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.

Strider

Jimmy Page Responds to Keith Richards

278 posts in this topic

It’s unfortunate that insults were thrown in this thread regarding Keith and Mick.  Stanlove, while posting on a Led Zeppelin forum regarding his opinion that the Stones were bigger than Zeppelin, did not throw insults at the members of the band Led Zeppelin or their fans.  He was merely trying to disprove in his opinion what Zeppelin fans are posting.  All in his opinion of course.  But he has been very civil and not insulting in my opinion, and I’m a poster that has been responding to his posts.

Keith’s personal drug use has no point in being brought up in this thread.  The same can be said of Jimmy Page’s personal use during the 1970’s.  The Chicago 1977 incident for example.  How about Bonham and the banana incident?  Think about both of those between the lines.  Was Jimmy Page ever arrested regarding drugs?  I think Zeppelin fans know the answer to that question.  In addition, what Mick does on his own time is his business.  Should I quote what Robert Plant stated about Jimmy Page hanging upside down in a closet like a bat?

What was once an interesting thread discussion has now been now made a disaster.  This thread really needs to be closed.  For me that’s unfortunate, as I found the discussion of the last several pages quite interesting to read from another fanatical (Stones) fans opinion.

Robert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, the chase said:

Do us all a favor king of the zoso's.. Don't help.. 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, JTM said:

What help, KZ only ever posts opinion, His....

This is a great reply.  Who's other opinions am I supposed to post?  The only opinion(s) that I know of are Mine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kingzoso said:

This is a great reply.  Who's other opinions am I supposed to post?  The only opinion(s) that I know of are Mine. 

Correct, however you do not need to be insulting in the process as in doing so only negates any validity your argument has. After all, calling out Keith Richards for drug use and the effect on his playing is seriously pot calling kettle black in regard to Page. Sure, Page may have shown up for all the gigs in 77' - 80', but for all intent and purpose, for many of those gigs within that time period he should have just stayed in the hotel room and had the boys hire EVH, Uli Jon Roth, or Michael Shanker to play his part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy, did this go south in a hurry. And on a point which in the grand scheme of things is silly to argue. 

The fact is Led Zeppelin sold a lot more albums in the 1970s than the Rolling Stones, while the Rolling Stones had more Top 40 radio singles.

But BOTH bands were the top draw on the concert circuit in the 1970s. Both bands could have sold out Madison Square Garden or the Forum or Earl's Court for an entire month if they wanted to play that long. The difference was in their approach to touring.

The Rolling Stones didn't like to tour very long and seemed to prefer to play one big stadium show as opposed to multiple dates in basketball arenas or theatres. For instance, 1975 was the last time the Stones played the Forum in L.A. After that, it was Angel Stadium, the L.A. Coliseum, or the Rose Bowl when the Stones played L.A.

Meanwhile, Led Zeppelin didn't seem to mind playing multiple dates in an arena as opposed to one giant show in a football stadium. They played the Forum and Madison Square Garden in 1970 and they played 6 nights in those same venues in 1977. And, all evidence suggests that they would have booked the Forum and Madison Square Garden in 1981 for their planned U.S. tour had not Bonham died.

But for stanlove to suggest that Led Zeppelin wasn't a bigger draw than the Stones simply because the Stones played more stadium gigs is misreading the numbers. Led Zeppelin could have sold out any stadium they chose to play. They could have done a stadium tour in 1977 just like the Stones did in 1978 and 1981, no problem. In fact, the summer leg of the 1977 tour DID have multiple sold out stadium gigs. New Orleans or Philadelphia would have broken the attendance record that Led Zeppelin had just set that April at the Pontiac Silverdome...breaking their previous record set at Tampa in 1973, which had broken the Beatles record. Notice how the words 'The Rolling Stones' never appeared in those record attendance marks.

Also, Led Zeppelin did have a stadium tour planned for late-summer 1975 that would have set an attendance record at the Rose Bowl had not the tour been cancelled after Robert Plant's accident.

I will be back with more facts and figures when I am not busy with work.

Edited by Strider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Strider, no need for the extra figures.  I posted some facts and figures previously in previous posts.  I thought I'd save you extra work. :)  One thing I would mention is that The Who held the record previously with a date at the Silverdome and Zep reclaimed the record with their performance there in '77.  Thank you for the input and post.

Robert

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2015 at 3:27 PM, Strider said:

While promoting his latest solo album, “Crosseyed Heart”, Richards was discussing the importance of band chemistry versus image with Rolling Stone magazine when he said, “It's playing together that is the important thing about bands, and so many bands are manufactured. I mean, even Zeppelin was manufactured by Peter Grant.”

