Zeppelin Haters and Rolling Stones and Fans

[price.pittsburgh]

When I asked this questions initially, it was more aimed at the way so many of the Stones fans just flat out insult other bands. Not so much that the don't prefer them. And like I said, all bands and sports teams for that matter, have fans like that. But in my experiences, it seems like Stones fans seem to really believe that everyone else is unworthy to be even mentioned in the same breath.

[ksgemini]

Aww This is nothing U should have heard the derision from alternative and before that punk fans for Zep in the 80's,,,,and for the nasty immature comment from me..well, corpses like Keith should know their role and represent the walking dead with humility....maybe he just hadnt had enough brains to eat that day

[anniemouse]

Is my memory playing tricks on me but were Zep one of the few bands of that era that actually did not ridicule the punk bands even though they got hammered. Didn't Page and Plant go to some Damned gigs and Bonzo to a Dr Feelgood gig. Shows how open minded they were as people and musicians.

[ksgemini]

Yes thats how i remember it Robert Plant's musical tastes are wide ranging I discovered Low among others through him... Just one of the many interesting artists LZ led me too. Richards can say what he wants it just sounds petty...not worth getting upset over

[Mook]

Can I stick up for Bonzo. I do not agree with Mr Richards opinion on his drumming. Yes he had innate power but also impeccable timing and feel. As for the comment about front men, yes they have the ability to draw the crowd in but all seem to have specific influences both vocally and visually. You can IMHO tell the who was influenced by Chuck Berry and who by the likes of Gene Vincent, personally I like LZ the best and my admiration has grown over the years. I do not hate their contemporaries but the alchemy they had still sounds potent even today.

Richards is the same as Ginger Baker, having a go at people who are dead and unable to stick up for themselves is cowardly in my view.

I love a lot of The Stones stuff (especially the Mick Taylor era) but he does himself no favours as a person with this sort of crap.

[Stairway is NOT stolen]

Richards is the same as Ginger Baker, having a go at people who are dead and unable to stick up for themselves is cowardly in my view.

I love a lot of The Stones stuff (especially the Mick Taylor era) but he does himself no favours as a person with this sort of crap.

To be honest, baker was way harsher about Bonham than Richards was.

Baker flat out insulted Bonham (and Keith Moon), whereas Richards was more gentle and just pointed out a fault, but still giving him credit.

Two completely different ways of looking at it.

[price.pittsburgh]

To be honest, baker was way harsher about Bonham than Richards was.

Baker flat out insulted Bonham (and Keith Moon), whereas Richards was more gentle and just pointed out a fault, but still giving him credit.

Two completely different ways of looking at it.

I remember way back in 1988, reading in a magazine, that Richards said that George Michael, needs to shave his beard an go home. From a rocker point of view, I see his point, about the poppy, post Wham, George Michael, suddenly having a tough guy image. Still, it goes to show that he has always had issue with highly successful artists who aren't named the Rolling Stones. He's insulted, Bonzo, George Michael, Mick Taylor (after he left the Stones). and he sort of indirectly insulted the Beatles by saying John wanted to be a Stone for the night instead of a Beatle, as if the Beatles were wimps. Anyone else?

[Anjin-san]

To be fair,in his book 'Life' KR does say that he wanted to be judged by a jury of his peers and he wanted Jimmy Page on that jury.

[Mithril46]

Richards attitude is weird and ridiculous, even though I think he's a great musician. And Zep's music has in many cases live especially

so much energy that the punks obviously either never saw them live or just ignored this "minor" matter. Yes Zep overdid things with the

long solos etc., but I have never heard any punk music more energetic or chaotic and powerful than ZEP's version of ALS from Ft.Worth

in 77'. This is a very sloppy version, but is played with such abandon it sounds like armaggeddon has finally arrived.

[stanlove]

On 5/15/2015 at 11:36 AM, Mook said:

 

Richards is the same as Ginger Baker, having a go at people who are dead and unable to stick up for themselves is cowardly in my view.

 

I love a lot of The Stones stuff (especially the Mick Taylor era) but he does himself no favours as a person with this sort of crap.

What do YOU EVEN MEAN stick up for himself? Richards said that Bonzo was alittle heavy handed for his tastes. Nothing wrong with that and no way for someone to disagree or stick up for themselves.

