was trying to convey that Zeppelin's music is harder to play than the Stone's music. I don't know. To me Zeppelin seemed to improvise more. The Stones basically play note for note. They improvise a little differently. I suspect that if Zep played their tunes it would be like 15 songs. The Stones would play about 25, but they would be short. The Stones don't really have long epic songs for the most part. I love both bands. I don't know why Zeppelin songs are considered harder to play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzoso Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Led Zeppelin is My Favorite Rock Group. Period. However, I have other bands that I Love. The Rolling Stones being one of them. The Stones have dozens and dozens and dozens of songs that are and have been apart of all of Our Lives. However, I think that Led Zeppelin towers over the Rolling Stones for many reasons. 1. Led Zeppelin's unique sound and production stands alone, thanks to Jimmy Page and not all of the Producers the Stones have used over all the years. 2. Led Zeppelin have sold over 300 million records worldwide with just 10 albums since 1968. The Rolling Stones have recorded over 20+ albums since 1963 and are nowhere near the 300 million mark that Led Zeppelin are at. 3. Led Zeppelin would play gigs up to 3+ hours. From what I have read, the Stones would have Stevie Wonder open up the gig and then the Stones would play for maybe an hour (maybe and hour and a half). 4. It seems nowadays that Keith Richards only strums his guitar from the bottom of the neck. The real guitar sound now comes from Ronnie Wood (and in the past, Mick Taylor), Keith Richards is only a glorified rhythm guitar player. 5. I could go on and on but I hope whoever reads this gets the gist of what I am saying. Again, don't get me wrong, I Love the Rolling Stones, but Led Zeppelin are the Better Rock and Roll Band. 6. Etc...Etc...Etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DewieCox Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 I don't think the op was posing a question of who was better or who can play the best. And I totally don't get why we can't compare them. To me they're both rock bands with quite a few of the same influences, though they obviously took them in different directions. I dig both bands. I'd rather see Zeppelin any day over the Stones, but I can see how people could think that the Stones put on a show more fitting of older rockers than Zeppelin. That's not to say that Zeppelin didn't look and sound fantastic at the O2 or they couldn't pull it off again if they wanted, either. The Stones just have a more laid back basic style that could come off as more befitting bands of their age. Not saying it's right, but most people don't associate 60-70 years olds with harder rocking tunes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missytootsweet Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 One of my friends said that its easier for The Stones to go out with thier music and tour at thier age, because their music is not as heavy as Zep. The Stone and Zep both used blues as a strtign point for thier music. In your oppinion. If Zep was playing right now. Why would it be difficult for them rock out in concert as compared to the Stones? The Stones not as Heavy? Well no, as they are completely different bands imo. The Stones are a singles band. I love most of their singles such as Brown Sugar, Wild Horses, Angie, Honky Tonk Women, etc. But they aren't even in the same universe as Zep. When the 4 of them (Led Zeppelin)came together they had this energy and these incredible pieces of music, tapestries if you will that put them in a class of their own. I wouldn't tag them as "heavy" music only, at times their music could be light as a feather. Either way, you experience Zeppelin. For me personally with the Stones, I sing along and tap my foot. Apples and oranges, both delicious. Missy Edit: To answer your question, if Jimmy, Robert, JPJ, and Jason went on a concert tour it would be nothing like the Stones, but you can be d*mn sure they would rock out! See Celebration Day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsh327 Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 When Mick Taylor was replaced by Ron Wood, the solos were simplified a little bit, and the bass became more prominent. Led Zeppelin's songs are more complex, it was only when Mick Taylor was in the band for a few albums, but he's amateur hour compared to Jimmy. Without Alexis Korner, there wouldn't have been any blues movement. He was the central figure for a lot of musicians. Even if Terry Reid wasn't around, Alexis had been working with Robert and knew Jimmy for years. Stars would've lined up either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amstel Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 I always thought the stones are one of the worst live bands ever i have never heard a good live recording of them ever. The Stones are very overrated - have been for years! Someone above said the Stones are a better studio band - that's the dumbest post I've ever read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amstel Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 When Mick Taylor was replaced by Ron Wood, the solos were simplified a little bit, and the bass became more prominent. Led Zeppelin's songs are more complex, it was only when Mick Taylor was in the band for a few albums, but he's amateur hour compared to Jimmy. Without Alexis Korner, there wouldn't have been any blues movement. He was the central figure for a lot of musicians. Even if Terry Reid wasn't around, Alexis had been working with Robert and knew Jimmy for years. Stars would've lined up either way. The music the Rolling Stones made while Mick Taylor was in the band are the best things they ever did! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallas Knebs Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 I don't know why Zeppelin songs are considered harder to play. here it is... LZ drummer rarely plays straight up 4/4- its all push, synch with a thousand little nuances for the bass player to catch hold of and dig it freely ===> x| x| x| x| is the rolling bones LZ vocalist sings in a rare register with raw emotion and conveyance that mirrors the timbre of the song ===> "da mmm tuh mmm da-sssst da da.... and repeat" is the rolling bones LZ bass player instantly matches/offsets the rhythm, riff and sticking- can lead and play all known instrument w/virtuosity ===> 4/4 thump root notes "oh gawd transition note ok back to root note" is the rolling bones LZ guitarist crystallizes a point on top of the rhythm and stylistically drives and expands simultaneously with the other 3 ===> karaoke guitar every black guitarist from the '50s and man-crush on Clapton's licks is the rolling bones the four collectively are LZ, true to one another firstly, and are the identity of their music, whereas, rolling bones are a collection of roster moves sanctioned by the label and management Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.