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

Everything posted by stanlove

  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.
  15. I have seen Jagger twice talk about Led Zeppelin. I saw him list Zeppelin's Rock and Roll as one of his 10 favorite songs and I also saw him say that he did not like ITTOD.
  16. Richards said in a 1969 interview that he did not like Led Zeppelin That was after their first album and before they were big. It had nothing to do with jealousy, he just did not like them. Big deal. I have never understand why people get upset if someone doesn't like there band. I just saw a youtube video recently where Page says the Beatles didn't do anything before 1967 that is worth writing home about. You should see the comments of Beatles fans. For the record the Richards has nothing to be jealous about Led Zeppelin about. He is 4 times as rich and famous and he is still playing his music, something Zeppelin stopped doing 40 years ago. In the 1970s it was Zeppelin that was jealous of the Stones not the other way around,. We know what happened in the 70s when Zeppelin tried to tour at the same time as the Stones. Zeppelin was very upset about it and everyone knows it.
  17. Like i said from the start I am fine with they are both massive bands with massive following. The thing that I have objected to is Zeppelin and its fans saying they dre bigger crowds then the Stones. Thats not true. And to your point again the Stones sold tickets often before even announcing who was opening for them. Can i see proof that they sold 95 thousand for Phily? I know in 1981 the Stones sold out two niights in a row at 90 thousand
  18. But still thats not the point. Zep and their fans constantly claim they did better on tour then the Stones. I have yet to see anyone show thats true.
  19. There is no really debate who the biggest touring act was. It was the Stones. I have proven that . As foe biggest band it would depend on how you define who the bigger band is. In the 70s the Stones 60s work didn't go away and people were still listening to that plus they were a singles band and songs like Brown Sugar and Aingie ect were all over the radio and people could buy the singles. But Zeppelin was huge with the younger crowd no doubt. They were both massive. But you are changing the topic by bringing up how long Zeppelin was around to how long the Stones was around. My argument here is that when Zeppelin and their fans go around saying that Zeppelin was a much bigger touring band then the Stones in the 1970s they really can't make a case for that. I see them say it all the time all over the internet. You saw it here right on this thread. Its a constant.
  20. You need to read the list again. The Stones are listed 6 times from the 1970s. I have also pointed out that the list missed 2 other Stones concerts from the 1970s that had 80 thousand plus. The Celeveland shows from 1975 and 1978. Look them up. So its really Stones 8 times and Zeppelin once. If you see a problem with the List name them. If Zeppelin was supposed to be o the list more often lets hear when that was supposed to have been. Name me the concert where they drew 80 thousand but it didn't show up on the list. I will look it up. Stones drew the bigger crowds and thats obvious. Your arguing for the sake of argument. Myths die hard. The 90/10 split has nothing to do with grosses at all. Not sure why you are bringing it up. I never said the Stones brought home more money from concerts, i said they drew bigger crowds. Ok but Zeppelin wasn't drawing big crowns in 1971 so its irrelevant. The Stones in 1978 were the biggest they were in any time of their career and they did sell out huge stadiums 6 times but played mostly clubs. They were drawing 80 thouands fans to their shows in 1978, Zeppelin was not in 1971. They did smash records during their 1978 tour. Their show at the Superdomw was the biggest indoor concert ever and the biggest money making concert ever up til that time. The one list does cover it. Again if there are any mistakes on the list ( besides overlooking the Stones concerts in Cleveland 1975 and 1978 let me know. I will be waiting. You are honestly trying to say that listing the biggest concerts doesn't show who the bigger concert draw was. Really? I have seen interviews from Page,Plant, and Bonham where they complained about all the attention the Stones were getting compared to them and i am sure you know about those interviews. They all complained in a bitter way. If Zeppelin was the bigger draw during the 1970s then make your case. Zeppelin especially cried about the 1972 tour when they were overshadowed by the Stones and they went around telling everyone that they were drawing bigger crowds then the Stones . Make you case for that being true. You can look up where Zeppelin played in 1972 and where the Stones played. on their American tours. Little hint. The Stone drew 40 thousand to the Rubber bowl in Ohio and 45 thousand to RFK stadium on that tour, Zeppelin didn't even come close to out drawing the Stones on that tour, The Stones obviously outdrew Zeppelin despite what Zeppelin claimed and there tickets were more expensive. I am not knocking Led Zeppelin and as much as I am not a big fan obviously they were monsters. All things considered counting album sales and tours they have a real case as the biggest band of the 70s. But during the 70s they were not the biggest concert draw, that was the Stones. I heard so much from Zeppelin fans that Zeppelin blew the Stones way in terms of record attendance that i actually looked it up once and ifound that not to be true at all.
