Slate Chocolate Marble
Slate Chocolate Marble

Led Zeppelin Official Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

McSeven

Led Zeppelin vs The Who

171 posts in this topic

Everyone knows I like a VS post.

Anyways whats the difference in your mind between the two? I used the Who to vs Zep in the sense that both bands are on par with each other in the popular culture when it comes to Rock and Roll.

To me The Who were more standing up to the man and had more of a political bent to thier music. Zeppelin were more about getting laid and more the sexual side of love/Mysitcal adventures.

THe Who seemed to be more about bashing the music into the listener head, much like punk. Zeppelin had light and shape. More mysticle in thier approch where you wondered how could they do that with guitar.

I will express more later. I just wanted to get the ball rolling. I feel like Zeps legacy is intact. The Who just don't seem as powerfull on stage when I see them. Or in my mind they have not aged well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Who are the closest in talent to Zeppelin. They are an amazing band live (just listen to Live at Leeds). I still think Zep is better though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One big difference for me: I don't like the Who, but I love Zeppelin. Townshend was a simple guitarist, and Moon was a reckless drummer, despite his place in history. The only Who I enjoy was their 1960's work. Zeppelin had so much more talent and composure. Sorry Who fans.

Edited by The Dark Lord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the way that Pete Townshend himself describes the similar creative process for both bands on pages 182-183 of his memoir, Who I Am:

There was a creative lull from me after Tommy, caused by
the tumultuous fl ood of shows after its initial release, then
Woodstock, and the mounting wave of enthusiasm triggered
by the Woodstock movie. There was no time for me to form
ideas for songs, and I had little energy left after our sets to sit
around and play guitar. However, towards the end of every
Who show I would play a few phrases fi nger-style, often down
on one knee, with the audience silent, waiting for the explosion
to come. On a single hearing, Keith and John chimed in
powerfully, playing as though we’d been rehearsing the
improvisation for a month. We were tight, coordinated and
riffing in such a way that all Roger had to do was throw in a
few moans and screams, pose gorgeously, and we were full on.
Anything worth repeating I used in subsequent shows; then,
over a week or so, Roger or I would come up with proper lines
to sing. In this way we were developing new songs on the stage
– and also inventing a new form of rock, though we didn’t
really understand this at the time. Led Zeppelin later used a
similar formula; I don’t know if they were as freestyle as we
were, but the effect was similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always thought of The Who as getting their start as a pop band - My Generation, I can see for miles, Substitute, Can't Explain - compared to LZ I & II with tracks like Dazed & Confused, How Many More Times, Whole Lotta Love, Moby Dick, & Ramble On... Zeppelin were heavier while The Who (PT) after initial pop success began crafting dark/taboo conceptual pieces i.e. mini operas & full blown operas such as A Quick One While He's Away & Quadrophenia & Tommy.

I'll call it a tie as I believe The Who had used Showco as well & were equally LOUD - Moon drove a Lincoln into the hotel pool, & Bonzo dropped TV's out of hotel room windows & drove motorcycles down the hallways of the Riot House - I think he also threw George Harrison into the pool at the after show birthday party held in his honor!

One question that came to mind as I wrote this was - who would be best a trashing a hotel room? The Who or Zeppelin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ Zeppelin - they had Bonzo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Who had some remarkable albums.

But it is Zep that is the more complete experience, IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah more complete experience are Zep! The Who had rocking songs, really good lyrics, melodies that were at time childish(like The Beatles) that rocked a lot more in the live version, which were punkish!

But Zeppelin had quite far superior instrumentalists and an even better vocalist, they had so many styles, they were excellent live and their shows and albums illustrated every possible way to play each instrument and every possible way to sing, their shows were life transforming and very colourful and diverse and dynamic and the song writing was more artistic, like something Roy Harper would write, but with a bit less poetry and more sexuality and mysticims and a lot more going on instrumentally and the melodies being just all over the place, because of Plant's range!!

