Whats up with Keith Richards on LZ?

[Victor]

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.

[Xolo1974]

I just can’t listen to anything from the post Mick Taylor era in the Stones. Taylor was brilliant, and the albums and live music at that time were terrific. 

[stanlove]

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

Edited February 3, 2018 by stanlove

[stanlove]

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. 

[Victor]

5 hours ago, stanlove said:

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

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. 

[Victor]

or as Plant would put it.....

[anniemouse]

Can I add that I was a teen at the end of the 1970's in the UK and I saw the change in music first hand. Zep, Elton John, The Stones, Queen, Floyd, Genesis, all became targets both for the new generations of music fans and more importantly the new wave of rock journalists.

Genesis, John and Queen went much more pop to appeal to the new audience. The only artist to keep his place was Bowie.

Reasons were multiple why the acts struggled, they were seen as pompous, bloated irrelevant; everything the punk, post punk crowd hated and the mud stuck. They were rarely if ever played on daytime radio (suspect Tommy Vance was the only DJ to regularly play Zep and he was only on once a week).

In Zeps case you got you head kicked in for liking them every (as you did with the others) and it all got so much worse after The Hammer of the Gods book came out.

The Stones reputation was also a real mess and I recall a truly cantankerous interview between Jagger and Muriel Grey on the influential UK rock show The Tube. I don't think the Stones had a UK top 10 single after that interview (could be wrong though.) Interestingly Robert did an interview for the Tube's Jools Holland and came over very well.

BBC 6 Music has really helped the bands of the 1970's by playing the classic tracks, so now you hear Street Fighting Man, Kashmir, The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway, See Emily Play next to acts like Field Music, Thundercat and Ghostpoet.

Rock changed massively itself. The hard rock fans themselves in my era listed to Iron Maiden and Motorhead.

But like I mentioned this is what happened in the UK (IMHO)  

[stanlove]

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?

 

 

Edited February 3, 2018 by stanlove

[Victor]

53 minutes ago, stanlove said:

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?

 

 

I'm never sure what people mean by 'songs'. I wouldnt call Kashmir or Achilles songs, they were pieces of music that include vocals. I'd say most of Zep's music was like that, except certain tracks like Tangerine or Thats the way. The Beatles were great song writers in that anyone could take a Beatles song and it could still sound good if not better, whereas bands that played Zep just lost that 'essence' and personality it had to be Zep playing them. 

I always felt that Zeps creative peak was Zep 4, Houses , and Physical Graffiti.

Zep live were abit of a shock for some people. Non Zep fans find Zep fans obsession with bootlegs a mystery until they realise how the tracks would be different from concert to concert, how they evolved with time. To hear  Zep live for the first time, say with The Song Remains soundtrack, suddenly Whole Lotta Love has been transformed and warped into an almost unrecognisable monster track, if you listen to bootlegs you can follow how it evolved, how new sections developed. Its as if they played only to ardent Zep fans.  So I can understand from that point of view how some people could have said they didnt like them, but from a Zep fans point of view the creativity continued through every concert.

[Victor]

5 hours ago, anniemouse said:

Can I add that I was a teen at the end of the 1970's in the UK and I saw the change in music first hand. Zep, Elton John, The Stones, Queen, Floyd, Genesis, all became targets both for the new generations of music fans and more importantly the new wave of rock journalists.

Genesis, John and Queen went much more pop to appeal to the new audience. The only artist to keep his place was Bowie.

Reasons were multiple why the acts struggled, they were seen as pompous, bloated irrelevant; everything the punk, post punk crowd hated and the mud stuck. They were rarely if ever played on daytime radio (suspect Tommy Vance was the only DJ to regularly play Zep and he was only on once a week).

In Zeps case you got you head kicked in for liking them every (as you did with the others) and it all got so much worse after The Hammer of the Gods book came out.

The Stones reputation was also a real mess and I recall a truly cantankerous interview between Jagger and Muriel Grey on the influential UK rock show The Tube. I don't think the Stones had a UK top 10 single after that interview (could be wrong though.) Interestingly Robert did an interview for the Tube's Jools Holland and came over very well.

BBC 6 Music has really helped the bands of the 1970's by playing the classic tracks, so now you hear Street Fighting Man, Kashmir, The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway, See Emily Play next to acts like Field Music, Thundercat and Ghostpoet.

Rock changed massively itself. The hard rock fans themselves in my era listed to Iron Maiden and Motorhead.

