Jump to content

The Rolling Stones vs Led Zeppelin live today


Recommended Posts

Listen the Stones were a good band, better then average with some interesting ideas and directions - but let's be honest, Zeppelin were like grown men competing against young children in a game of pond hockey. There is simply no comparison.

AGREED!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why even bother trying to compare the two? They're completely different bands with different sounds.

People that compare are the ones that don't believe the BS that FM radio, Rolling Stone Magazine, etc., feed the public into believing the Rolling Stones are this great band that are above all others. The fact is, Rolling Stones haven't made a truly great album since the release of Sticky Fingers (71'). I like Exile On Main St., but it isn't as good as the acclaim it gets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People that compare are the ones that don't believe the BS that FM radio, Rolling Stone Magazine, etc., feed the public into believing the Rolling Stones are this great band that are above all others. The fact is, Rolling Stones haven't made a truly great album since the release of Sticky Fingers (71'). I like Exile On Main St., but it isn't as good as the acclaim it gets.

It isn't a fact, it's your opinion. People should just accept the two bands for what they are instead of trying to say which one is supposedly better. The great thing about music is that its subjective. As for Exile On Main St, it's up there with my favourite albums ever.

Also, please don't lump me in with the people that 'believe the BS that FM radio, Rolling Stone Magazine feed the public'. I make up my own mind about which bands and artists I consider to be great.

Edited by tom kid
Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't a fact, it's your opinion. People should just accept the two bands for what they are instead of trying to say which one is supposedly better. The great thing about music is that its subjective. As for Exile On Main St, it's up there with my favourite albums ever.

Well, the one thing that isn't subjective is the musicianship. Led Zeppelin had/has the better players. Bonham is better than Watts, just like Michael Jordoan is better than Scootie Pippen. Talent can be seen, it isn't subjective.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my friends said that its easier for The Stones to go out with thier music and tour at thier age, because their music is not as heavy as Zep.

The Stone and Zep both used blues as a strtign point for thier music. In your oppinion. If Zep was playing right now. Why would it be difficult for them rock out in concert as compared to the Stones?

Any insight into what my friend said about Zep music is to heavy for Zep to play on a weekly basis, or How easy is it for the Stones to pull off thier songs nightly on a Rock circut?

It'd be harder for Zep to tour at their age because they had integrity.

Edited by scythe
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no comparision between the Stones and Led Zeppelin and if Zeppelin wanted to they would be filling stadiums across the country, I do like the Stones but they are no match for led Zeppelin.thats a good point Led Zeppelin does improvise and the Stones would play 5 songs to a 15 minute Kashmir or Whole Lotta Love etc

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, my good people, you've misunderstood me, haha. Zeppelin has more integrity than the Stones, so therefore, it'd be harder for Zeppelin to go out and tour because they would work really hard to deliver a mind-blowing performance, instead of a half-assed one, like the 2012 version of the Stones. :D

Edited by scythe
Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess what I have been trying to convey is that musically Led Zep's music is harder to play and that the Stones's music is much more easier. Then again. Songs like Gimmie Shelter/2000 light years, seem complex to me.

I love both bands. I love the Stones although Zep are my babies. The thing I like about Zep is that thier riffs are more twisty than The Stones.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not so sure Jimmy's heart is into touring again like it was 5 years ago...also LZ plays with an intensity I have never seen in the Stones. Now they are 65-70ish and Robert's voice is better suited to his recent projects...He was great at the 07 show and still is but I dont think he wants to shred his vocal chords nightly...I feel like a black sheep on here listening to Americana and Zep....I listened to Alison Krauss years b4 Raising Sand so I am used to both sounds really and if one looks deep on LZ's albums there are some great acoustic rootsy songs. I am not fit to comment on the Stones I just never cared for them beyong a few singles and would rather have seen Fairport Convention in their prime any day over the RS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Totally agree, DewieCox. Myself, I find it foolish for 70+ men to go dancing around a stage. The 02 was tasteful and powerful. The Zep let it go when they should have. Who is the best? As far as musical brilliance - the Zep, hands down. Catchy little tunes, probably the Stones. I like some of the Stone's music but it sure doesn't get into my heart and head the way LZ does. Keith Richards - good; JP - brilliant. Vocals - Mick was never know for his stellar vocals - Plant - a born rock singer. Bonzo - who was better in any band, really? JPJ - his brilliance speaks for itself. I always thought that LZ went way beyond rock/rock and roll.

Edited by pottedplant
Link to post
Share on other sites

Different bands, different music. The Rolling Stones were a band who wrote simple music save for an exciting period in the very late 60's and early 70's where they wrote a handful of gems. The Stones were never very good live, and let's be honest, the vibe from the crowd sucks when the singer and the guitar players loath each other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

led zeppelin concerts went on for hours compared to the stones hour maybe hour and a half shows.

the stones have been playing together forever. Zep hasn't played together since 1980. except for the 02 show which was one show 5 years ago. it takes a lot of work to get a band to be in sync with each other after not playing for so long it would take months for them to get it together.

Zep had an energy that no one else had or has. that was part of the show with page and plant dancing around the stage. how long do you think a 69 year old could keep that up? then what the next show jimmy is sitting down? it just wouldn't be the same.

and that's what I think makes Zep music harder to play

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people think that as we age, we want to take it easy. Look at the guys in Iron Maiden and Judas Priest. These guys are in their 50/60'S and they have more energy than most. If anything Zep to me are much more subdued than the Stones. The Stones are the ones that jump around. Page and Plant move around a bit but not jumping around all the time.

I am 41 and I can tell you I am more active than I was when I was 21.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...