stanlove
-
Posts
53 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by stanlove
-
-
16 hours ago, kingzoso said:
The Rolling Stones have not been the Rolling Stones since Bill Wyman left the band.
When the Stones tour after 50 years, there at least 12 or more people onstage. I do not consider that the Rolling Stones from the 1960's or tbe 1970's.
I Love the Rolling Stones but they are not anywhere near the band that that was once considered the "Bad Boys" to the "Innocent" Beatles.
As for songs that the Rolling Stones would not play now when people want to hear the "hits" are:
Monkey Man/Undercover of the Night/Fool to Cry/ Rocks Off/Venitlalor Blues/ Torn and Frayed/Dancing with Mr.D/Little T&A/Happy/Tumbling Dice/Thru and Thru/One Hit to the Body.... and dozens more.
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.
-
On 2/11/2018 at 6:08 PM, Strider said:
Put it this way...the Rolling Stones are the last of the classic dinosaur rock bands that still tour regularly.
The Beatles are dead. Led Zeppelin are dead. The Doors are dead. Pink Floyd, Jimi Hendrix, The Kinks...dead, dead, dead. Nearly every band that started from 1962-1969 is no longer. Save the Rolling Stones and the Half-a-Who.
So, if you are a fan of classic rock, the Rolling Stones are just about the only option a fan has of getting his fix in concert. The Rolling Stones are a family attraction now. Grandparents and parents bring the kids and grandkids to show them the famous Rolling Stones, complete with fireworks.
When I was standing in line all night and day for Wiltern Theatre tickets back in 2002, I was the only one in the vicinity that had seen the Stones in the 1970s. The majority of the first 100 people in line before me and after me had not seen the Stones until 1989's Steel Wheels tour or 1994's Voodoo Lounge tour...and quite a few had never seen them.
When I talk to some of these kids, I find that many of them are fans of "classic rock radio". They may even prefer Led Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix to the Stones. But they are never going to be able to see Hendrix or Zeppelin in concert (Robert Plant solo doesn't cut it), so the Stones are the next best thing.
And yes, I bet a significant part of the audience at a Stones gig is made up of these people. The ones who only know "Start Me Up", "Satisfaction", "Honky Tonk Women" and none of the deep cuts or much from the Brian Jones era. They are there to say they finally saw the last of the legendary '60s bands left standing.
Interesting/
-
On 2/6/2018 at 1:27 AM, Strider said:
Seriously? That's the reason you are going with? Sometimes I really think you are Jann Wenner, for you sound just as desperate to defend the Stones as Wenner did in 1978 when he wrote a suck-up piece in his magazine to counter all the "Emperor has no clothes on" bad press the Stones '78 tour was receiving from the rock critics and fans...even in his own magazine.
Let's go to the numbers.
Led Zeppelin: 22 albums (studio, live, and compilations) 114.1 million sold in the U.S.
Rolling Stones: 78 albums 74.75 million albums sold in the U.S.
That averages out to 5.2 million sold for each Led Zeppelin release and 958,333 for each Rolling Stones release.
Do you really think there were 40 million people who bought a Rolling Stones single but did not buy an album? I've got news for you...sure, the Stones sold a few singles but it wasn't close to 40 million. It wasn't even 10 million. They only had 4 singles reach 1,000,000 in sales in the U.S.
The singles reason is irrelevant anyway, as by the time Led Zeppelin arrived on the scene albums had become the dominant format in rock, passing singles in units sold in 1968. In the 1970s, singles were less and less important to bands, especially the established bands such as The Who, Kinks, Pink Floyd, Stones, and Led Zeppelin. You either had a fan base or you didn't and your album sales told the tale of how large your fan base was.
The most telling stat is the average sales per release. Over 5 million for Led Zeppelin compared to less than a million for the Stones. Led Zeppelin has FIVE Diamond studio albums...sales of 10 million or more. The Stones have none. The Stones biggest studio album seller is "Some Girls" with 6 million, which would rank it #7 on Led Zeppelin's list behind "In Through The Out Door". They have one greatest hits double-album compilation that sold 12,000,000...1971's "Hot Rocks".
Nearly every other Stones album sold somewhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000.
That disparity clearly shows that the people who went to Led Zeppelin concerts were true fans of the band, putting their money in both album sales and concert tickets. The disparity between the Stones high concert sales and low album sales shows that many people obviously weren't necessarily Stones fans, but drawn by curiosity and the publicity hype. They were looky-loos, coming to see what all the fuss was about and if the "greatest rock and roll band" hype was true. Obviously, many thought not, or it would have translated into more record sales.
The Stones also were the beneficiaries of the Beatles breaking up. Many older fans who grew up with the British Invasion looked to get their fix with Stones concerts (and Who concerts) when the Beatles quit.
