Content: Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Background: Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Pattern: Blank Waves Notes Sharp Wood Rockface Leather Honey Vertical Triangles
Welcome to 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

Posted (edited)

20 hours ago, craigled said:

Albums, Live etc,etc. 

 

Well, My Dad & my Uncle have seen both Bands several times in the late 60s and early 70s on stage. Both claim that the Who as a live act were more intense, energetic and compelling than Led Zep. Lep Zep had good individual musicians but often failed to play as a creative and dynamic unit which the Who were in their heydays. (The same goes for the Rolling Stones - another superior live act in their prime over 45 years ago.).

They have also seen The Allman Brothers Band with Duane in 1970 – much much better on stage than Led Zep, they say. The Allman Brothers really jammed creatively in a way Led Zep was never able to , not even at their absolute peak. 

After listening to 'The Allman Brothers At The Fillmore East',   ‘Colosseum Live’ (‘Rope Ladder to the Moon' & 'Lost Angeles'!)   plus  ‘Live Dead’ (1969) from Gratefuld Dead,  I got the impression that Led Zep with  'How The West Was Won'  etc.  were really limited in their improvisation skills by comparison

I still have the 1st Led Zep album from early 1969, all other albums of the Band I have sold long ago. As a collector of classic Blues from the 30s, 40s and 50s I have heard many great voices on the turntable - against them Robert Plant’s voice often sounded stilted and never reached the authenticity and credibility of his black paragons.

Not to forget that the lyrics of many Who songs were socio-critical ('Won't get fooled again'), ironical ('Substitute') or sardonic ('My Generation') - while most of the lines  Mr. Page & Mr. Plant wrote during their lifetime were rather simple and one-dimensional.... desismileys_6797.gif

 

PS: 

I don't agree with every opinion & poll  of the writers & readers from the Rolling Stone Magazine. Though placing The Allman Brothers  and  Grateful Dead  on top of their list of  the best Jam Bands is reasonable in my eyes - since on a good day both  were miles more creative and imaginative on the stage than Led Zep or The Who....

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/readers-poll-the-10-best-jam-bands-20150325/phish-20150325

 

Edited by Zino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I appreciate your opinion and these are all great bands, but I think The Who are far more one dimensional! Live at Leeds is great, but even in the early days, Zep had more variety in sound! The biggest problem with your opinions is though, that they are not supported with arguments. Don't want to argue though! ;)   You can't just say, they played more creatively and dynamically, without saying why you think that! I mean yeah, that is how you feel, but really!? What about the acoustics sets of Zeppelin and the way they opened up their jams in so many directions, genres, so many new ways to express vocally and lyricaly and new ideas each concert!? Anything about that!? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I mentioned several posts ago, the only similarity between these 2 bands, is that they played rock music.

I can certainly see what you mean, by intensity of a live show, just view The Who's - Live dvd from the Isle of Wight '70. But, it is not the same type of music, so it's really not a fair comparison.

Just going to say again, The Who had punk overtones in their music, where the "unimaginative" Zep had Heavy Metal overtones.

Both bands were great, just enjoy them, best answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is much easier to be intense when your guitarist is banging out simple power chords and leaving the heavy lifting to the rhythm section. Can't exactly windmill a guitar when you are busting out complex arpeggio's and hybrid picking.

The jam thing is just silly IMO, Zeppelin improvised whole passages during songs, played 45 min versions of D&C & NQ...different every night I might add. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it did not but at least Zeppelin could not be accused of playing a three or four hour jam set of meandering nonsense like the Dead. If that's your thing, great, but I prefer at least some structure to a song. Also, one of my favorite jam masters is Steven Wilson from Porcupine Tree (now a solo artist), you should check him out.

Robert Plant was not authentic? What exactly does that mean? Does one have to screw every married woman in the Delta, leech off dozens more, and then die from poisoning after some cuckold had enough of your shit? Does that make one an authentic bluesman? I have seen 12 year old white girls on The Voice and other programming who could deliver the shit out of serious blues, so, how do you explain that? How exactly did they achieve their authenticity? What about Adele? What about Annie Lennox?

Lyrically, Robert improved greatly over the years and Zeppelin did bring up profound subject matter: That's the Way, Battle of Evermore, The Rain Song, Dancing Days (if you understand the symbology Robert uses), and Night Flight to name a few. Presence & ITTOD, several songs are very lyrically deep and complex and Robert's use of symbolism is quite good. However, I will concede Townsend was a much better overall composer in regard to the concept album structure, and his lyrics were political and very intelligent in general. But for every Won't Get Fooled again, you get silly tunes like Squeeze Box & Happy Jack. Sometimes an artist just wants to have some fun.

As has been mentioned, this really is an apples to oranges comparison. A much better comparison between bands would be The Who vs. Rush or Zep vs. Deep Purple or Black Sabbath. After all, one would not compare Yes to The Ramones yet by trying to compare The Who to Zep it really is not much different.

