Jimmy Page Responds to Keith Richards

[the chase]

7 hours ago, stanlove said:

Again I have no prob,em with anyone who says both the Stones and Zeppelin were huge in the 70s. When I have responded is when Zeppelin fans say they blew the Stones away at the box office in the 1970s. Not true at all. And it was Zeppelin themselves that started that myth.

Zeppelin hired a publicist because they were selling out everywhere, and the press totally ignored it. The Stones were getting all of the press.  So if that's starting a "myth".. I guess they're guilty. They were doing big business as big or almost as big or 2x bigger.. It was 44 years ago, so who cares..?

[Matjaz1]

No need to start this topic,  Jimmy told you that with his response! And I think Keith just doesn't like their style and style of songwriting. 

And some of you are comparing things, that can't even be compared like that in music(atleast not without better elaboration) , because they are a matter of taste and some of you are comparing things in a wrong way, as if it is a competition.

[jsj]

On ‎06‎/‎05‎/‎2016 at 6:21 PM, the chase said:

And lpMan answered you. Single act attendance vs multiple is one explanation.

I counted only 9 shows on your list happening in 1980 or earlier (during Led Zeppelin's existence). It's also strange that Knebworth 79 didn't make the top 200+  shows.. Aug 4th alone was to well over 200,000 people. Hell, Genesis played to over half a million people on their last reunion tour in Italy.. one show..not on the list... Why?

Personally I never cared much about the record.. Records are meant to be broken.. 

I think this is the sort of "fact" (that the first knebworth attracted 200000+) that is freely quoted around websites and the like that stanlove is objecting to. peter grant didn't get NASA to study the crowds either which is another "fact" often used. the second show wasn't added to due to the extraordinary demand either, it was always going to be two shows. unfortunately not as many wanted to attend the second show and the crowd was a lot smaller than hoped for by peter grant. I can remember in the 80s or 90s reading that around 400000 attended the two zeppelin shows which is also incorrect

I love zeppelin too, but there is a lot of bollocks in the mythology of the band

[Matjaz1]

Where did you get all that information? A 1967 Rolling stone magazine!?

[Matjaz1]

Surely we just have get annoyed because we love Led Zeppelin for all the wrong reansons, right!? Wrong! 

 

Try to relax with some music  joe!

[kingzoso]

On ‎5‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 0:00 AM, stanlove said:

Except the Stones were the ones that set the attendance records for the 1970s and not Led Zeppelin. Another one who bought the myth.

You are obviously a Rolling Stones fan (as am I) but to come into a Forum dedicated to Led Zeppelin and say that the Rolling Stones were the biggest concert draw during the whole of the 1970's is completely absurd and just skewered to your facts and your facts are only based on what you read and type into Google. 

Here is a REAL and UNBIASED Fact:  Led Zeppelin and Led Zeppelin only, played for a crowd of 76,229 thousand people at the Pontiac Silverdome in the suburbs of Detroit, Michigan on April, 30, 1977.  At that time, it was the single largest performance of a single band in the History of the Planet, and that IS a FACT.  So fact that Led Zeppelin made it into the Guinness Book of World Records in 1978. 

What do you have to say about this TRUTH?  If you are smart, you will read this and keep your mouth shut.  If you are the opposite, I would really like to read your inane comment and see how you justify this in the Stones favor.   

What can and will you come up with?  The Rolling Stones playing to a crowd of 200,000 with 3 opening acts, and then coming out to headline a Stones concert (without Bill Wyman) and playing for 1 hour and 35 minutes and charging a minimum of $150 per ticket?  Where is the justice and "satisfaction" in all that hype? 

