Jump to content

Do Stones's fans hate Zeppelin?


Recommended Posts

Can't disagree with you. Go down the line, and I believe LZ is clearly more talented.

Plant > Jagger

Page > Richards

Jones > Wyman

Bonham > Watts

...but this is really an apples to oranges comparison in some respects...particularly with regard to Bonham > Watts

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

...but this is really an apples to oranges comparison in some respects...particularly with regard to Bonham > Watts

I Agree.. especially in regard to the 2 drummers.

Charlie Watts is as perfect for the Stones as John Bonham was for Led Zeppelin

The drumming on Beast Of Burdon is as perfect for the song as possible ... as is the drumming on Kashmir..

Charlie is a class act.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I Agree.. especially in regard to the 2 drummers.

Charlie Watts is as perfect for the Stones as John Bonham was for Led Zeppelin

The drumming on Beast Of Burdon is as perfect for the song as possible ... as is the drumming on Kashmir..

Charlie is a class act.

Tiny Tim was perfect for Tiptoe Through the Tulips, but that doesn't mean that he was a better player of stringed instruments than Jeff Beck. Watt was good in his environment, but nowhere near as talented as other drummers, as is noted in drummer polls year after year after year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiny Tim was perfect for Tiptoe Through the Tulips, but that doesn't mean that he was a better player of stringed instruments than Jeff Beck. Watt was good in his environment, but nowhere near as talented as other drummers, as is noted in drummer polls year after year after year.

Please don't tell me you take any notice of polls? What even Rolling Stone polls?(The rag, not the group)
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiny Tim was perfect for Tiptoe Through the Tulips, but that doesn't mean that he was a better player of stringed instruments than Jeff Beck. Watt was good in his environment, but nowhere near as talented as other drummers, as is noted in drummer polls year after year after year.

You may have missed my point, the apples to oranges comparison of a rock drummer (Bonham) to a jazz drummer (Watts).

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/how-good-of-a-drummer-is-charlie-watts.137864/

Edited by SteveAJones
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with you Steve, in that sense, but what I am trying to say is that all drummers are not created equally, despite their different styles. That is why some are regarded as legendary, or "the best". Charlie was great in his environment, but certainly not a Ward, Bonham, or Peart, who I believe were far more versatile. We are comparing situational brilliance against overall brilliance and adaptability. I suppose we are discussing from different angles.

Edited by The Dark Lord
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why the two bands would be mutually exclusive, I love both.

Me too. Many of the IORR folks, though delightful, are pretty hard-core Stones fans. They don't like anyone who Keith Richards doesn't like :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Me too. Many of the IORR folks, though delightful, are pretty hard-core Stones fans. They don't like anyone who Keith Richards doesn't like :)

Yeah...their blind, unwavering defense of Richards is pretty amusing. He truly can do no wrong. Jagger on the other hand, is consistently ripped over there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with you Steve, in that sense, but what I am trying to say is that all drummers are not created equally, despite their different styles. That is why some are regarded as legendary, or "the best". Charlie was great in his environment, but certainly not a Ward, Bonham, or Peart, who I believe were far more versatile. We are comparing situational brilliance against overall brilliance and adaptability. I suppose we are discussing from different angles.

I certainly was.

Charlie Watts is as perfect for the Stones as any of the 3 you mentioned for their respective gigs.

Phil Rudd is perfect for AC/DC. Chris Slade would wipe the floor with him in a technical standoff.. But Rudd is much better suited for the band.

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

Generally I don't believe so, however a segment of hardcore Stones fans loathe Zeppelin because Zeppelin is more or less considered an equal in popularity and artistic integrity as the Beatles and that is something which that segment of Stones junkies will never forgive Led Zeppelin for becoming. What Zeppelin became knocked the Stones down a rung or two on the ladder in the eyes of the general public.

The Who has a segment of hardcore fans who despise Zeppelin because Zeppelin sort of clipped the wings of The Who as they were becoming known as the world’s band and because of that The Who were never able to get ahead of Zeppelin or Pink Floyd.

To my mind the 3 biggest bands ever in terms of popularity and artistic integrity was The Beatles, Zeppelin, and Pink Floyd.

Zeppelin also created and mastered longer hypnotic popular songs driven by riffs in an age where the critics felt melody and catchy chorus based around a 3 or 4 minute song was better and that really rubbed the music critics the wrong way. So Zeppelin has all sorts of enemies.

Generally I don't believe so, however a segment of hardcore Stones fans loathe Zeppelin because Zeppelin is more or less considered an equal in popularity and artistic integrity as the Beatles and that is something which that segment of Stones junkies will never forgive Led Zeppelin for becoming. What Zeppelin became knocked the Stones down a rung or two on the ladder in the eyes of the general public.