But like I mentioned this is what happened in the UK (IMHO)  

I do remember those times well, I was a student in Manchester and punk was a massive thing. It did seem that journalists drove this, they all jumped on board as it was a new movement and nobody wanted to be late to the party. It was an ideal opportunity for journalists with huge egos to make a name for themselves by having the audacity to slate the established order and be at the start of this new revolution. There were punks who took it seriously but really it was just another fashion. I can remember so many that were punks one year to suddenly embrace disco the next year or new romantics the year after that. 

Its true that the big bands had lost touch with the world out there, bands like ELP and Yes were especially slated, they became anathema and they couldnt really understand what had gone wrong. ELP were touring with an orchestra and choir and playing Symphony's and singing of pirates. Yes were singing of Hindu philosophy and mentioned the Universe in almost every line! But... it was the press that decided we didnt want that anymore, we didnt want 20 minute guitar or drum solos, we didnt want symphonic arrangements, we didn't want to hear about the cosmos. It became a fashion to call all these bands pretentious and self-indulgent and 'boring old farts' or 'dinosaurs'. I can remember the number of times I heard that and thought... wow lets listen to the alternative..bands that cant sing, cant play, sound like shit and were basically a bunch of morons. Much as the press may have thought differently the old order were still very much there....in 78 Supertramp had the most successful album. in 79 Pink Floyd brought out the Wall which ended up being the 3rd highest selling album ever. Led Zep played Knebworth and brought out ITTOD which was reputed at the time  to have re-launched and saved the American albums market.    

[76229]

On 30/01/2018 at 5:36 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..    

[Strider]

17 hours ago, stanlove said:

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.

Oh boy, here we go again with the "punk killed Led Zeppelin" hyperbole. Led Zeppelin "out of style" to whom? A small coterie of rock media and hipster kids on-the-dole?

You must be English. You might have been there but you apparently weren't paying much attention.

Punk was fueled by media-hype and the hipster crowd, who had decided it was time for something new, something back-to-the-basics. Apart from a few writers, the rock journalism and cognoscenti were never in Led Zeppelin's corner. The fact that Led Zeppelin became so popular and huge without their help and critical stamp-of-approval was an affront to the rock critics' self-importance. They would relish any chance they had to knock Led Zeppelin down.

The Ramones provided that chance. It's no accident the seed of the "punk back to basics" idea sprouted in New York. The Andy Warhol jet-set crowd and the celebrity-obsessed glitterati New York scenesters never cottoned to Led Zeppelin and its hairy blue-collar Midlands of England roots, far preferring the cosmopolitan Londoners, The Rolling Stones and media-whore and aspirational social-climber Mick Jagger.

The Ramones and the CBGB bands clearly were inspired by The Velvet Underground, The Stooges, MC5, and The New York Dolls. They had the stench and allure of the gritty East-Side art scene that Andy Warhol and his crowd liked to slum in. And wherever Andy went, the media was sure to follow.

Once New York fell under the sway of the CBGB scene, the next objective was England. There is no overstating the importance The Ramones first trip to the UK supporting The Flamin' Groovies on the Fourth of July in 1976.

Two shows...July 4 at the Roundhouse and July 5 at Dingwalls. Just about everyone from the nascent punk scene in England were at one or both of those gigs, and as has been quoted by many who were there, after The Ramones played "overnight every band in the UK played faster".

The Sex Pistols and Damned and the Clash were just forming and trying to figure out their sound and it was as if The Ramones appeared and offered a blueprint. The NME lapped it up.

From that point, it was one Malcom McLaren publicity stunt after another and next thing you know, the Sex Pistols and punk rock are the rage in the U.K. Naturally, all this press and publicity gets bounced back to the U.S.

Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Queen, Rolling Stones, Aerosmith, Skynyrd, Ted Nugent, Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, Who, ELO, Boston, Kiss, Frampton, Heart...these are the popular bands and still the backbone of rock radio and the concert circuit. But with the exception of the Who and the Stones, the critics tend to hate these bands, especially the hard rock, heavy metal bands. And even the Stones and the Who are starting to see more negative reviews and falling sales for their recent albums and tours.

So with Malcom McLaren fanning the flames of the punks vs. dinosaur rock war in the U.K. press, many of the U.S. rock press see this as an opportunity to 1) knock Led Zeppelin and other FM rock royalty off their pedestal; and 2) kill disco.