[the chase]

1 hour ago, jsj said:

I think this is the sort of "fact" (that the first knebworth attracted 200000+) that is freely quoted around websites and the like that stanlove is objecting to. peter grant didn't get NASA to study the crowds either which is another "fact" often used. the second show wasn't added to due to the extraordinary demand either, it was always going to be two shows. unfortunately not as many wanted to attend the second show and the crowd was a lot smaller than hoped for by peter grant. I can remember in the 80s or 90s reading that around 400000 attended the two zeppelin shows which is also incorrect

I love zeppelin too, but there is a lot of bollocks in the mythology of the band

Fair enough. But surely the official attendance number for August 4th was enough to make this list of 230+ shows stan posted.. and it is missing. Genesis in Milan was to over half a million people ... Didn't make the list... It's odd.. 

[JTM]

I would like to throw Bob Dylan into the mix, Close to 300,000 watched Dylan at Blackbushe Aerodrome (England) on 15 July 1978 (me included) There were other acts on the bill, Clapton for one but no other major acts. Dylan was the draw, nobody else, other acts were just there to fill in time (imho)  until Bob took the stage early evening.

[Versus]

2 hours ago, the chase said:

Fair enough. But surely the official attendance number for August 4th was enough to make this list of 230+ shows stan posted.. and it is missing. Genesis in Milan was to over half a million people ... Didn't make the list... It's odd.. 

That list was lifted without a source. A Google search reveals it's from a UKMIX forum, which states at the top "This is not a complete list." The list is dated 2009. The author apparently rejected Knebworth because it was a "festival". The list however includes concerts that have multiple artists playing at the same venue. Eg.:

14. Rolling Stones - 1982 - Leeds, UK - Roundhay Park - 120,000 *

It neglects to mention that George Thorogood & The Destroyers, The J. Geils Band, and Joe Jackson all played on the same concert bill with the Stones. Stones were of course top billing, but so was Led Zeppelin at Knebworth, so the criteria for inclusion is very loose. An unreliable list IMO.

[stanlove]

6 hours ago, kingzoso said:

You are obviously a Rolling Stones fan (as am I) but to come into a Forum dedicated to Led Zeppelin and say that the Rolling Stones were the biggest concert draw during the whole of the 1970's is completely absurd and just skewered to your facts and your facts are only based on what you read and type into Google. 

Here is a REAL and UNBIASED Fact:  Led Zeppelin and Led Zeppelin only, played for a crowd of 76,229 thousand people at the Pontiac Silverdome in the suburbs of Detroit, Michigan on April, 30, 1977.  At that time, it was the single largest performance of a single band in the History of the Planet, and that IS a FACT.  So fact that Led Zeppelin made it into the Guinness Book of World Records in 1978. 

What do you have to say about this TRUTH?  If you are smart, you will read this and keep your mouth shut.  If you are the opposite, I would really like to read your inane comment and see how you justify this in the Stones favor.   

What can and will you come up with?  The Rolling Stones playing to a crowd of 200,000 with 3 opening acts, and then coming out to headline a Stones concert (without Bill Wyman) and playing for 1 hour and 35 minutes and charging a minimum of $150 per ticket?  Where is the justice and "satisfaction" in all that hype? 

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. 

[stanlove]

1 hour ago, Versus said:

That list was lifted without a source. A Google search reveals it's from a UKMIX forum, which states at the top "This is not a complete list." The list is dated 2009. The author apparently rejected Knebworth because it was a "festival". The list however includes concerts that have multiple artists playing at the same venue. Eg.:

14. Rolling Stones - 1982 - Leeds, UK - Roundhay Park - 120,000 *

It neglects to mention that George Thorogood & The Destroyers, The J. Geils Band, and Joe Jackson all played on the same concert bill with the Stones. Stones were of course top billing, but so was Led Zeppelin at Knebworth, so the criteria for inclusion is very loose. An unreliable list IMO.

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.

[Versus]

49 minutes ago, stanlove said:

We could argue about which was bigger.

I'm not here to argue who is bigger. I'm simply pointing out the list you published without source has inconsistencies on what is included or excluded.