The Who has a segment of hardcore fans who despise Zeppelin because Zeppelin sort of clipped the wings of The Who as they were becoming known as the world’s band and because of that The Who were never able to get ahead of Zeppelin or Pink Floyd.

To my mind the 3 biggest bands ever in terms of popularity and artistic integrity was The Beatles, Zeppelin, and Pink Floyd.

Zeppelin also created and mastered longer hypnotic popular songs driven by riffs in an age where the critics felt melody and catchy chorus based around a 3 or 4 minute song was better and that really rubbed the music critics the wrong way. So Zeppelin has all sorts of enemies.

you are wrong. best ever 1. The Beatles. 2. Stones. 3. Zeppelin and Floyd. i'm stones fan like i'm zepp fan,, and never heard stones fan talking bad of zepp music. and i even don't like beatles, some songs ok, but generally i don't like them, but they are first bend on the list.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't disagree with you. Go down the line, and I believe LZ is clearly more talented.

Plant > Jagger

Page > Richards

Jones > Wyman

Bonham > Watts

Can't disagree with you. Go down the line, and I believe LZ is clearly more talented.

Plant > Jagger

Page > Richards

Jones > Wyman

Bonham > Watts

no,no,no, every of those musicians belongs in they stile of music .

plant=jagger

page=richards

jones=wyman

bonham = watts

and ronie is in the 10 best guitar player ever, like mick taylor too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

you are wrong. best ever 1. The Beatles. 2. Stones. 3. Zeppelin and Floyd. i'm stones fan like i'm zepp fan,, and never heard stones fan talking bad of zepp music. and i even don't like beatles, some songs ok, but generally i don't like them, but they are first bend on the list.

No, you are wrong!

Look, The Beatles were a very good band, but they are the most overrated band of all time. Early on, their stuff was poppy bubble gum type stuff. Then they found marijuana, and boom, they started to CREATE. What they created was very good - I wonder how good they would have been if George Martin wasn't their producer/engineer/etc. - but many of the things found on The White album is "filler." Come on...Rocky Raccoon? I blame McCartney for that - he is the most overrated Beatle, and musician of all time. The two men that I consider the best Beatles are Harrison & Lennon - hands down. Many of my friends and family share my sentiments on all this.

1. Led Zeppelin

2. Jimi Hendrix/Band Of Gypsys - his stuff is way better than anything the Beatles made! He should be mentioned more often by the music pundits. I don't care if he was only around for only three years, unfortunately - time should not be an issue. If time is an issue, than people should take into consideration bands, like the Stones, that stay around too long. They have made nothing of substance for over 35 years!

3. The Who

4. Pink Floyd

5. The Beatles

As for the Rolling Stones - their best music was created with Mick Taylor on lead guitar! After he left, the Stones were toast. Although Black And Blue, with Ronnie Wood, was not bad. Jagger is crap as a singer, Watts is good for what they do, Wyman is an average bass player at best, Richards is ok, Taylor was awesome - Richards was intimidated by him - he (Richards) wouldn't let Taylor contribute songs. Form what I've read, Richards didn't like the fact Taylor and Jagger were working closely with one another around the Sticky Fingers/Exile era. Richards then started rejecting whatever songs Taylor's came up with. Jones was solid, Ronnie Wood is Ronnie Wood.

Edited by Amstel
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you are wrong!

Look, The Beatles were a very good band, but they are the most overrated band of all time. Early on, their stuff was poppy bubble gum type stuff. Then they found marijuana, and boom, they started to CREATE. What they created was very good - I wonder how good they would have been if George Martin wasn't their producer/engineer/etc. - but many of the things found on The White album is "filler." Come on...Rocky Raccoon? I blame McCartney for that - he is the most overrated Beatle, and musician of all time. The two men that I consider the best Beatles are Harrison & Lennon - hands down. Many of my friends and family share my sentiments on all this.

1. Led Zeppelin

2. Jimi Hendrix/Band Of Gypsys - his stuff is way better than anything the Beatles made! He should be mentioned more often by the music pundits. I don't care if he was only around for only three years, unfortunately - time should not be an issue. If time is an issue, than people should take into consideration bands, like the Stones, that stay around too long. They have made nothing of substance for over 35 years!