Edited by Matjaz1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess with Zeppelin its a journey. The Who its more a specticle. Like when is PT going to break his guitar. For me. Zep have songs within songs for the most part. HMMTimes and Dazed have a more layered song structure. The Who structure is more poppy. I guess its like this with most classic bands. When they first start they have pop melodies in their songs. Later they come into their identity. For me Zep maintained their ID from Zep 1 to Pressence and then went poppy on ITTOD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both bands delivered a visceral live experience and each lays claim to a stunning body of work. However, Led Zeppelin had the fortitude to call it a day when John Bonham died and thus cemented their legacy as an iconic rock group. The Who soldiered on after Keith Moon died but it simply was not the same. Continuing on without the Ox for ten years is a stubborn cash grab; The Two seem poised to set the record for farewell tours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both bands could kick ass during their live performances but The Who were more consistent. Robert Plant, is a far better singer than Roger Daltrey. However, Daltrey took better care of his voice when he was young and retained his original range and power far longer than Plant. Jimmy Page (in his prime) ran circles around Pete Townshend as a guitar player but Townshend (imho) is the better songwriter. John Entwhistle was as good (or even better) a bass player as John Paul Jones but JPJ can also play keyboards. The Who made more use of vocal harmony in their live shows and studio recordings; a plus for me. Led Zeppelin had better management; a major plus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both bands could kick ass during their live performances but The Who were more consistent. Robert Plant, is a far better singer than Roger Daltrey. However, Daltrey took better care of his voice when he was young and retained his original range and power far longer than Plant. Jimmy Page (in his prime) ran circles around Pete Townshend as a guitar player but Townshend (imho) is the better songwriter. John Entwhistle was as good (or even better) a bass player as John Paul Jones but JPJ can also play keyboards. The Who made more use of vocal harmony in their live shows and studio recordings; a plus for me. Led Zeppelin had better management; a major plus.

I pretty much agree with this.. but you missed the main ingredient of any great live band which is of course the drummer. John Bonham was the rock, the foundation that the rest of Zeppelin played off of.. Keith Moon was great, wild, erratic and played off the solidness of Entwistle, Townsend and even Roger Daltrey.. He was in full react mode ... whereas Bonham listened as well but drove the band hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny that Moon and Bonahm are both revered as the best drummers of rock and roll along with Neil Piert of Rush. Even bands that are supposed to be the big Rock/Roll bands like the Beatles and Stones. Their Drummers are not as influencial as B/M/P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both bands could kick ass during their live performances but The Who were more consistent. Robert Plant, is a far better singer than Roger Daltrey. However, Daltrey took better care of his voice when he was young and retained his original range and power far longer than Plant. Jimmy Page (in his prime) ran circles around Pete Townshend as a guitar player but Townshend (imho) is the better songwriter. John Entwhistle was as good (or even better) a bass player as John Paul Jones but JPJ can also play keyboards. The Who made more use of vocal harmony in their live shows and studio recordings; a plus for me. Led Zeppelin had better management; a major plus.

One other thing in Zeppelin's favor is they had 2 seasoned studio veterans in Jimmy Page and John Paul Jones..

... and the best producer in the history of hard rock in Page and arranger in JPJ...

Nothing wrong with using outside producers like The Who,,, but LZ had the best in the business in their own band...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Chase are you saying because of the Page/JPJ studio knowledge and Page being a Producer that Zeppelin had more artistic control than The Who? Or was it at the time that Zep formed. Bands had more artistic control in 1969 than in the early 60's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mentioned in an earlier post that Led Zeppelin had better management than The Who. I should be more specific and say that Zep had better management than The Who during the latter's most creative period; 1965-1973. They did have good management later on but not when they were at their peak.

Edited by Disco Duck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Chase are you saying because of the Page/JPJ studio knowledge and Page being a Producer that Zeppelin had more artistic control than The Who? Or was it at the time that Zep formed. Bands had more artistic control in 1969 than in the early 60's.