[cosmic_juice]

This thread is annoying

[JTM]

2 hours ago, Versus said:

That list was lifted without a source. A Google search reveals it's from a UKMIX forum, which states at the top "This is not a complete list." The list is dated 2009. The author apparently rejected Knebworth because it was a "festival". The list however includes concerts that have multiple artists playing at the same venue. Eg.:

14. Rolling Stones - 1982 - Leeds, UK - Roundhay Park - 120,000 *

It neglects to mention that George Thorogood & The Destroyers, The J. Geils Band, and Joe Jackson all played on the same concert bill with the Stones. Stones were of course top billing, but so was Led Zeppelin at Knebworth, so the criteria for inclusion is very loose. An unreliable list IMO.

I saw The Stones at Roundhay Park, that's who I/We went to see. I could not wait for the other acts to do their thing and fuck off, couldn't have cared less who else was on the bill.

[Matjaz1]

3 hours ago, cosmic_juice said:

This thread is annoying

Yeah you just have to tell it to those guys like it's something hard to remember, perhaps grammar was the problem first time!

 

Instead od discusing music and leaving all the shit behind, we have to discuss things, which are either clear or irrelevant and great musicians are always pretty low on the list of sins , still know right from wrong!

[Colonial]

If we're slagging either the Stones or Zeppelin -- and I'm not sure there's much point to that, but if we are -- can I just say that even being someone who loves the Stones, their post-Tattoo You output gets almost no play through my speakers, because at best it's just OK.  Have to agree with the earlier poster who said they weren't relevant after 81 (and even THAT album was largely 70s outtakes).  To claim otherwise is frankly trying too hard to make a weak point.  The Zeppelin equivalent is the crowd that sees ITTOD as somehow similar in quality to the 69-75 output.  Full marks for effort, and I like the album, it was the first I ever bought... but no.

Stones were an important band for 17 years.  They were also more prolific during that period, per year, than Zeppelin were in their twelve years.  Against that, I'd say that for the Stones there was quite a lot of throwaway/knockoff crap they put out along with all the classics from 1964-81, whereas there is IMHO far less deadwood and far more conscious and effective boundary-pushing on Zeppelin albums.

So I declare a draw in any meaningful sense.  Personally I like Zeppelin better because they were heavier and because Jimmy (while he was on his game) was single-minded about creating a sound and an impression.  The Stones were always a little bit more of a pop group and a singles machine, though I don't mean those comments as slights.

That's based on studio output.

Live performance (re performance per se, and not attendance numbers)? Not even close, I love GYYYO and lots of Stones boots, but Zeppelin hands down.

[Colonial]

Having been all even handed in the previous post, I will say one inflammatory thing.  At their peak, there was no one better that Zeppelin at being Zeppelin.  But there was a band better at what made the Stones great at their peak than the Stones themselves: Faces.

[stanlove]

18 hours ago, Colonial said:

Having been all even handed in the previous post, I will say one inflammatory thing.  At their peak, there was no one better that Zeppelin at being Zeppelin.  But there was a band better at what made the Stones great at their peak than the Stones themselves: Faces.

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.

[Colonial]

1 hour ago, stanlove said:

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.

And I think it's also true that, due in part to conscious choices made by Zeppelin themselves, the Stones had more of a place in public consciousness at the time.  They were the ones on the radio and topping singles charts and on Saturday Night Live.  Zep were massive in the hearts and minds and basements of teenagers like me. 

I think that's migrated since and the mythical aspects of LZ have taken a greater hold in the public imagination and as a musical influence in recent years.  But that's difficult to prove and I get the pique about the attendance "revisionism."

[Sems Fir]

”stanlove wrote: “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.”

The same can be said about Zep fans running into Stones fans for doing the same thing (such as what this thread has turned into).  Or any fan of any artist, running into another fan of another artist.  It’s all a matter opinion as one would have to place criteria into how to pass a judgement on which artist was the biggest.  There were many successful artists in the 1970’s and not just in the genre of what is commonly referred to as “classic rock”  The Stones and Zeppelin were big in the North American market let alone the global market.  Pick another artist from the timeframe in general.  Queen, The Who, Pink Floyd, Elton John, Bee Gees, ABBA (the last two are not considered classic rock but key artists of the 1970’s) are all examples of popular artists, and those are just a couple of examples.