So that is how 1977 became the Year of Punk as the media onslaught began. The old bands were dinosaurs, old-hat and old-fashioned and out-of-touch with the kids on the street. It was the new young tough bands from England and CBGBs and the street-scenes from Cleveland and San Francisco and Los Angeles that spoke to kids now.

I am not concerned now with the veracity or legitimacy of those claims...either at that time or today.

The important thing is the result.

Actually, I should say results, for there were two results... two entirely different results depending on where you lived.

In the U.K., where radio was in the hands of the government, hence real rock radio a scarcity on the average Brit's radio dial, the kids were far more under the sway of NME and the John Peel Show than their American counterparts. Britain was also a more depressing, politically despondent country than the U.S. at that time in the 1970s. If you weren't a Sloane Ranger, it seemed as if your future was either in the mines or on the dole.

So yeah, "Anarchy in the U.K." sounded like a good idea if you were a Brit teen. And in a country where it only took sales of a few hundred or thousand to make a dent in the Top of the Pops, it was fairly easy for the new punk bands to get in the charts. If NME named your single its "Single of the Week" then you were practically guaranteed to have a hit as NME's readers would go out like lemmings and buy the record.

If all you did was read the NME and watch TV, "punk" did seem to be sweeping across the U.K. Until you go back and look closely and find that Led Zeppelin's "Presence", "The Song Remains the Same", "ITTOD", and Pink Floyd's "Animals" and "The Wall", and Queen's "News of the World" and "Jazz" albums all sold more than any punk record during that time.

Oh, and Led Zeppelin played to huge crowds for two weekends at Knebworth. Demonstrating that three years of punk vitriol and hype had not diminished Led Zeppelin's appeal and concert-draw one iota.

In the U.S., the disconnect was even more pronounced. Sure, the hipsters that lived in New York, Los Angeles and other coastal or college towns where there was an independent radio presence picked up on the new punk bands. But as hard as Rolling Stone magazine and other rock media outlets tried to hype the punk bands, the reaction of Middle America was a big yawn.

For one thing, for a long time the only way you could buy any of the punk records was through costly imports. Secondly, most of mainstream rock radio refused to play punk at first....just outright rejected those bands. Third, it took years before many of those bands were able to tour the U.S. and when they finally did tour it was a short bumbling tour like the Sex Pistols 1978 U.S. tour.

So for many U.S. kids and rock fans, the whole punk thing was not a tangible experience. It was hard to actually hear and see the bands for yourself. Whereas bands like ZZ Top, Rush, Kiss, Springsteen, and Tom Petty were touring non-stop around the country.

By 1978, the music industry had created "new-wave", a more cuddly and approachable form of punk. But even these bands had a hard time penetrating the market, although they certainly made more headway and money than the Dead Boys and Johnny Thunders and Stiff Little Fingers.

While the media was pumping up the punk hysteria, do you want to know which new band was taking over the youth of America? The Mighty Van Halen!

As a further "fuck you" to Rolling Stone and the rock critics, when Led Zeppelin's "ITTOD" was released, sales went bonkers and it practically saved the industry that year. The Sex Pistols were dead as a band and Led Zeppelin was #1 for seven weeks (and every one of their previous albums were also in the Billboard Top 200 Album chart...a record never equalled).

It was as if punk had never happened.

Oh, and disco kept on during this time, too. Go back and look at the charts from 1976-1980 and you will find plenty of disco albums. More disco albums made #1 than punk albums during those years.

I am not saying punk rock didn't have merit or wasn't needed in some way. I loved a lot of punk bands and as one who had grown tired of ELP, Yes, Eagles, Deep Purple, Grateful Dead, and hated most of the new corporate rock bands like Foreigner, Journey, Boston, Frampton, I welcomed the fresh influx of these raw power bands.

But this whole idea that "Punk slayed Dinosaur Rock" and that kids everywhere burned or threw away their Led Zeppelin records is utter bullshit and punk mythologizing. Led Zeppelin's popularity remained constant, especially in America.

[jmorton]

I never believed that other bands were "jealous" of Zeppelin. The Stones, most of all, had zero reason to be jealous particularly in the 1970's.