  21. II don't know what the cutoff date of 1979 has to do with it. I said in the 1970s the Stones were the bigger attraction. The 90/10 split has nothing to do with it either. Its not a matter of opinion. You can find their concert dates and look at their ticket prices and how many people they drew to the concert. Its a simple matter of math. As for Zeppelin ccancelling shows in 1975, the Stones in 1978 when they were at the height of their popularity purposely played a small tour mostly of club dates because they wanted to go back to basics. If they wanted to they would have smashed all records during that tour. The few times they did play Stadiums doing that tour they did smash records. Over 80 thousand whenever they wanted. I am not trying to achieve anything but correct what I constantly hear and see on the internet everytime there is talk of a rock star not liking Led Zeppelin. If Richards says he doesn't like Led Zeppelin then you will always find numerous Zep fans claiming its because he was just bitter because Zep sold more albums and blew the Stones away at the box office. If Pete Towmsend says he doesn't like Zeppelin then you will read the comments that everyone hated Zeppelin because they blew everyone away at the box office. Like I said I would never argue with anyone who just said they were both huge. Its when people repeat the Zeppelin myth about blowing the Stones away at the box office then I correct it and its easy to do. Lets face it this opinion comes from Zeppelin fans reading and repeating what they heard from Zeppelin themselves. I have seen Grant,Plant,Page, and Banham all claim they were drawing more then the Stones. There is nothing to back that up and if looked at its just the opposite. I always read that other artists were bitter about Zeppelin's success but in reality of anything Zeppelin was bitter and jealous about the attention that the Stones were getting during the 70s. We all know about 1972 when they both toured at the same time and it was Zeppelin always pointing out their position compared to the Stones not the other way around.
  22. As a Stones fanatic I don't object when people claim that Zeppelin at their best was a better live band then the Stones. I do think at their best Zeppelin got their music across live better then the Stones and as well as anyone. I am not much of a Zeppelin fan and really don't care for much at all that they did past 1971 but when I check out their 69-70 live shows on youtube its wow. My only point on this thread is constantly running into Zep fans who claim that Zeppelin owned the Stones at the box office in the 1970s and thats just not true at all. The Stones have the better argument of being the biggest live band in the world in the 1970s.
  23. IF we want to list Zeppelins Knebworth concert then we will have to list the Stones Knebworth concert also. We could argue about which was bigger. Smeone heere said that Bannister went out of business because he did his math wrong leading up to the concert, but thats very hard to believe seeing how he had done Knebworth concerts before and never had a problem. I think it obvious that Zeppelin didn[t draw nearly as many as they try to claim. Bannister said 109 thousand the first weekend and 40 thousand the second. Pictures backed that up. and if you read the article I posted I don't think its hard to argue with.. People forget now that by 1979 music had changed and Zeppelin was already an out of place dinosaur. They did not fit into the music scene of the time at all. I saw Robert Plant admit once that punk actually ended Zeppelin as a relevant band. and thats true. Today Zeppelin fits in better then any old time band.
  24. We have already been through this. The game you are playing is to make a big deal out of the Stones haviing warm up bands. Often times the Stones sold tickets before they ever announced the warm up bands. In other words people bought the tickets to see the Stones. The openers played short sets. Do you really think people are paying a ton of money ( Stones were the most expensive ticket in rock ) to see a warm yo band play a short set. By 1977 the Stones had already played before three crowds of over 80 thousand. The Stones held all the records from the 1970s and my list shows. I fail to see why on a Zeppelin site facts can't be challenged. I am a Stones fan but is someone said the Beatles would have easily outdrawn the Stones in the 1970s if they toured I am not going to argue about it. Of course they would, Plus you are aware that that the record that Zeppelin set at the Silverdome was only a few hundred more then the Who drew there 2 years earlier and the Who would still have the record if it wasn't for Zeppelin's show. Now you would not try to make the argument that the Who were bigger then the Stones just because the Who were an individual act who drew 75 plus thousand while the Stones used a couple of warmup acts to draw 80 plus thousand numerous times in the 1970s? Surely you admit the Stones were a much bigger draw then the Who.
×
×
  • Create New...