To expand on my earlier post (which was sidestepped but that’s okay) what criteria would you consider?  I already explained the above list you provided (without the source, but Versus found it) would be irrelevant, simply due to the cutoff date of December 31, 1979, and the Stones dates listed are almost all post the 1979 cutoff.  The post made by Versus regarding a possible explanation as to why Freddie Bannister would deny the attendance number is certainly a valid one if true, and research would have to be done to understand more about it.

One would have to count up how many concerts each artist performed during the decade.  Again, Zeppelin had unfortunate circumstances that prevented them from performing dates such as the cancelled 1975 dates due to Robert’s auto accident, and again in 1977 due to the tragic passing of Karac.

stanlove wrote: “But the fact is the Stones concerts were bigger and they charged more per ticket. In 1975 the Stones were charging 12 dollars a ticket while Zeppelin was charging 7.  The Stones were the kings of the road in the 1970s.”

Ticket prices may come into play but one would have to consider other things as well.  What was the Stones split with the promoter?  During the latter years Zeppelin had a 90/10 split.  One could argue that while the Stones were charging more, Zep was making the same amount of money (or possibly more) charging their fans less due to the 90/10 split, and taking home more of the box office gross.

Stanlove wrote: “As a Stones fanatic” and “I am not much of  a Zeppelin fan”

You have to understand that being a self-proclaimed “Stones fanatic” it looks like you are doing the very thing you take objection with from Zep fans.  Based on your post count to this forum / thread it does appear there’s a set agenda, which you state is stating the Stones were bigger in the 1970’s than Zep.  You are trying to prove a point that not very many are interested in.  What type of satisfaction (no pun intended) are you attempting to obtain?

Stanlove wrote: 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.”

Again stating the Stones have a “better argument” is only an opinion and not a fact.  Mainly of the individuals who lived it are no longer hear to ask from Zeppelin's camp, Peter Grant, Steve Weiss as examples.  In addition, memories become less reliable due to the passing of time regarding the subject (Richard Cole, Jimmy Page etc.).  Forget the numbers and enjoy the music.

 

Ever onward.

 

Robert

[stanlove]

19 hours ago, Sems Fir said:

”stanlove wrote: “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.”

The same can be said about Zep fans running into Stones fans for doing the same thing (such as what this thread has turned into).  Or any fan of any artist, running into another fan of another artist.  It’s all a matter opinion as one would have to place criteria into how to pass a judgement on which artist was the biggest.  There were many successful artists in the 1970’s and not just in the genre of what is commonly referred to as “classic rock”  The Stones and Zeppelin were big in the North American market let alone the global market.  Pick another artist from the timeframe in general.  Queen, The Who, Pink Floyd, Elton John, Bee Gees, ABBA (the last two are not considered classic rock but key artists of the 1970’s) are all examples of popular artists, and those are just a couple of examples.

To expand on my earlier post (which was sidestepped but that’s okay) what criteria would you consider?  I already explained the above list you provided (without the source, but Versus found it) would be irrelevant, simply due to the cutoff date of December 31, 1979, and the Stones dates listed are almost all post the 1979 cutoff.  The post made by Versus regarding a possible explanation as to why Freddie Bannister would deny the attendance number is certainly a valid one if true, and research would have to be done to understand more about it.

One would have to count up how many concerts each artist performed during the decade.  Again, Zeppelin had unfortunate circumstances that prevented them from performing dates such as the cancelled 1975 dates due to Robert’s auto accident, and again in 1977 due to the tragic passing of Karac.

stanlove wrote: “But the fact is the Stones concerts were bigger and they charged more per ticket. In 1975 the Stones were charging 12 dollars a ticket while Zeppelin was charging 7.  The Stones were the kings of the road in the 1970s.”