So, The Who vs. Rush: Townsend's liberal, anti-establishment concepts vs. Peart's Ayn Rand philosophical opera's? Or a how about Meat Loaf? Anyone like some Meat Loaf??? If so and you are ready for some Paradise by the Dashboard Light, I suggest you pull out or suffer the consequences :hysterical:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

4 hours ago, The Rover 75 said:

....just view The Who's  Live DVD from the Isle of Wight '70.

In 1969/70  The Who  were still in great form. But talking about nearly unmatched energy and sheer live power,  I think they reached their peak about  two years earlier, in their pre-Tommy days.  Their performance at the Monterey Festival 1967 was more ferocious than in Woodstock 1969.

However, judging by live shows & recordings  available on LP & CD from both  Bands,  I still  think that in the past five decades  some other groups released  better live albums than 'Live at Leeds'  and 'How The West Was Won'.

Below just four examples of - in my eyes -  better musicians,  superior improvisation skills and greater creativity on stage....

                                                                            desismileys_6631.gif

Great Live Albums.jpg

Edited by Zino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, IpMan said:

As has been mentioned, this really is an apples to oranges comparison.  A much better comparison between bands would be Zep vs. Deep Purple  or....

 

Talking about great live shows in the early seventies, I give Deep Purple the edge over Led Zep.

 Judging by their studio album output alone, I rank Led Zep slightly higher   desismileys_6479.gif

 

And  what about  Led Zep  versus Mountain ?

I say 'Climbing'  & 'Nantucket Sleighride' are on the same level as the best studio work of Led Zep.

But I think that West, Pappalardi, Laing & Knight  in their heydays were more compelling on stage   desismileys_1060.gif

 

4 x Mountain.jpg

Edited by Zino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Zino said:

 

Talking about great live shows in the early seventies, I give Deep Purple the edge over Led Zep.

 Judging by their studio album output alone, I rank Led Zep slightly higher   desismileys_6479.gif

 

And  what about  Led Zep  versus Mountain ?

I say 'Climbing'  & 'Nantucket Sleighride' are on the same level as the best studio work of Led Zep.

But I think that West, Pappalardi, Laing & Knight  in their heydays were more compelling on stage   desismileys_1060.gif

 

4 x Mountain.jpg

Well at least you are now in the same ballpark though, I have to disagree. I have seen all of those bands live and IMO Zep was the best. Though Deep Purple comes close and even sometimes equalled Zep live I could never say they were consistently as good. Then again it all comes down to ones singular perspective and what one likes in a band. I guarantee there are millions of Bieber fans who think he is the son of god of which his live performances could not be matched.

I too like Mountain but I never thought of them in the same league as either Zeppelin or Purple, not even close. The breakdown between members of Purple & Zep however is scary similar in regard to talent, however, Blackmore was not a visual player like Page was and Gillian kinda had the same problem performance wise. At the height of their playing abilities I would put Page & Blackmore pretty much equal, though Blackmore was a cleaner, more professional player over the long haul. Blackmore may not be a flashy player visually, but he is a very, very consistent player and he rarely played a bad show. Regarding overall creativity though, the edge goes to Page.

Plant / Gillian again IMO is really no contest, Plant was the much better singer and had a much larger stage presence than Gillan. When people mention great rock singers, it's almost unanimous: Plant, Mercury, Perry, then everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

41 minutes ago, IpMan said:

Plant, Mercury, Perry, then everyone else.

 

Well, vocally, I rank Charley Patton, Don Van Vliet, Howlin' Wolf, Chris Farlowe, Roger Chapman, Paul Rodgers, Jim Morrison plus 35 others higher....

 

 

 

 

 

By the way, and honestly:   isn't /wasn't  Barry Melton a better guitar player than Jimmy Page....?    desismileys_3210.gif 

 

Edited by Zino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Zino said:

 

Well, vocally, I rank Charley Patton, Don Van Vliet, Howlin' Wolf, Chris Farlowe, Roger Chapman, Paul Rodgers, Jim Morrison plus 35 others higher....

 

 

 

 

 

By the way, and honestly:   isn't /wasn't  Barry Melton a better guitar player than Jimmy Page....?    desismileys_3210.gif 

 

As far as singing is concerned, it sounds like your preference is toward raw emotion over actual quality of voice. If that is your benchmark, and I love all of those singers you mentioned as well, then no one compares to either Nina Simone or Billie Holiday. I would argue no man living or dead has ever matched or even come close to the emotion and pain in the voice of Nina Simone. Her versions of Pirate Jenny, Wild is the Wind, & Strange Fruit make the term haunting, pained, and furious to the core an understatement.

Regarding Melton, IMO no, he is not a better guitarist but that is based on what I like in a guitarist. Again, that is like comparing Kurt Cobain to Paul Simon, its all in what you like.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's an appropriate topic and a good idea, to discuss music with Zeppelin fans, that's what's it about!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you get to the level of the Who and Zeppelin, and other classic rock bands like Floyd and The Doors, you are talking about personal taste.