I believe the dismissive comments all tend to center around Plant and Bonham. Bonham because he was seen as a "basher" of the drums (loud, unsubtle). We all know that is wrong and was a stereotype of Zeppelin's music. Plant I think made his own bed at times, as he tended to be a bit braggadocios and would throw shade at other acts. That's just who he was at the time and remained that way for some time. Whereas established acts in England all knew who Page and Jones were ... at least to some extent because of their studio time and (for Page) the Yardbirds stint. Bonham and Plant were newcomers. I can't speak to the North/South divide in England but that could play a factor as well.

I do know that Blackmore speaks highly of Page as a songwriter and said that he and Jimmy lived in the same Village

 

[Xolo1974]

1 hour ago, Strider said:

Oh boy, here we go again with the "punk killed Led Zeppelin" hyperbole. Led Zeppelin "out of style" to whom? A small coterie of rock media and hipster kids on-the-dole?

You must be English. You might have been there but you apparently weren't paying much attention.

Punk was fueled by media-hype and the hipster crowd, who had decided it was time for something new, something back-to-the-basics. Apart from a few writers, the rock journalism and cognoscenti were never in Led Zeppelin's corner. The fact that Led Zeppelin became so popular and huge without their help and critical stamp-of-approval was an affront to the rock critics' self-importance. They would relish any chance they had to knock Led Zeppelin down.

The Ramones provided that chance. It's no accident the seed of the "punk back to basics" idea sprouted in New York. The Andy Warhol jet-set crowd and the celebrity-obsessed glitterati New York scenesters never cottoned to Led Zeppelin and its hairy blue-collar Midlands of England roots, far preferring the cosmopolitan Londoners, The Rolling Stones and media-whore and aspirational social-climber Mick Jagger.

The Ramones and the CBGB bands clearly were inspired by The Velvet Underground, The Stooges, MC5, and The New York Dolls. They had the stench and allure of the gritty East-Side art scene that Andy Warhol and his crowd liked to slum in. And wherever Andy went, the media was sure to follow.

Once New York fell under the sway of the CBGB scene, the next objective was England. There is no overstating the importance The Ramones first trip to the UK supporting The Flamin' Groovies on the Fourth of July in 1976.

Two shows...July 4 at the Roundhouse and July 5 at Dingwalls. Just about everyone from the nascent punk scene in England were at one or both of those gigs, and as has been quoted by many who were there, after The Ramones played "overnight every band in the UK played faster".

The Sex Pistols and Damned and the Clash were just forming and trying to figure out their sound and it was as if The Ramones appeared and offered a blueprint. The NME lapped it up.

From that point, it was one Malcom McLaren publicity stunt after another and next thing you know, the Sex Pistols and punk rock are the rage in the U.K. Naturally, all this press and publicity gets bounced back to the U.S.

Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Queen, Rolling Stones, Aerosmith, Skynyrd, Ted Nugent, Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, Who, ELO, Boston, Kiss, Frampton, Heart...these are the popular bands and still the backbone of rock radio and the concert circuit. But with the exception of the Who and the Stones, the critics tend to hate these bands, especially the hard rock, heavy metal bands. And even the Stones and the Who are starting to see more negative reviews and falling sales for their recent albums and tours.

So with Malcom McLaren fanning the flames of the punks vs. dinosaur rock war in the U.K. press, many of the U.S. rock press see this as an opportunity to 1) knock Led Zeppelin and other FM rock royalty off their pedestal; and 2) kill disco.

So that is how 1977 became the Year of Punk as the media onslaught began. The old bands were dinosaurs, old-hat and old-fashioned and out-of-touch with the kids on the street. It was the new young tough bands from England and CBGBs and the street-scenes from Cleveland and San Francisco and Los Angeles that spoke to kids now.

I am not concerned now with the veracity or legitimacy of those claims...either at that time or today.

The important thing is the result.

Actually, I should say results, for there were two results... two entirely different results depending on where you lived.

In the U.K., where radio was in the hands of the government, hence real rock radio a scarcity on the average Brit's radio dial, the kids were far more under the sway of NME and the John Peel Show than their American counterparts. Britain was also a more depressing, politically despondent country than the U.S. at that time in the 1970s. If you weren't a Sloane Ranger, it seemed as if your future was either in the mines or on the dole.

So yeah, "Anarchy in the U.K." sounded like a good idea if you were a Brit teen. And in a country where it only took sales of a few hundred or thousand to make a dent in the Top of the Pops, it was fairly easy for the new punk bands to get in the charts. If NME named your single its "Single of the Week" then you were practically guaranteed to have a hit as NME's readers would go out like lemmings and buy the record.