Ticket prices may come into play but one would have to consider other things as well.  What was the Stones split with the promoter?  During the latter years Zeppelin had a 90/10 split.  One could argue that while the Stones were charging more, Zep was making the same amount of money (or possibly more) charging their fans less due to the 90/10 split, and taking home more of the box office gross.

Stanlove wrote: “As a Stones fanatic” and “I am not much of  a Zeppelin fan”

You have to understand that being a self-proclaimed “Stones fanatic” it looks like you are doing the very thing you take objection with from Zep fans.  Based on your post count to this forum / thread it does appear there’s a set agenda, which you state is stating the Stones were bigger in the 1970’s than Zep.  You are trying to prove a point that not very many are interested in.  What type of satisfaction (no pun intended) are you attempting to obtain?

Stanlove wrote: 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.”

Again stating the Stones have a “better argument” is only an opinion and not a fact.  Mainly of the individuals who lived it are no longer hear to ask from Zeppelin's camp, Peter Grant, Steve Weiss as examples.  In addition, memories become less reliable due to the passing of time regarding the subject (Richard Cole, Jimmy Page etc.).  Forget the numbers and enjoy the music.

 

Ever onward.

 

Robert

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.

[Sems Fir]

stanlove wrote: “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 cutoff date of 1979 I stated was for a reason.  Why did you show “the list of the biggest 249 concerts ever” and state that “The Stones are on there 6 times”?  You clearly should have stated the one time the Stones are on there from the 1970’s as that’s all they are on the list.  Once from the 1970’s.  You are trying to prove the Stones were the biggest attraction, but didn’t even keep inside the boundary you yourself set.  The other five shows listed are post 1970’s.  The "were the bigger attraction" so far is your opinion and not a fact.

stanlove wrote: “Its not a matter of opinion”.

Then please post some facts to back up your claim.  The only proof you posted was a list and didn’t even cite the source.  The rest of each of your posts are opinions not presented facts.

stanlove wrote: “It’s a simple matter of math”.

Suddenly with this reply it’s now math?  I asked what criteria does one set to establish who the biggest artist was?  You have presented nothing.  I stated number of concerts played, ticket grosses, concert attendance as examples which is math related but you sidestepped those words.

stanlove wrote: “The 90/10 split has nothing to do with it eiher”.

But you say it’s simple math.  The 90/10 split involves money.  That’s math related.

stanlove wrote: “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”.

Since you are “not much of   a Zeppelin fan” I will inform you Zeppelin also performed a tour generally titled Return to the Clubs Tour in 1971.

stanlove wrote: “If they wanted to they would have smashed all records during that tour”.

Again this is an opinion not a fact.

stanlove wrote: “Over 80 thousand whenever they wanted”.

It’s not up to the Stones to attract over 80 thousand.  It was up to the fans who were willing to spend their money on seeing the Stones.  So the “whenever they wanted” is again your opinion.

stanlove wrote” 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”.

Then you are attempting to achieve something.  Read what you typed. The word “correct” is utilized.  Therefore, you are attempting to achieve something.

stanlove wrote: “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”.

If it’s easy to do then please post your information, instead of posting nothing more than your opinion.  One list doesn’t cover the “its easy to do” comment.

stanlove wrote: “Lets face it this opinion comes from Zeppelin fans reading and repeating what they heard from Zeppelin themselves”.

The same thing can be said about you being a Stones fan.  You are doing the very same thing but from being a “fanatical” Stones fan perspective.

stanlove wrote” in reality of anything Zeppelin was bitter and jealous about the attention that the Stones were getting during the 70s”.

Again with the opinion.  Do you know Robert Plant, Jimmy Page, John Paul Jones? Did you know the late John Bonham?  Their personal feelings have nothing to do with who the biggest artist of the 1970’s was, except for ego.  Have you discussed their personal feelings with them regarding this subject?