They are all top notch bands and it comes down to what type of style of music you like.

Each has their own strengths and foibles.

Depending on what mood I'm in, I'll listen to one or the other.

I think the same rule of thumb can be applied to live performances as well.

Although, you can argue some bands are more consistent on-stage than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, IpMan said:

.....it sounds like your preference is toward raw emotion over actual quality of voice....

 

The above mentioned Jim Morrison and Chris Farlowe had no 'quality voices' ?

And what about Bob Seger or Peter Wolf in their heydays?  

I like Nina Simone.  Amongst my favorite female vocalists are Sandy Denny, Maddy Prior, Grace Slick, Janis Joplin, Jacqui McShee, Rosetta Tharpe, Signe Toly Anderson, Cass Elliott, Shirley Collins, Aretha Franklin, Big Mama Thornton.... desismileys_4565.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enough of the derailing, back to  The WHO.......

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will always be Led Zeppelin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, JTM said:

Enough of the derailing, back to  The WHO

     

        Alright.  Back to 1965....   desismileys_6799.gif

 

My  Generation.jpg

My Generation II.jpg

My  Generation  III.jpg

Edited by Zino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^:yesnod:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2017 at 4:45 AM, Zino said:

 

The above mentioned Jim Morrison and Chris Farlowe had no 'quality voices' ?

And what about Bob Seger or Peter Wolf in their heydays?  

I like Nina Simone.  Amongst my favorite female vocalists are Sandy Denny, Maddy Prior, Grace Slick, Janis Joplin, Jacqui McShee, Rosetta Tharpe, Signe Toly Anderson, Cass Elliott, Shirley Collins, Aretha Franklin, Big Mama Thornton.... desismileys_4565.gif

 I never said they had NO quality of voice, what I said was emotional delivery OVER quality of voice. Just because someone says "prefer emotion over quality of voice" does not mean the people have no quality whatsoever. Of course Morrison & Wolf & Seger have a quality of voice, however, in their cases emotive presence is considerably predominant over technique. There is absolutely no way Morrison, Seger, or Wolf have the vocal capability of Mercury, Plant, or Perry, there is not even a question with that, nor is there anything wrong with that. I too prefer a singer with raw emotion over someone who can work the scales like a Chicago alderman, but you cannot say those singers are better than the other as it is all preference.

I love Leonard Cohen & Tom Waits but no one is gonna claim they have excellent technical ability, but their raw emotion and delivery is amazing and that is what makes all the difference. One can state a fact honestly without that fact being misinterpreted as an insult or slight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

46 minutes ago, IpMan said:

 There is absolutely no way Morrison, Seger, or Wolf have the vocal capability of Mercury, Plant, or Perry...

 

What is your definition of "vocal capability" ?

The ability to sing higher or deeper than others ?

Then my vote goes to Johnny Cash &  Lee Marvin.

Apart from that, I still think that Jim Morrison & Chris Farlowe had  more fitting Rock & Blues  voices than  Robert Plant or  Freddie Mercury.

And Don Glen Van Vliet aka Captain Beefheart plus  Roger Chapman (listen to the first two Family albums from 1968/69)  were in their heydays  simply in a complete different  vocal league - with an energy, intensity, originality  and individuality Mr. Plant could only dream of....

 

So far with the off-topic. Back now to the Who.... desismileys_1186.gif

 

The Who Sell Out.jpg

Edited by Zino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zino said:

 

What is your definition of "vocal capability" ?

The ability to sing higher or deeper than others ?

Then my vote goes to Johnny Cash &  Lee Marvin.

Apart from that, I still think that Jim Morrison & Chris Farlowe had  more fitting Rock & Blues  voices than  Robert Plant or  Freddie Mercury.

And Don Glen Van Vliet aka Captain Beefheart plus  Roger Chapman (listen to the first two Family albums from 1968/69)  were in their heydays  simply in a complete different  vocal league - with an energy, intensity, originality  and individuality Mr. Plant could only dream of....

 

So far with the off-topic. Back now to the Who.... desismileys_1186.gif

 

The Who Sell Out.jpg

Which is only your subjective opinion, which means absolutely nothing, just as my subjective opinion means nothing.

I guess I could go over to the Who forums and start subjectively slagging The Who but that would make me a childish, boorish asshole. Instead I will celebrate the fact of two great bands who made great music and played amazing shows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, IpMan said:

Which is only your subjective opinion, which means absolutely nothing, just as my subjective opinion....

 

You are right.  

So let's dream on,  without squabbling over voices,  and hopefully the last time offtopic  now....  24.gif

 

Monk & Webster.jpg

Edited by Zino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Who in the 60's were phenomenal at writing about awkward teenage life culminating in Tommy.  I am not a big fan of the 70's stadium rock Who, they just became so much less interesting.

Zeppelin blows away 70's Who.

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