[stanlove]

On 5/9/2015 at 10:10 PM, the chase said:

 

 

The 70s roll around, The Beatles break up and Bam.. they're second banana to you know who... Yes, the Stones had the media in their back pockets like so many nickels and dimes..(gf1 reference) .. But Led Zeppelin far outsold them ... Their concerts drew more people and their albums sold much bigger numbers.

 

 

Except Zeppelin's concerts didn't draw more people ( thats a Zep myth ), and the Stones did not play second banana. For the Stones to have played second banana there would have had to been a time where Zep's career had accomplished more then the Stones. When did that ever happen? Add up what the Stones did by 1972 and Zeppelin is not even close, and you can go down the line with the years. Its like you think if someone comes out next year and outsells U2 that then U2 is second banana. Doesn't work that way.

[the chase]

Just now, stanlove said:

Except Zeppelin's concerts didn't draw more people ( thats a Zep myth ), and the Stones did not play second banana. For the Stones to have played second banana there would have had to been a time where Zep's career had accomplished more then the Stones. When did that ever happen? Add up what the Stones did by 1972 and Zeppelin is not even close, and you can go down the line with the years. Its like you think if someone comes out next year and outsells U2 that then U2 is second banana. Doesn't work that way.

How about next time you include my whole quote..

 The Beatles owned the 60s. They were the biggest and best band of the 60's by far. The Stones were respectively number 2,.. As they were in the 70's to LZ. That's not a bad thing at all. But Zeppelin's albums outsold Stones albums. There's no myth about Zeppelin being a bigger draw live either. 

The Stones have had a brilliant career.. Never said otherwise. Love them and they're a incredible band. But The Beatles were bigger in the 60's as were Zeppelin in the 70's.  

No doubt the Stones accomplished more by 72 than Zeppelin had seeing they had only been together 3 years at that point. But without media hype and Life Magazine covers and top 10 singles.. Led Zeppelin became the second biggest band of all time. Second to only The Beatles.  

[sk8rat]

2 hours ago, stanlove said:

Except Zeppelin's concerts didn't draw more people ( thats a Zep myth ), and the Stones did not play second banana. For the Stones to have played second banana there would have had to been a time where Zep's career had accomplished more then the Stones. When did that ever happen? Add up what the Stones did by 1972 and Zeppelin is not even close, and you can go down the line with the years. Its like you think if someone comes out next year and outsells U2 that then U2 is second banana. Doesn't work that way.

let me get this straight, you joined a led zeppelin forum to argue about the rolling stones then angrily bump the same stupid thread almost a year later . their music is o.k. but its not as amazing as its built up to be. by 1972 the rolling stones were already together for ten years. by 1972 led zeppelin had surpassed the demand it took the stones ten years to get in less than four years. btw, the rolling stones played two days at madison square garden, almost exactly on year later, led zeppelin played three consecutive days   Id say that a bigger accomplishment. 

 

 

keith richards at led zeppelins knebworth show. how about that 

[anniemouse]

What I find intriguing about Led Zeppelin is that they at least in the UK went against proven logic.

Few single releases

No Top of the Pops

No Old Grey Whistle test. (They must have been the only major act never to do a set for the show)

Few TV/ radio interviews.

So their entire career at least in the UK was built on a few print interviews and word of mouth.

I still get the impression that there still remains an air of mystery about them.

[stanlove]

13 hours ago, the chase said:

How about next time you include my whole quote..

 The Beatles owned the 60s. They were the biggest and best band of the 60's by far. The Stones were respectively number 2,.. As they were in the 70's to LZ. That's not a bad thing at all. But Zeppelin's albums outsold Stones albums. There's no myth about Zeppelin being a bigger draw live either. 

The Stones have had a brilliant career.. Never said otherwise. Love them and they're a incredible band. But The Beatles were bigger in the 60's as were Zeppelin in the 70's.  

No doubt the Stones accomplished more by 72 than Zeppelin had seeing they had only been together 3 years at that point. But without media hype and Life Magazine covers and top 10 singles.. Led Zeppelin became the second biggest band of all time. Second to only The Beatles.  

Zeppelin played more shows then the Stones in the 1970s but the Stones were the bigger draw when they did play.