Speaking of the Beatles, your "singles hurt album sales" reason collapses with two words: The Beatles. They released singles that sold millions more than the Stones and still sold more albums than anyone...over 200 million at last count.
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?
-
5 hours ago, Victor said:
Led Zeppelin were never out of style regardless of how Plant embraced punk and new wave. I was there and it wasnt that way. Much as the media jumped on the bandwagon of punk and new wave the gigantic zep fanbase never diminished. They were the most bootlegged, sampled band of the 80's and by the 90's onwards continued to attract new fans and certainly became far more influential on music of the next 25 years than any other band. Had the stones appeared on the scene at the same time as Zep they wouldnt have got anywhere, by the 70's people had awoken to a much higher level of musicianship and depth of composition something that the Stones were sorely lacking in when compared to the likes of Zep and also when compared to quite a few bands of that era.
Bands like the Beatles and the Stones appeared when this was a new phenomenon, they built their reputation and fame through the 60's not just with their music but with their celebrity status, and continued to ride their ego's and spent talent for the next 40 years.
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?
-
11 hours ago, Stryder1978 said:
I liked the Stones prior to '74. They did write some cool songs and Keith came up with some classic riffs....but calling the "greatest", not even close.
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.
-
9 hours ago, Victor said:
Zep were far better musicians, composers, performers, to be honest they just dont compare, the virtuosity, depth of composition and continual evolution of their music when played live was just so far ahead of anything the Stones could ever hope to achieve. Zep were mainly single artist performance concerts, their concerts would regularly be 3 and a half hours and even longer. In the 70's the Stones were already established as one of the worlds biggest acts, and lets face it alot of people went to see them because of who they are rather than from a musical appreciation. In comparison Zep remained a cult band, they weren't a household name, they were a band that had a massive 'real' fanbase. Their albums dramatically outsold the Stones despite very little exposure via singles, TV or radioplay.
There was always alot of jealousy about Zep especially when they first arrived and blew everyone out of the water. Plant may have been jealous of the Stones, but lets face it Zep played on their aura of mystique and not brash media celebrity status, his 'jealousy' was very much misplaced.
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
-
1 hour ago, the-ocean87 said:
Good songwriters, yes, but very weak performers (out of time, out of tune). Mick Taylor was the only one in the band who played his instrument above beginner level.
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.
-
On 1/29/2018 at 2:18 PM, Stryder1978 said:
stanlove,
The Stones blow...should have hung it up 40 years ago. I play better lead guitar than Keef...and I suck at guitar!
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.
-
On 1/30/2018 at 12:36 PM, the chase said:
Here we go again.. I was as guilty as the next in this debate.. But this is how I see it now.. It's a pointless argument.. Both bands were and are as big as any 2 bands can possibly get.. If you are talking "who's bigger Styx vs Kansas or Boston vs The Cars".. you might have something.. These 2 are only second to The Beatles as far as cultural impact.. IMO Zeppelin made the better albums.. The Stones have better singles. Keith Richards wrote some of the greatest riffs in the history of Rock and Roll. To say he can't play guitar is kind of silly. He plays well enough to get his point across. Jimmy Page was the greatest Producer in the history of Hard Rock.. Mick and Keith were no slouches behind the board either..
Led Zeppelin got to keep more concert money, not because they raised ticket prices, but because Peter Grant insisted they get a larger % of the gross. Big difference.. The Stones can charge hundreds for a ticket these days and get it.. If Led Zeppelin reformed tomorrow, they could write their own ticket and become Billionaires by the end of the year.. it's a tie.. I'd give my eye teeth to be in a band 1/10th as big as either of them... so wouldn't you..
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.
-
1 hour ago, IpMan said:
I believe your statement is a wee bit disingenuous as it was you who started this whole pissing contest.
1 hour ago, IpMan said:I believe your statement is a wee bit disingenuous as it was you who started this whole pissing contest.
No
21 hours ago, Strider said:You are arguing apples and oranges. You sound like a Rolling Stones fanboy trying to troll the Zep forum.
Your various posts and arguments are scattershot and don't take context into account but I don't have time to address and correct all of your mistaken assumptions.
But I will address one. It clearly stated in the Guinness Book of World Records that the record was for paid attendance for a single act. Led Zeppelin broke the Beatles record in 1973 at Tampa, then the Who broke the record in 1976 at the Silverdome, which is where Zeppelin set the new record in 1977.
The Rolling Stones never played solo. They always had two or sometimes even three opening acts to help sell tickets. That was the case in 1975. That was also the case in 1981 at the New Orleans Superdome where a large percentage of the crowd was there more to see Van Halen than the Stones.