Again, if you are going to prove the Stones were the biggest please list your criteria that must be met in doing so?

Robert

[stanlove]

3 hours ago, Sems Fir said:

stanlove wrote: “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 cutoff date of 1979 I stated was for a reason.  Why did you show “the list of the biggest 249 concerts ever” and state that “The Stones are on there 6 times”?  You clearly should have stated the one time the Stones are on there from the 1970’s as that’s all they are on the list.  Once from the 1970’s.  You are trying to prove the Stones were the biggest attraction, but didn’t even keep inside the boundary you yourself set.  The other five shows listed are post 1970’s.  The "were the bigger attraction" so far is your opinion and not a fact.

stanlove wrote: “Its not a matter of opinion”.

Then please post some facts to back up your claim.  The only proof you posted was a list and didn’t even cite the source.  The rest of each of your posts are opinions not presented facts.

stanlove wrote: “It’s a simple matter of math”.

Suddenly with this reply it’s now math?  I asked what criteria does one set to establish who the biggest artist was?  You have presented nothing.  I stated number of concerts played, ticket grosses, concert attendance as examples which is math related but you sidestepped those words.

stanlove wrote: “The 90/10 split has nothing to do with it eiher”.

But you say it’s simple math.  The 90/10 split involves money.  That’s math related.

stanlove wrote: “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”.

Since you are “not much of   a Zeppelin fan” I will inform you Zeppelin also performed a tour generally titled Return to the Clubs Tour in 1971.

stanlove wrote: “If they wanted to they would have smashed all records during that tour”.

Again this is an opinion not a fact.

stanlove wrote: “Over 80 thousand whenever they wanted”.

It’s not up to the Stones to attract over 80 thousand.  It was up to the fans who were willing to spend their money on seeing the Stones.  So the “whenever they wanted” is again your opinion.

stanlove wrote” 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”.

Then you are attempting to achieve something.  Read what you typed. The word “correct” is utilized.  Therefore, you are attempting to achieve something.

stanlove wrote: “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”.

If it’s easy to do then please post your information, instead of posting nothing more than your opinion.  One list doesn’t cover the “its easy to do” comment.

stanlove wrote: “Lets face it this opinion comes from Zeppelin fans reading and repeating what they heard from Zeppelin themselves”.

The same thing can be said about you being a Stones fan.  You are doing the very same thing but from being a “fanatical” Stones fan perspective.

stanlove wrote” in reality of anything Zeppelin was bitter and jealous about the attention that the Stones were getting during the 70s”.

Again with the opinion.  Do you know Robert Plant, Jimmy Page, John Paul Jones? Did you know the late John Bonham?  Their personal feelings have nothing to do with who the biggest artist of the 1970’s was, except for ego.  Have you discussed their personal feelings with them regarding this subject?

Again, if you are going to prove the Stones were the biggest please list your criteria that must be met in doing so?

Robert

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.

[SteveAJones]

52 minutes ago, stanlove said:

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.

There's no question Led Zeppelin was THE biggest rock act of the 1970s. We can quibble over who was the bigger concert draw, but before we do I think it's worth pointing out that by 1970 The Stones already had eight years to build up a fan base. Led Zeppelin had 16 months.   

[jsj]

it is a deviation and I apologise for that but I've just finished reading Dave Lewis' Knebworth book and in that we get several  references to each Knebworth date attracting up to 200000, and yet again the reference to Peter Grant hiring NASA to examine crowd photographs. The promoter reckons there was approx 140 - 150000 for the first date and maybe 40 -50000 for the second, half of the exaggerated claims freely circulated on forums and the like. maybe we'll never know for sure but ticket sales are a pretty good indicator of a crowd size

admittedly Dave says at the start of the book he has "rose tinted glasses" but that only applies to opinions, facts about crowd sizes are facts, not opinions