When the interviewer responded “I was never a big Zeppelin guy,”Richards replied, “Me neither. I love Jimmy Page, but as a band, no, with John Bonham thundering down the highway in an uncontrolled 18-wheeler. He had cornered the market there. Jimmy is a brilliant player. But I always felt there was something a little hollow about it, you know?”

Prompted by a second comment that the interviewer wasn’t a fan of Robert Plant’s voice, the guitarist added, “No, I think he's doing better stuff now,” and on the singer’s work with Alison Krauss"Finally, he's getting his chops!"

Same stuff he said in 1969 in Rolling Stone, where he said he listened to Led Zeppelin I quite a few times ,  but "then the guy's voice started to get on my nerves. I don't know why; maybe he's a little too acrobatic."  He then talks about how much he loves Jimmy Page, which Rolling Stone actually misspells "Paige".  Here's an article link.

No doubt the interviewer knows about that RS article and just wants Richards to rehash it.  Nothing new here, and kind of a disservice to his subject, who has a new record out on Netflix (it's better than many, many recent Stones records imo).  In the 1969 interview Richards goes on to knock the Beatles, Blind Faith, the Blood Sweat and Tears, Credence Clearwater Revival and the Bee Gees, who just don't really deserve to be picked on by anybody anymore, but back then, maybe so?

I suspect old Keef harbored fantasies about stealing Jimmy for himself when they hung out together in the mid-1970s, or at the very least was using his friendship with Jimmy to send some sort of message to Mick and maybe to motivate Ronnie Wood.  And I would still love to hear "Scarlet", the tune they supposedly wrote together for Scarlet "Paige".  

We seem to be continually reliving the 1960s and 1970s these days, a new age of nostalgia spawned by social media and so many websites, perhaps.  We're very lucky that Keith and Jimmy are still around to help spin the discs. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Mercurious said:

We seem to be continually reliving the 1960s and 1970s these days, a new age of nostalgia spawned by social media and so many websites, perhaps. 

Or perhaps because people still prefer the good music of the 1960s and 1970s to the utter crap that passes for music these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt Zep eclipses the music of The Stones., who really can't play their instruments.

Richards know this.- He is jelaous!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/2/2016 at 8:28 AM, Mercurious said:

I suspect old Keef harbored fantasies about stealing Jimmy for himself when they hung out together in the mid-1970s, or at the very least was using his friendship with Jimmy to send some sort of message to Mick and maybe to motivate Ronnie Wood.  And I would still love to hear "Scarlet", the tune they supposedly wrote together for Scarlet "Paige".  

The heroin-addicted Keith Richards of the 1970s was in no position to motivate anyone, least of all Mick Jagger, who by 1975 was arguably carrying The Rolling Stones on his back. 

1 hour ago, boylollipop said:

No doubt Zep eclipses the music of The Stones., who really can't play their instruments.

Ridiculous on both counts. The back catalog of both bands is phenomenal, and you can't convince me Richards, Wood, Wyman and Watts aren't very accomplished musicians. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a more accurate statement is Keef will never be known as great lead guitar player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/5/2016 at 3:49 PM, boylollipop said:

No doubt Zep eclipses the music of The Stones., who really can't play their instruments.

Richards know this.- He is jelaous!

Absolutely 100%. That's all it's ever been about. In so many ways too, he knows Zep sold more records in their 12 years than the Stones did in 50 years. Richards is a known big mouth negative douche nozzle and hates everyone, including The Who and Elton John. Richards can't play and he's knows Jimmy and Zep outshined the Stones in 2 seconds flat in EVERY WAY since the very first day Led Zeppelin I hit the shelves. Zep COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY wipes the floor with them. Listening to the Stones is painful anyway you slice it. Jagger is a one trick pony, Richards is a leatherface zero trick pony and is a sure cure for insomnia. And then Richards puts down the most beloved, accomplished and innovative rock drummer of all time John Bonham? Yeah ok...lay off the heroin Keif. Comparing the Stones to the untouchable Led Zeppelin is like comparing horseshit to filet mignon...

Edited by Tea41

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Rover 75 said:

I think a more accurate statement is Keef will never be known as great lead guitar player.

He's not known for great solos, but he's an iconic rock guitarist nonetheless.

 

2 hours ago, Tea41 said:

Absolutely 100%. That's all it's ever been about. In so many ways too, he knows Zep sold more records in their 12 years than the Stones did in 50 years. Richards is a known big mouth negative douche nozzle and hates everyone, including The Who and Elton John. Richards can't play and he's knows Jimmy and Zep outshined the Stones in 2 seconds flat in EVERY WAY since the very first day Led Zeppelin I hit the shelves. Zep COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY wipes the floor with them. Listening to the Stones is painful anyway you slice it. Jagger is a one trick pony, Richards is a leatherface zero trick pony and is a sure cure for insomnia. And then Richards puts down the most beloved, accomplished and innovative rock drummer of all time John Bonham? Yeah ok...lay off the heroin Keif. Comparing the Stones to the untouchable Led Zeppelin is like comparing horseshit to filet mignon...