As for the fact that you brag how the Stones charged more for tickets in 1975 than Led Zeppelin, that just points up the fact that Led Zeppelin cared more about their fans than the Stones. If you look at their touring schedules through the 1970s, the Stones were more into playing crappy outdoor stadium gigs where they could take the money and run and their ticket prices inflated more than Led Zeppelin's as the decade went on.
As for your claim that the Stones paid little attention to Led Zeppelin, that's a baldfaced lie. Plenty of interviews and books over the years prove that the Stones, especially Mick, paid a lot of attention to what Zeppelin was doing and the gate money they were getting.
Both bands were huge draws in the 1970s. They were equally dominant at the box office...1a and 1b. Everyone else was playing for second place. There is no shame in being honest and admitting that point.
What is inarguable and what the numbers show as unassailable fact is that Led Zeppelin's records far outsold the Rolling Stones in the 1970s...and beyond.
By the way I won't argue about who cared more about their fans. The Stones deserve their reputation when it comes to that.
-
19 hours ago, Strider said:
You are arguing apples and oranges. You sound like a Rolling Stones fanboy trying to troll the Zep forum.
Your various posts and arguments are scattershot and don't take context into account but I don't have time to address and correct all of your mistaken assumptions.
But I will address one. It clearly stated in the Guinness Book of World Records that the record was for paid attendance for a single act. Led Zeppelin broke the Beatles record in 1973 at Tampa, then the Who broke the record in 1976 at the Silverdome, which is where Zeppelin set the new record in 1977.
The Rolling Stones never played solo. They always had two or sometimes even three opening acts to help sell tickets. That was the case in 1975. That was also the case in 1981 at the New Orleans Superdome where a large percentage of the crowd was there more to see Van Halen than the Stones.
As for the fact that you brag how the Stones charged more for tickets in 1975 than Led Zeppelin, that just points up the fact that Led Zeppelin cared more about their fans than the Stones. If you look at their touring schedules through the 1970s, the Stones were more into playing crappy outdoor stadium gigs where they could take the money and run and their ticket prices inflated more than Led Zeppelin's as the decade went on.
As for your claim that the Stones paid little attention to Led Zeppelin, that's a baldfaced lie. Plenty of interviews and books over the years prove that the Stones, especially Mick, paid a lot of attention to what Zeppelin was doing and the gate money they were getting.
Both bands were huge draws in the 1970s. They were equally dominant at the box office...1a and 1b. Everyone else was playing for second place. There is no shame in being honest and admitting that point.
What is inarguable and what the numbers show as unassailable fact is that Led Zeppelin's records far outsold the Rolling Stones in the 1970s...and beyond.
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.
-
16 hours ago, Sems Fir said:
Hi Stanlove,
I hope you are well. I see the topic is going to be revisited again. It's unfortunate our previous discussion was sidetracked. The old thread was here:
Last mention I posted the cancelled JFK show Zep where Zep were going to play in front of over 90 thousand without an opening act, but I didn't see a response from you. If you'd like to continue our discussion let me know.
Robert
www.anextranickel.com
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.
-
56 minutes ago, IpMan said:
I believe you have won most ridiculous comment of the day !!!
So, you are saying they simply did not want the money? Ok, sure, that makes sense.
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.
-
11 hours ago, IpMan said:
Of course, after all, it's just money. I am sure Keith and Mick were thrilled as larks that Zeppelin were bringing in more money, yet playing smaller venues.
I don't know where you are from but where I come from that is a big win for Zeppelin, laughing all the way to the bank.
If the Stones wanted to demand the same percentage as Zeppelin they could have obviously.
-
8 minutes ago, IpMan said:
Zeppelin were upset because the Stones received all of the press coverage while Zep received little. Both bands were selling out however Zeppelin actually made more money off their tour than the Stones did on theirs. It had nothing to do with popularity and everything with feeling ignored by the press. However Zeppelin brought this on themselves by their behavior to the press prior to 73'.
I always found this bit of history quite funny and silly. Zeppelin first shuns the press then gets upset because the press will not cover them. Its kinda like ignoring a girl and then getting pissed off because she no longer comes around.
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.
-
On 1/3/2018 at 1:13 PM, EaglesOfOneNest said:
I think it stems entirely from jealousy. Of course, people's tastes differ, but I think the Stones and the Who are great bands, and they had quite a bit of success before Zep ever came on the scene, so naturally one could see there's a bit of "who're these wankers??"... add to that their financial success thanks to Peter Grant and of course a bunch of 20-something famous guys couldn't stand them
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.
Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin- year to year, who wins out?
in Led Zeppelin Master Forum
Posted
Why does it matter when the Tattoo You songs were written? They released a really good album in 1981 period.