3. The Who

4. Pink Floyd

5. The Beatles

As for the Rolling Stones - their best music was created with Mick Taylor on lead guitar! After he left, the Stones were toast. Although Black And Blue, with Ronnie Wood, was not bad. Jagger is crap as a singer, Watts is good for what they do, Wyman is an average bass player at best, Richards is ok, Taylor was awesome - Richards was intimidated by him - he (Richards) wouldn't let Taylor contribute songs. Form what I've read, Richards didn't like the fact Taylor and Jagger were working closely with one another around the Sticky Fingers/Exile era. Richards then started rejecting whatever songs Taylor's came up with. Jones was solid, Ronnie Wood is Ronnie Wood.

Sorry if we're going off topic but I had to respond to this. If anything Paul is an underrated bass player:

(courtesy of Andy aka apantherinmd) ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the digs some of the members from these top bands occasionally make are pretty light-hearted, and are made up of a little professional jealousy and artistic differences. Egos are enormous and Mick, for instance, doesn't like it when a band like U2 breaks their existing tour gross record. He makes sure that he puts the band together again and they reclaim their spot. It is funny if a Stones fans uses words like effeminate and stealing songs when referring to Zeppelin. Mick was full-on androgynous at one point and even these days is a lot more effeminate than Plant. As for Plant and being effeminate, I really don't agree at all. Yes, he wore some frilly shirts and had long hair, but that was a look in the 70s. As for stealing material. I don't think Zeppelin were any different to the Stones when it came to re-interpreting the delta blues stuff. Like I said in another thread, many of these famous British musicians that came out of the late 60s had inconsistent experiences with making money, despite their popularity. Zeppelin simply blew them out of the water and people like Jagger, Clapton, Townshend, Richards, Marriott, etc., simply didn't like it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 9 months later...

No, you are wrong!

Look, The Beatles were a very good band, but they are the most overrated band of all time. Early on, their stuff was poppy bubble gum type stuff. Then they found marijuana, and boom, they started to CREATE. What they created was very good - I wonder how good they would have been if George Martin wasn't their producer/engineer/etc. - but many of the things found on The White album is "filler." Come on...Rocky Raccoon? I blame McCartney for that - he is the most overrated Beatle, and musician of all time. The two men that I consider the best Beatles are Harrison & Lennon - hands down. Many of my friends and family share my sentiments on all this.

1. Led Zeppelin

2. Jimi Hendrix/Band Of Gypsys - his stuff is way better than anything the Beatles made! He should be mentioned more often by the music pundits. I don't care if he was only around for only three years, unfortunately - time should not be an issue. If time is an issue, than people should take into consideration bands, like the Stones, that stay around too long. They have made nothing of substance for over 35 years!

3. The Who

4. Pink Floyd

5. The Beatles

As for the Rolling Stones - their best music was created with Mick Taylor on lead guitar! After he left, the Stones were toast. Although Black And Blue, with Ronnie Wood, was not bad. Jagger is crap as a singer, Watts is good for what they do, Wyman is an average bass player at best, Richards is ok, Taylor was awesome - Richards was intimidated by him - he (Richards) wouldn't let Taylor contribute songs. Form what I've read, Richards didn't like the fact Taylor and Jagger were working closely with one another around the Sticky Fingers/Exile era. Richards then started rejecting whatever songs Taylor's came up with. Jones was solid, Ronnie Wood is Ronnie Wood.

The Beatles early stuff was Rock and Roll for it's day. There was no such thing as "Pop" music then, as we know it today. In those days Pop was short for Popular. If you sold to the masses and had mainstream success, you were a Pop or Popular artists. But the Beatles were always considered Rock and Roll. They were discovered as a Rock and Roll band and and marketed as such. Their influences were all Rock and Roll and R&B artists. Long before them discovering marijuana, they were rocking on songs like I Saw Her Standing There and You Can't Do That as well as covers of Long Tall Sally, Twist and Shout, Money and Rock and Roll Music. By today's standards, a lot of their hits were Pop but "Bubble Gum" music wasn't even a term until the late 60s early 70s with The Partridge Family and The Archies. But even the Pop sound of A Hard Days Night and Ticket to Ride is Way more Rock and Roll than bubble gum music. Plus, if not for the Beatles experimentation in the studio with different instruments and genres, it may not have ever been embraced for Zeppelin to follow suit.

Edited by price.pittsburgh
Link to post
Share on other sites

# of albums sold is not necessarily reflective of musical talent. As for insults that are persona i used to argue like that in high school. Whocares what some joker at his computer types!

Edited by ksgemini
Link to post
Share on other sites

Stones are great, but I think of them as a Bar band and nothing else or spectacular live. Every band will be forever jealous of Zeppelin.

The Stones jealous of Zeppelin!!!! that's really funny, somehow I highly doubt it. Zeppelin were good but The Stones just keep rollin' along like an unstoppable freight train.

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...