If all you did was read the NME and watch TV, "punk" did seem to be sweeping across the U.K. Until you go back and look closely and find that Led Zeppelin's "Presence", "The Song Remains the Same", "ITTOD", and Pink Floyd's "Animals" and "The Wall", and Queen's "News of the World" and "Jazz" albums all sold more than any punk record during that time.

Oh, and Led Zeppelin played to huge crowds for two weekends at Knebworth. Demonstrating that three years of punk vitriol and hype had not diminished Led Zeppelin's appeal and concert-draw one iota.

In the U.S., the disconnect was even more pronounced. Sure, the hipsters that lived in New York, Los Angeles and other coastal or college towns where there was an independent radio presence picked up on the new punk bands. But as hard as Rolling Stone magazine and other rock media outlets tried to hype the punk bands, the reaction of Middle America was a big yawn.

For one thing, for a long time the only way you could buy any of the punk records was through costly imports. Secondly, most of mainstream rock radio refused to play punk at first....just outright rejected those bands. Third, it took years before many of those bands were able to tour the U.S. and when they finally did tour it was a short bumbling tour like the Sex Pistols 1978 U.S. tour.

So for many U.S. kids and rock fans, the whole punk thing was not a tangible experience. It was hard to actually hear and see the bands for yourself. Whereas bands like ZZ Top, Rush, Kiss, Springsteen, and Tom Petty were touring non-stop around the country.

By 1978, the music industry had created "new-wave", a more cuddly and approachable form of punk. But even these bands had a hard time penetrating the market, although they certainly made more headway and money than the Dead Boys and Johnny Thunders and Stiff Little Fingers.

While the media was pumping up the punk hysteria, do you want to know which new band was taking over the youth of America? The Mighty Van Halen!

As a further "fuck you" to Rolling Stone and the rock critics, when Led Zeppelin's "ITTOD" was released, sales went bonkers and it practically saved the industry that year. The Sex Pistols were dead as a band and Led Zeppelin was #1 for seven weeks (and every one of their previous albums were also in the Billboard Top 200 Album chart...a record never equalled).

It was as if punk had never happened.

Oh, and disco kept on during this time, too. Go back and look at the charts from 1976-1980 and you will find plenty of disco albums. More disco albums made #1 than punk albums during those years.

I am not saying punk rock didn't have merit or wasn't needed in some way. I loved a lot of punk bands and as one who had grown tired of ELP, Yes, Eagles, Deep Purple, Grateful Dead, and hated most of the new corporate rock bands like Foreigner, Journey, Boston, Frampton, I welcomed the fresh influx of these raw power bands.

But this whole idea that "Punk slayed Dinosaur Rock" and that kids everywhere burned or threw away their Led Zeppelin records is utter bullshit and punk mythologizing. Led Zeppelin's popularity remained constant, especially in America.

Well bloody said Strider. I don’t think that can be topped. I also don’t recollect many punk bands playing at Live Aid in the mid 80’s. This merely demonstrates their lack of longevity and absence of a lasting appeal. “Dinosaur Rock” on the other hand! As a 10 year old kid, I remember the eagerly awaited performances of the Who, Queen, Page/Plant/Jones etc. Their popularity never died and hasn’t since

[KellyGirl]

Keith is talking out of both sides of his mouth,  or at least I felt that way at first.  He says
Jimmy  Page is one of the most brilliant  guitarist  he's ever known,   yet he's not impressed with
Led Zeppelin.  Whaaattt!?!?   Page's guitar work IS Led Zeppelin.  That brilliancy was
demonstrated in Zep's music.   How can you give such a compliment only to yank it away
Keith?!?  

Well for me  I have to compare his comments to how I view Adele.  I think she has a gifted and
beautiful voice,   but I have ZERO desire to listen to her songs.  Her music does nothing for me.  I
know she's extremely popular,  and her voice is very  powerful,   but nope nada  no  enjoyment
from her albums.  It is possible to find a guitarist or singer very talented,  yet get nothing in return
from their music.  Strange as that sounds. 

Now here comes the tomatoes ready to be thrown at my head if your more pro Keith than
Jimmy.  I do think there is a form of jealousy.  Keith has made his name in music,  so you could
say he has no reason to be.  Sadly for the these guys their egos rear their ugly heads for
whatever reason.   Maybe as an artist  Keith  hasn't  been as  influential on the guitar as Page
has been to those guitarist that followed afterwards?   How many people picked up a guitar
because of Jimmy Page verses Keith Richards?     