[stanlove]

11 hours ago, sk8rat said:

let me get this straight, you joined a led zeppelin forum to argue about the rolling stones then angrily bump the same stupid thread almost a year later . their music is o.k. but its not as amazing as its built up to be. by 1972 the rolling stones were already together for ten years. by 1972 led zeppelin had surpassed the demand it took the stones ten years to get in less than four years. btw, the rolling stones played two days at madison square garden, almost exactly on year later, led zeppelin played three consecutive days   Id say that a bigger accomplishment. 

 

 

keith richards at led zeppelins knebworth show. how about that 

Your joking about MSQ in 72 right? The Stones had over 1 million requests for tickets ion New York City for the 1972 show. Its a FACT that the Stones played before the bigger crowds in the 1970s. If you want to look into it look at the biggest concerts of the 1970s. I saw a list of the biggest 1970s concerts and the Stones are on it 6 times while Zeppelin is only one it once.  In 1975 for example the Stones drew crowds of over 80 thousand twice, and that is something Zeppelin never did. What Zeppelin and their fans do is make a big deal out of the 1973 Tampa show that broke records but totally ignore when the Stones broke records.

 

AS for Knebworth 1979 the promoters took a bath and went backrupt because Zeppelin's concerts did not sell nearly the amount of tickets that was expected.  Zeppelin was stale by 1979. Thats something that Zeppelin myth makers always try to ignore.  I am not trying to bash Zeppelin who i do like, but I get tired of the myth making. And saying Zeppelin overshadowed the Stones in the 1970s is part of that mythmaking. The Stones in the 70s still had their 1960s work and when anyone was to be compared to the Stones you were compared to the Stones whole body of work. Just because your 79s output outsold the Stones 70s output doesn't mean the Stones are in yoru shadow.

 

Zeppelin never overtook the Stones body of work. Stones and Beatles in the 1970s were at the top. Zeppelin was shot at the time.

 

 

[stanlove]

24 minutes ago, stanlove said:

Y

Zeppelin never overtook the Stones body of work. Stones and Beatles in the 1970s were at the top. Zeppelin was shot at the time.

 

 

I mean hot at the time.

[stanlove]

12 hours ago, sk8rat said:

let me get this straight, you joined a led zeppelin forum to argue about the rolling stones then angrily bump the same stupid thread almost a year later . their music is o.k. but its not as amazing as its built up to be. by 1972 the rolling stones were already together for ten years. by 1972 led zeppelin had surpassed the demand it took the stones ten years to get in less than four years. btw, the rolling stones played two days at madison square garden, almost exactly on year later, led zeppelin played three consecutive days   Id say that a bigger accomplishment. 

 

 

keith richards at led zeppelins knebworth show. how about that 

Seeing how you brought up Zep playing more dates at MSG as a sign that Zeppelin was bigger are you going to being up that the Stones played 6 sold out shows at Earls Court in 1976 while Zeppelin only played 5 in 1975?

[stanlove]

14 hours ago, the chase said:

. There's no myth about Zeppelin being a bigger draw live either. 

 

That is in fact a myth and it was started by Zeppelin themselves as part of their myth making. If you want to go through the numbers lets do it. Zep fans all over the internet blindly make that claim and its not true. Zeppelin was telling everyone that they were getting bigger gates then the Stones in 1972, Lets look at the numbers and how much each charged per ticket.  They toured in the same year 3 times 69.72. and 75 and the Stones were the bigger act with the bigger gates  each time.Zeppelin was in Stones shadow in the 70s.

 

They also admitted they were jealous of the Stones in 1972.

[stanlove]

33 minutes ago, stanlove said:

That is in fact a myth and it was started by Zeppelin themselves as part of their myth making. If you want to go through the numbers lets do it. Zep fans all over the internet blindly make that claim and its not true. Zeppelin was telling everyone that they were getting bigger gates then the Stones in 1972, Lets look at the numbers and how much each charged per ticket.  They toured in the same year 3 times 69.72. and 75 and the Stones were the bigger act with the bigger gates  each time.

 

They also admitted they were jealous of the Stones in 1972.

 

[the chase]

4 hours ago, stanlove said:

Zeppelin played more shows then the Stones in the 1970s but the Stones were the bigger draw when they did play.

Hey I'd give anything to play in front of either bands audience.  Both were huge draws. No kidding. Zeppelin set attendance records in 73 and 77. Not myth but. fact..

