Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
caesar's_chariot

Do Stones's fans hate Zeppelin?

Recommended Posts

How much money did the Rolling Stones make at their show ? Nothing close to the % Zeppelin made and they never had opening bands. I don't think they were jealous of everything, but definitely some things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's strange. When visiting a few Rolling Stones fan sites (particularly IORR), I continually encounter constant cheap shots at Led Zeppelin. Zeppelin never wrote their own songs...Page is a hack...Plant is a pussy in a flowered shirt...Bonham is overrated.

Very odd.

Is it simple jealousy? Insecurity? I guess I didn't realize it was impossible to like both groups.

Any theories?

Fuck Stones fanatics....Stones are overrated big tyme!

Share this post


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.

Well said!

Share this post


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.

A bar band and nothing else?! The songwriting of Jagger/Richards helped define the 1960s, while The Rolling Stones impact upon the art of rock n' roll touring is second to none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, what I mean is there is really nothing spectacular about their live shows. You can go to any random bar on a typical Friday night, drink some beers and enjoy some kick ass rock and jamming blues. A person may get an extra thrill seeing Jagger in person or Richards coffin rolling across the stage, but that's pretty much the height of their performance.

Edited by ZoSo925

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is possible to like both bands, I do.

The Stones will never compare as far a musicianship chops go. But what they will give you, is some of the greatest songs ever recorded, especially the ones in the late 60's.

I have noticed one thing though that people generally say about Led Zep, is they either love them or hate them. You rarely hear, "they're alright". So they must have done it right, to trigger such emotions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I love both bands. I am here so you know my favorite, but The Stones were so awesome back in the day. They did put out some of the best music around and I still love listening to those songs.

If Stones fans want to bash Zeppelin that is their problem. I will not lower myself to that level. It's really stupid as both were amazing bands :yesnod:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall that there were a lot of collaborations and impromptu sessions between members of the Rolling Stones with many of the black blues greats. Other than the pre-Zep guitar for hire days, I don't know of much, or any, of the same from Page and company. Just an observation - but I could be missing something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

This. The Who's first song to chart, My Generation, was released in 1965 but they really didn't see any money until 1969. The Small Faces got ripped off by both their manager and their label. Steve Marriott, The Small Faces' lead singer, got ripped off again when he was in Humble Pie. The Yardbirds were another British rock group from this era that didn't earn nearly enough of the money they generated for their record label and promoters. Their last lead guitarist, Jimmy Page, complained about this and decided that things would be different with his new group.

I've often wondered if Page was the only member of the Yardbirds who complained to their manager(s) about the lack of money? Surely not? Does anyone recall interviews with other surviving Yardbirds in which the journalist asked about this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I think there's plenty of people who love Classic Rock, and the Stones, Zeppelin, Beatles, The Who and Pink Floyd all fall under that category. Then there's some people who like a strong melody and more of a verse/chorus thing. So they would take Stones over Zep. Zeppelin didn't write pop songs. The Stones stuff was more traditional in its format and so, ultimately, more accessible and commercial to an average radio listener. I think it all comes down to if you like a strong melody line. Stones would win that fight. I think a lot of Stones fan don't like the "self-indulgence" and lack of melody in Zeppelin's music.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I think there's plenty of people who love Classic Rock, and the Stones, Zeppelin, Beatles, The Who and Pink Floyd all fall under that category. Then there's some people who like a strong melody and more of a verse/chorus thing. So they would take Stones over Zep. Zeppelin didn't write pop songs. The Stones stuff was more traditional in its format and so, ultimately, more accessible and commercial to an average radio listener. I think it all comes down to if you like a strong melody line. Stones would win that fight. I think a lot of Stones fan don't like the "self-indulgence" and lack of melody in Zeppelin's music.

 

This is a great observation. 

When I was a young teenager, I thought The Who was my favorite band. Once I really absorbed Led Zeppelin, that feeling didn't last long! 

Zeppelin is the ultimate for me, with Floyd 2nd. I have a good number of Stones tracks in my iTunes library, but as a somewhat casual Stones fan, it seems to me that their albums were generally a mixed bag. Out of, say 10 tracks, three would be awesome, three would be okay, and four would be useless (i.e., a lot of filler). Many of The Who's albums feel the same way. I suppose die hard Stones and Who fans would disagree, of course. 

In contrast, there isn't much filler in the Zeppelin catalog...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keith is a guy who likes traditional 1950's rock n roll blues guitar with melody and a chorus and there is nothing with that either -  Jimmy Page wasn't motivated by that sort of thing. 2 different artists on a different tracks trying to get to the same station. As far a Richards not liking the music of his peers I get it as well.

 

As I have gotten older I have figured out that it's a very small part of the population who actually enjoy music - most like a genre or particular type of song structure, most people don't like music because they will say 'I hate banjo music' or 'I hate hair metal' or 'I hate pop songs' or 'I hate artists who write 8 minute long songs with a 2 minute drum solo'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the RS article from Keef, & I have to agree, he prefers Chuck Berry & the old time bluesmen, That's fine, but it seemed rather childish to rip your fellow peers. How he said Bonzo was an out of control 18 wheeler barreling down the highway, & ripping Keith Moon as well. I get it, you prefer the metronome drumming of Charlie Watts.