This comparison between The Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin.  Why?  How do you compare
these two bands fairly?   The Stones have 55 years under their belt with  writing,   recording
and touring  across the world.  Over half of a century!!!   Zeppelin had 12.   The Stones have
been able maximize their exposure  because of the longevity of the band.  People in the 80s
90s  20s  at some time have been exposed to the Stones purposely or not.   Each decade
granted them a new way to connect with fans.  80s/90s MTV music video era,  American award
shows,  and hellooo the internet!   I can't face these two groups off.  There are too many
factors that make the playing field uneven.   The window of comparison imo is small.  British
guys all kind of  influenced  by  black American musicians,   40s decade born,   frontmen who
pranced and sashayed about wearing really really tight  stuff around their genitals and smack
addicted guitarists.  The rest is off the table for me.    

[Xolo1974]

1 hour ago, KellyGirl said:

   How many people picked up a guitar
because of Jimmy Page verses Keith Richards?

Me for starters

[IpMan]

30 minutes ago, Xolo1974 said:

Me for starters

I picked up a guitar because of Barbie Benton. I don't know but there was just something in the way she held that guitar so...lovingly.

Hubba Hubba 

[Autumn Moon]

17 hours ago, KellyGirl said:

The window of comparison imo is small.  British
guys all kind of  influenced  by  black American musicians,   40s decade born,   frontmen who
pranced and sashayed about wearing really really tight  stuff around their genitals and smack
addicted guitarists.  The rest is off the table for me.    

Thanks for your funny comment, made me smile.

Otherwise, this thread is pretty pointless. Just Keith`s opinion, so what? I really like the Stones until Mick Taylor left & I love Led Zeppelin- to compare them would be without rhyme or reason.

Who sold more tickets, made more money or played to the biggest crowd?????

pointless.........

[IpMan]

Well, as this amounts to a dick measuring contest anyway, which members had the best...member?

Not being serious BTW, just pointing out how silly opinions and comparisons are. The Stones or Zeppelin? Why not both equally? They are both great bands which gave the world some damn fine music and in the end that is all that matters.

[EaglesOfOneNest]

On 2/2/2018 at 5:03 PM, Xolo1974 said:

I just can’t listen to anything from the post Mick Taylor era in the Stones. Taylor was brilliant, and the albums and live music at that time were terrific. 

Agreed!

[IpMan]

1 hour ago, EaglesOfOneNest said:

Agreed!

I always wondered why they went with such a mediocre player like Woody after Taylor left. They could have had their pick of ANY guitarist and Woody was their man? I wonder if it had anything to do with Keith's ego? Maybe he was intimidated by Taylor and did not want to be upstaged again?

[EaglesOfOneNest]

12 minutes ago, IpMan said:

I always wondered why they went with such a mediocre player like Woody after Taylor left. They could have had their pick of ANY guitarist and Woody was their man? I wonder if it had anything to do with Keith's ego? Maybe he was intimidated by Taylor and did not want to be upstaged again?

Great point, re:  Keith's ego. I could definitely see that. While I think their '70's and early '80's era music with Woody is OK, the Mick Taylor period was by far their best

[KellyGirl]

Speaking of Ronnie.  Maybe it's only me who thinks this,  but in the handful of interviews I
have heard with Ronnie,   he always has this tone that's he's not an official Stones member.  I
can't pin point it exactly,  because it's not a bold statement,  rather his attitude.   Whenever
he's asked about playing with the Mick and Keith,  he acts like he's still a newbie or a rookie
that should be in awe that he's been asked play with the cool kids.  The word inferior comes
to mind.  

He speaks the way Jason Bonham would about Led Zeppelin;  how it's a great honor and
privilege to have been invited to play with a legendary band and musicians - which is rather
over the top in Ronnie's case since he's been in the band for over 43 years.  Do Mick and Keith
contribute to this?  I'm under that impression in a way.   Those above who mention Keith's
ego - Yes agreed too!
 

[Strider]

4 hours ago, IpMan said:

I always wondered why they went with such a mediocre player like Woody after Taylor left. They could have had their pick of ANY guitarist and Woody was their man? I wonder if it had anything to do with Keith's ego? Maybe he was intimidated by Taylor and did not want to be upstaged again?

