Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble

stanlove

Members
  • Content Count

    52
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About stanlove

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    new york

Recent Profile Visitors

578 profile views
  1. Agree. They do drive me crazy with the warhorses. I won't see them anymore and have not for years. If they went on a rarities tour I would.
  2. Not sure what you are posting this to me. I never said the Stones sold as much as Zeppelin. I made a simple statement that selling singles hurts albums sales. There is no doubt about that. The fact that the Beatles sold alot of both doesn't change that. I was responding to someone who said that Zeppelin sold all of those records without selling singles. I was not saying the Stones sold as much as Zeppelin. So the Stones have filled stadiums for the last 40 years selling really high priced tickets just because tons and tons of people want to see what the fuss is about. OKay?
  3. I am not knocking Zeppelin but what I am saying is while Zeppelin was around in the late 70s they were seen as out of style and seemed a little silly with their style. Music had moved on at that point. Again i have seen Plant admit that and he was correct. I am not saying they are not popular now because things have again changed. I guess we are going to disagree on why the Stones and Beatles are what they are. I think it's because they put out the best music and the greatest songs in rock history and they basically started it. Again i am not knocking Zeppelin who are also right up there. I can't see anyone else being placed above Zeppelin ( rock bands ) in the whole pecking order thing. My personal take on Zeppelin ( different then rocks pecking order ) is I like Zeppelin's first 4 albums and don't like anything they did after that except s few thing son PG. They were not the songwriters that the Beatles and Stones were. This is just my opinion. I do think when they actually just played the songs and didn't get over the top they ere really good live. I wish they did more covers in concert. I don't consider myself a Zeppelin fan but I am always perplexed when people say they were never good live. I hear that alot and i don't get it. Really?
  4. There is no sense in arguments like this. We could just go back and forth with you saying they were not the greatest and me saying they are. It's just personal opinion. I do believe in the big scheme of things and in rocks pecking order ( personal taste aside ) the Stones top every band accept the Beatles. They have the seconds biggest place in rock history I believe.
  5. I think Zeppelin not selling singles helped their albums sales. The Stones sold a ton of singles which would hurt album sales.. Alot of people went to see the Stones in the 70s because of their already unreal body of work. Their 60s work was already legendary and add to that albums and singles they released in the 70s and you have a monster which is what they were. They were at their biggest in 1978 but did small clubs and had a short tour because of the condition of the band., but they were still huge in 1981 and did things like sold out Philly at 90,000 fans 2 days in a row. Nobody was bigger then them this side of the Beatles. And yes Zeppelin were monsters also. One thing about Zeppelin that is often ignored is the fact that they were out of style by the late 70s. Their act did not fit at that time. Rock was back to basics and Zeppelin did not fit. I saw Robert Plant admit that once. he said punk was the death of Zeppelin and he knew they were out of place. I was there and that was the way it was. Y
  6. I don't argue with Zeppelin fans when they say that Zeppelin was a better live band. I am a huge Stones fan but I can see thinking that Zeppelin got their songs across better live then the Stones did. 69-70 live Zeppelin has a WOW factor to it no doubt.
  7. I don't get into the whole who sucks argument. There is no point. All I see is you saying that you personally don't like the Stones., everyone has their opinions. I think the Stones were a much better band then Zeppelin ( songwriting ) but that is just my opinion.
  8. Agree with everything. Again i am not knocking Zeppelin at all i just bring it up when i see threads where people claim that Zeppelin was a bigger concert draw then the Stones in the 1970s. I have seen Zeppelin fans make that claim since the 70s and it's because Zeppelin themselves started the myth. I have seen everyone member of the band and grant repeat that myth but basic math shows it not to be true. I agree that both were so big that it really doesn't matter. I just a revisionist history thing going on with that topic. No knock on Zeppelin.
  9. No By the way I won't argue about who cared more about their fans. The Stones deserve their reputation when it comes to that.
  10. Give me the proof that the Stones were paying alot of attention to what Zeppelin was doing. I have said before i am fine with just saying they were both so big that it was hard to say who was bigger. The only time i object is when a Zeppelin fan claims Zeppelin was bigger then the Stones on the road. That myth was started by Zeppelin themselves and I have seen Zeppelin fans blindly repeat it for decades. In 1978 actually the Stones put on small club shows for the fans., They were bigger then they ever were and could have easily sold out stadiums all over the country ( they did play some stadiums and broke all records ) but decided to step back.
  11. I know you put too much emphasis on opening acts. I saw the other day an article where the Stones sold out the 1975 tour immedietly and they did not announce opening acts. The used opening acts because they did not want to play for three hours., hey did not need them to sell out stadiums. Most of their tours the opening acts did not even play for long. You are making the case that people were paying huge ticket prices to watch an opening act for 40 minutes. Didn't happen.
  12. So you are saying the Stones could not get the same deal despite playing to just as big or bigger crowds and charging more per ticket. Does that make any sense to you? I have read that Bill Graham said the Stones were more reasonable, meaning they thought the deal they had was fair. Obviously ( unless you want to explain why not ) they could have asked for as much as Zeppelin did. Someone brought up Zeppelins 1977 concert as a record breaker but the Stones played before 82 thousand in 1975 and charged as much per ticket in 1975 as Zeppelin did for their Tampa concert of 1977. Grant was the best manager of a rock band ever and I like the way the whole thing was about building the Zeppelin myth. One myth that he and the band started was the fact that they were a bigger live draw then the Stones. They all commented on it because the Stones were the top dog and the one who everyone was compared to. It was a way to build the myth. The Stones paid little attention to Zeppelin in the 70s. They were already the established band.
  13. If the Stones wanted to demand the same percentage as Zeppelin they could have obviously.
  14. The Stones got bigger box office then Zeppelin in the 1970s.. Zeppelin because of Grant might have taken more of the box office money but the Stones were usually getting better gates when they toured in the same years. They charged more per ticket and they played to bigger crowds. Both were huge but the Stones were the established act at the time and Zeppelin was on the way up.
×
×
  • Create New...