They were never jealous of the Stones music or popularity either, but they were pissed they were being ignored by the press despite doing better business than the Stones were in 72. So yeah you got something there I suppose. 

This whole argument / debate is stupid. Both bands were great and enourmously popular. 

[Sathington Willoughby]

4 hours ago, stanlove said:

They also admitted they were jealous of the Stones in 1972.

Source/quote?

[Sathington Willoughby]

6 hours ago, stanlove said:

Your joking about MSQ in 72 right? The Stones had over 1 million requests for tickets ion New York City for the 1972 show. Its a FACT that the Stones played before the bigger crowds in the 1970s. If you want to look into it look at the biggest concerts of the 1970s. I saw a list of the biggest 1970s concerts and the Stones are on it 6 times while Zeppelin is only one it once.  In 1975 for example the Stones drew crowds of over 80 thousand twice, and that is something Zeppelin never did. What Zeppelin and their fans do is make a big deal out of the 1973 Tampa show that broke records but totally ignore when the Stones broke records.

 

AS for Knebworth 1979 the promoters took a bath and went backrupt because Zeppelin's concerts did not sell nearly the amount of tickets that was expected.  Zeppelin was stale by 1979. Thats something that Zeppelin myth makers always try to ignore.  I am not trying to bash Zeppelin who i do like, but I get tired of the myth making. And saying Zeppelin overshadowed the Stones in the 1970s is part of that mythmaking. The Stones in the 70s still had their 1960s work and when anyone was to be compared to the Stones you were compared to the Stones whole body of work. Just because your 79s output outsold the Stones 70s output doesn't mean the Stones are in yoru shadow.

 

Zeppelin never overtook the Stones body of work. Stones and Beatles in the 1970s were at the top. Zeppelin was shot at the time.

 

 

*you're

[stanlove]

3 hours ago, the chase said:

Hey I'd give anything to play in front of either bands audience.  Both were huge draws. No kidding. Zeppelin set attendance records in 73 and 77. Not myth but. fact..

They were never jealous of the Stones music or popularity either, but they were pissed they were being ignored by the press despite doing better business than the Stones were in 72. So yeah you got something there I suppose. 

This whole argument / debate is stupid. Both bands were great and enourmously popular. 

They didn't do better business then the Stones in 1972. You believe that because Robert Plant said so. Thats a myth. Look at where they played and how much each charged. Its a matter of math. Stones set the attendance records for the 1970s.If  you don't believe me look up the biggest concerts ever. I don't have a problem with people saying they were both so big that its hard to tell who was bigger. I do have a problem ( because I am huge on accuracy ) with people saying that Zeppelin were a bigger touring band in the 1970s then the Stones. Zepl fans always repeat that because they listened to the Zep myth makers.

 

The Stones at the time were bigger legends and had a bigger legacy at that point.

 

Zeppelin was selling better in albums.

 

https://www.ukmix.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=77507&start=25

 

[the chase]

58 minutes ago, stanlove said:

They didn't do better business then the Stones in 1972. You believe that because Robert Plant said so. Thats a myth. Look at where they played and how much each charged. Its a matter of math. Stones set the attendance records for the 1970s.If  you don't believe me look up the biggest concerts ever. I don't have a problem with people saying they were both so big that its hard to tell who was bigger. I do have a problem ( because I am huge on accuracy ) with people saying that Zeppelin were a bigger touring band in the 1970s then the Stones. Zepl fans always repeat that because they listened to the Zep myth makers.

 

The Stones at the time were bigger legends and had a bigger legacy at that point.

 

Zeppelin was selling better in albums.

 

https://www.ukmix.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=77507&start=25

 

If that ends this..  then great. I don't think either band played to many if any empty seats in 1972 or since. I don't have Zeppelin's numbers for 72..and I don't like you assuming I think this just because Robert Plant said so.   I know Zeppelin broke single act attendance records in 73, Tampa and 77, Pontiac.  

Records are meant to be broken though. KISS last show in makeup back in 83 or so was in front of over a quarter million people in Brazil.. at a time they couldn't get arrested in the States. Tours became much bigger. Taylor Swift is packing stadiums. David Cassidy was packing stadiums in the early 70's. 

Led Zeppelin sold more albums. Cool to see you acknowledge that.. Peace.