 

4 hours ago, EaglesOfOneNest said:

Great point, re:  Keith's ego. I could definitely see that. While I think their '70's and early '80's era music with Woody is OK, the Mick Taylor period was by far their best

Now, now, let's not get too psychoanalytic. I don't think it was about Keith feeling threatened by a better guitar player at all.

For one thing, despite what some people say, Keith could play guitar. Ok, he wasn't Jimi Hendrix or Ritchie Blackmore flamboyantly fast, but he created great riffs and he could solo well enough to suit the song. One listen to "Gimmie Shelter" and "Sympathy for the Devil" should be enough to prove that to any naysayers.

Keith's playing didn't show signs of slippage until the 1978 tour, which despite what Jann "stanlove" Wenner tries to tell you, was an unmitigated disaster. You think Led Zeppelin's 1977 tour had problems and that their playing wasn't up to snuff? The Stones 1978 tour made Led Zeppelin's 1977 tour sound like Europe 1973.

But Keith was a riff machine on the 1969-72 tours. And the Stones were rock royalty. I am sure he felt secure in his position as top dog along with Mick Jagger in the band. They were the songwriters...they were the Glimmer Twins!

When Mick Taylor left, it was during a time when many others around the band were also displaying signs of having difficulty handling the drugs and wildness around the band. Jimmy Miller, Bobby Keyes and Nicky Hopkins, for instance.

Mick Taylor also chafed at not getting proper writing credits, as Mick and Keith always took the writing credits. Bill Wyman and Charlie Watts got nothing from the songwriting royalties. Their money came from touring.

I think at that point in time, the Stones' first priority in a replacement for Mick Taylor was someone who personality-wise and constitution-wise could fit in and mesh with the band. Mick Taylor was a very young kid when he joined the Stones and never seemed to fit in. His playing was fantastic but he tended to just stand there and play and not show any personality or emotion.

Ron Wood was the complete opposite. He was one of the lads, had been around the block a few times with the Faces and even already knew how to deal with a preening peacock of a singer through his time with Rod Stewart. He even looked like a Rolling Stone...like Keith's long-lost brother.

I think the Stones saw Woody as a fellow drinking buddy, someone who could handle the partying, and would be happy just being in the band and not squawk about songwriting credits. As for his playing, it's easy to forget that Wood was actually a pretty good player in The Faces, for that kind of rowdy, raucous, drunk rock 'n' roll. He was an underrated bottleneck slide player at that time, too. 

Was he Mick Taylor level? No. But he was certainly the equal of Keith Richards, if not better at certain things like bottleneck/slide.

If your position is that Keith's ego felt threatened by Mick Taylor then his ego would have been threatened by Ron Wood, too.

3 hours ago, KellyGirl said:

Speaking of Ronnie.  Maybe it's only me who thinks this,  but in the handful of interviews I
have heard with Ronnie,   he always has this tone that's he's not an official Stones member.  I
can't pin point it exactly,  because it's not a bold statement,  rather his attitude.   Whenever
he's asked about playing with the Mick and Keith,  he acts like he's still a newbie or a rookie
that should be in awe that he's been asked play with the cool kids.  The word inferior comes
to mind.  

He speaks the way Jason Bonham would about Led Zeppelin;  how it's a great honor and
privilege to have been invited to play with a legendary band and musicians - which is rather
over the top in Ronnie's case since he's been in the band for over 43 years.  Do Mick and Keith
contribute to this?  I'm under that impression in a way.   Those above who mention Keith's
ego - Yes agreed too!
 

Well, it took over 20 years before Mick and Keith even officially acknowledged that Ron Wood was a member of the Rolling Stones, so that probably plays a part in his attitude. Again though, it is exactly that whatever-devil-may-care attitude of Ron Wood that made him so appealing to Mick and Keith in the first place.

Edited February 5, 2018 by Strider

[76229]

4 hours ago, IpMan said:

I always wondered why they went with such a mediocre player like Woody after Taylor left. They could have had their pick of ANY guitarist and Woody was their man? I wonder if it had anything to do with Keith's ego? Maybe he was intimidated by Taylor and did not want to be upstaged again?

 

I'd say, because Woody fitted in. You can 'ave a larf with him, he won't threaten you as senior pro, he's not a singer, and everyone gets on well with him. If you were being cynical, you'd say this was the moment the Stones realised they had a lucrative future as a heritage act, and thus everyone getting on well was more important than getting a really white hot player.

Edit: Strider put it better than me!

 

 

Edited February 5, 2018 by 76229