More artistic control and better all around production.

Having a musician the caliber of John Paul Jones in your band able to write string scores was a huge benefit..

I love The Who as well, but I think Zeppelin had a lot more going for them in the studio.

Page and Jones' studio knowledge imo put them in a different league than most ... if not all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love both bands, but I have always felt that Zeppelin was a more well-rounded band. Their music branched out more. I love a lot of The Who's lyrics and sound (especially live) though. Led Zeppelin will always be the standard by which all bands will be measured. I guess I have a bias. I do know that I will always love both, and continue to listen to both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Who was / is a great band no doubt about it, but they and nobody have ever given the shock and awe listening to [Whole Lotta Love] for the first time has given me.

Almost every LZ song is enough to make any band proud - from [LZ1] to [Physical Graffiti] their albums were one long stream of pure brilliance, exploding creativity,

and unsurpassable genius.

And honestly as a woman, LZ oozes so much sexual energy - I can rock hard to [i Can See for Miles], [My Generation], and [Won't Get Fooled Again]

but listening to LZ excites me, turns me on, makes me lightheaded. Of course, LZ songs are sometimes downright dirty and explicit but I'm not talking about just sex.

What I'm trying to say is their music convinces me they were capable of everything and anything and I kind of want to lose myself in their power.

It is repulsive to even think that I can be such a hero-worshipping, spit-drooling, totally fangirling person, but at the same time I think why not,

why I have to deny myself something that feels so great. The Who, with all their glory and talent, has never done that to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zeppelin hands down. The Who were an interesting average band for there time with an overbearing guitar player/"song" writer with serious mental issues from his childhood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The WHO were a great band and had many, many Great songs throughout Their History, however, to compare them to the "Mighty Zeppelin" is not fair to the WHO.

As many have already pointed out, Led Zeppelin had all the makings and caliber of a Better and Stronger band than the Who could ever have been.

Better Songs, better Song-Writing, better Production, better Management, better Musicianship, better Leadership, better Artistic Achievement, better Everything...

I mean, Jimmy Page and Led Zeppelin never destroyed Their own gear just for Showmanship (and maybe shock value). Pete Townshend and the Who did this a lot. Destroying musical equipment on a night to night regular basis costs a lot of $.

Plus, I have seen many videos of Pete Townsend doing His trademark "windmill" and more than half the time he is not even touching his guitar. He is just swinging his arm fast to make it look like he is doing it. (At least Jimmy Page Really plays His Guitar with a violin bow).

Peter Townsend is just a Jealous and very "Dazed and Confused" Englishman. (Since Led Zeppelin is widely considered a Greater Band then the Who and Pete Townsend is very familiar with this).

Edited to add:

The same goes for and stands with Ginger Baker, Jack Bruce and Keith Richards. They seem to always have negative things to say about Led Zeppelin. Just like Cocaine, Jealousy is a Powerful thing. It distorts the Mind.

Edited by kingzoso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kingzoso. Can you expand on what you mean that Zep were better than The Who? In terms of player vs player? When you hear The Who. When it comes to concert and sound how do they sound to your ears. Weak?

I just lean towards Zeppelin as it sound right to my ears. They just seem to know what they are doing. The Who just seem to me to bash things out. They don't really go into layered songs that Zep do like Dazed and How many more Times etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both bands :yourock: . just in a dark/light way. Two :bubble: drummers and basses. Amazing vocalists. Townsend & Page riff`s :bubble: or ?.

Which of the albums. Led Zeppelin ii vs The Who by numbers. :stereo: blast out both. :bubble: or :heartbreaker:

live the dream.

live life to the full

life to live

:sos::bubble::friends:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Led Zeppelin was a MUCH better band than the Who. Zep has also outsold the Who by a margin of at least 2.5 or 3 to 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now