Ok, I'll play. First, the sales and spotlight analogies are incorrect. Secondly, Richard's distaste for the music of the artists mentioned is merely an opinion to which he is entitled. Jagger's a one trick pony? So what trick would it be then? Being half of one of the greatest songwriting duos of all time? Being among if not THE most iconic front man in rock history? His vocals? His harmonica playing? His unmatched business acumen?

I wholeheartedly enjoy and aggressively collect both bands, but the truth is I couldn't tell you the last time I put on a Led Zeppelin cd, live or otherwise. I still listen to The Rolling Stones almost daily.    B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the Stones, but not as people.. They were gimmicks after not being able to make it like The Beatles.. Nothing rebellious about them, either. Just wanting publicity.

And sell-outs -- Budweiser and other sponsors, charging so much for tickets, it's a yuppie show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Page and Plant never had a beer sponsor. :D

miller1.jpg

 

Robert

www.behindthetoys.com

Share this post


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

Page and Plant never had a beer sponsor. :D

miller1.jpg

 

Robert

www.behindthetoys.com

Yes but that was MGD, so, its different? It could be worst, Steel Reserve or Colt .45 could have sponsored but then Too Short would have been opening the shows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Stones and The Beatles are very much rooted in the 60's.

Young people fall asleep listenng to the music. When McCartney and The Stones stop touring, their music will fade away 

They have a much keener, interest in the music of Led Zep and The Doors.

 

 

Edited by boylollipop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MortSahlFan said:

They were gimmicks after not being able to make it like The Beatles.

If "making it like The Beatles" is the standard for success then I suppose everyone is a gimmick.

1 hour ago, boylollipop said:

The Stones and The Beatles are very much rooted in the 60's. Young people fall asleep listening to the music. When McCartney and The Stones stop touring, their music will fade away 

They have a much keener, interest in the music of Led Zep and The Doors.

Now you're just trolling. You do realize The Beatles elected to stop touring in part because of the pandemonium? Stones concerts were often accompanied by riots. You must be thinking of James Taylor.

With regard to popularity now and in future, both bands are in the same league and always will be. The Doors? Survey 50 teens at random anywhere but Los Angeles, I'll bet less than 5 have any idea who you are referring to.  

 

 

Share this post


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

The Doors? Survey 50 teens at random anywhere but Los Angeles, I'll bet less than 5 have any idea who you are referring to.  

And those 5 teens will probably think the band had Val Kilmer in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Balthazor said:

And those 5 teens will probably think the band had Val Kilmer in it.

Of course Kilmer was in the Doors...I saw it on TV so it must be true.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beatles and Stones are embedded within the 60's.

They are not musically relevant anymore.

People fron that time always state She Loves You was a new, revolutionary sound.

But for kids today, it's a sixty year irrelevant, old song.

No one in the year 1980 would rave about a song from 1920.

When image fades, you are left with form.

The music of The Doors & Led Zep is in itself highly entertaining for young kids

A major factor has to do with the structure of the rhytmic patterns and how these are executed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, boylollipop said:

Beatles and Stones are embedded within the 60's.

They are not musically relevant anymore.

People fron that time always state She Loves You was a new, revolutionary sound.

But for kids today, it's a sixty year irrelevant, old song.

No one in the year 1980 would rave about a song from 1920.

When image fades, you are left with form.

The music of The Doors & Led Zep is in itself highly entertaining for young kids

A major factor has to do with the structure of the rhytmic patterns and how these are executed.

She Loves You was perceived as a new, revolutionary sound by AMERICANS. I would not expect kids today to identify with it, as every generation seeks its own pop stars if not its own popular music, and this has been the case from day one. The execution of rhythmic patterns? The Rolling Stones, being a rhythm & blues based group, perfected it.  

Edited by SteveAJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, boylollipop said:

Beatles and Stones are embedded within the 60's.

They are not musically relevant anymore.

People fron that time always state She Loves You was a new, revolutionary sound.

But for kids today, it's a sixty year irrelevant, old song.

No one in the year 1980 would rave about a song from 1920.

When image fades, you are left with form.

The music of The Doors & Led Zep is in itself highly entertaining for young kids

A major factor has to do with the structure of the rhytmic patterns and how these are executed.

Personally I can still rave about music by Robert Johnson, and that is even older stuff.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally disagree regarding young people and the Beatles.  They're still popular because their songs are timeless.  Zep and Stones are timeless in their way too.  Doors on the other hand are very much of their time.  I still like them but I don't think their stuff has aged nearly as well as the other three.  I blame that damn Carnival-sounding keyboard, so 60's! :rolleyes:

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