I think it's a fair asessment to say most of us like a particular style of music, especially when we get older. For me, if it's not loud, aggressive music, it doesn't grab me. I was really surprised by Keef's statements, as for the most part he is a likable guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I think there's plenty of people who love Classic Rock, and the Stones, Zeppelin, Beatles, The Who and Pink Floyd all fall under that category. Then there's some people who like a strong melody and more of a verse/chorus thing. So they would take Stones over Zep. Zeppelin didn't write pop songs. The Stones stuff was more traditional in its format and so, ultimately, more accessible and commercial to an average radio listener. I think it all comes down to if you like a strong melody line. Stones would win that fight. I think a lot of Stones fan don't like the "self-indulgence" and lack of melody in Zeppelin's music.

 

I fall into the "prefer a strong melody line" camp.  I also like it when a band uses vocal harmonies to good effect.  This is one of the reasons I've always liked The Who and The Eagles.  Much of Led Zeppelin's music left me cold when I first heard it during the 1970's.  The Zep songs I did like as a teen were "atmospheric" for lack of a better word. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He also stated that Zeppelin was a 'creation' of Peter Grant? (Insulting Jimmy)

That fall from the palm tree apparently has had some lingering effects.

Has Keith Richard always been so free with his opinions?  I haven't followed he or the Stones that much.

Edited by Disco Duck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a video a few years ago, maybe late naughties, I saw him quip that Led Zeppelin, like their name, never took off. He respected them all as musicians and liked them as people, but it didn't work for him as a band. I think he ended up saying Zeppelin was "Jimmy Page - shy boy." A bit like how Townsend viewed the band.

Edited by Flares

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keith's opinion on what he likes or doesn't like doesn't matter much to me. Zeppelin is my favorite band since the first time I heard them. The Stones weren't.

What "get's my goat" is when he cites certain things as fact when they are opinion. Yes, Peter Grant did manage Zeppelin but he didn't form the band; Jimmy Page did. He specifically knew what he was looking for. Was John Bonham reckless? Sure, he was a rowdy drunk. I would say that Keith was in fact more reckless than Bonham ever was. The drugs Keith did should have killed him on more than one occasion. (Read his book) One who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw "stones"....................  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 One who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw "stones"....................  

Exactly. Hey, Keith's always been an outspoken son of a bitch, but when it comes to music he does know his shit. I watched that Netflix documentary of his that just came out and to give him his due despite all the drugs and the bump on the noggin and just Keef's fucking age (he looks like the Cryptkeeper's dad with a dash of Grim Reaper thrown in fer chrissakes :lol: ) the guy's stuck to his electic /rock/r and b/reggae/country roots and, like anything else, never apologized for it. As his new record shows. Doesn't have a thing to do with Zeppelin, though, Keith. And it's not like he can really bash Zeppelin with a straight face anyway- Keith and Page have known one another since the sixties, and they're friends at least to the point of Jimmy playing on Dirty Work. Page also apparently sat in for a session after Mick Taylor quit the Stones, but Ronnie Wood was really the chosen one from the get go there. The New Barbarians (Keith and Woody's side project) also played at Knebworth in '79 (the second show I think). So any bad mouthing Keith might be doing now is just him jabbering out of his arse at 71. Pay him no mind, folks...

Personally, I've always liked the Stones and Zeppelin about equally- they're my two favourite bands, always were and always will be. Their music speaks to me in different ways, that's all, and I just sort of take it for granted at this point. Mainly it's down to the guitar playing for me- I like Jimmy Page's "guitar army" approach and The Stones' "ancient art of weaving" two guitar players. Some days Presence is my favourite album, other days it's Exile On Main Street

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe there's professional jealousy involved. The Stones adopted the moniker "The World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band" in the '70s, while all the objective facts (concert attendance, album sales) suggested Led Zeppelin in fact had a bigger following. 

Wikipedia reports "total available certified units" (sales) of 138.9 million for Zeppelin and 94.8 million (less than Mariah Carey!) for the Stones. Maybe Keef can't understand why the buying public prefers the "hollow" Zeppelin to his more pure approach. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^

I think a lot of it comes down to rhythm section, actually. There's something about JPJ and Bonham hammering away that sucks the listener right in, whereas Charlie and Bill/Keith/Taylor/Woody/Darryl Jones' more restrained and 'swinging' approach to bass and drums is a bit more of an acquired taste. 

Not only that, of course, but the Stones also have a hell of a lot more stinkers in their catalogue than Zeppelin does- and that's not even factoring in the Stones' studio discography being like three times the size of Zep's. Zeppelin's albums are damn near perfect, hardly a "bad" song in the lot, whereas the Stones have a few albums with a couple of good songs and seven or eight that are pure going-through-the-motions filler. And I say that as a Stones fan!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only that, of course, but the Stones also have a hell of a lot more stinkers in their catalogue than Zeppelin does.

Absolutely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I've always looked at it is that throughout the 60's you had the Beatles as the unassailable kings of rock and roll, and bands like the Stones and the Who always had to exist in their shadow. Nobody had any shot at being the #1 band as long as the Beatles were around. Heck, even the old Monkees TV show poked fun at the frustration of never being able to best the Beatles. Then just as it was becoming clear that the Beatles were disintegrating fast, opening a door for the Stones and the Who to finally get out from under their shadow and have a chance at that #1 spot, from out of nowhere comes Zeppelin to steal that spot away, forcing the Stones and the Who to spend the next decade existing in their shadow. I can totally understand those bands harboring a wee bit of resentment about that situation.

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...