Whats up with Keith Richards on LZ?

[IpMan]

Well, at least Richard's or Townshend never threw a glass of orange juice all over a guitar player, on stage, while he was playing.

I mean shit man, its one thing to not like why you hear, its quite another to try and electrocute the poor bastard.

[stanlove]

On 1/3/2018 at 1:13 PM, EaglesOfOneNest said:

I think it stems entirely from jealousy. Of course, people's tastes differ, but I think the Stones and the Who are great bands, and they had quite a bit of success before Zep ever came on the scene, so naturally one could see there's a bit of "who're these wankers??"... add to that their financial success thanks to Peter Grant and of course a bunch of 20-something famous guys couldn't stand them

 

 

Richards said in a 1969 interview that he did not like Led Zeppelin That was after their first album and before they were big. It had nothing to do with jealousy, he just did not like them. Big deal. I have never understand why people get upset if someone doesn't like there band. I just saw a youtube video recently where Page says the Beatles didn't do anything before 1967 that is worth writing home about. You should see the comments of Beatles fans.

 

For the record the Richards has nothing to be jealous about Led Zeppelin about. He is 4 times as rich and famous and he is still playing his music, something Zeppelin stopped doing 40 years ago. In the 1970s it was Zeppelin that was jealous of the Stones not the other way around,. We know what happened in the 70s when Zeppelin tried to tour at the same time as the Stones. Zeppelin was very upset about it and everyone knows it.  

 

 

 

 

Edited January 28, 2018 by stanlove

[IpMan]

12 minutes ago, stanlove said:

 

 

Richards said in a 1969 interview that he did not like Led Zeppelin That was after their first album and before they were big. It had nothing to do with jealousy, he just did not like them. Big deal. I have never understand why people get upset if someone doesn't like there band. I just saw a youtube video recently where Page says the Beatles didn't do anything before 1967 that is worth writing home about. You should see the comments of Beatles fans.

 

For the record the Richards has nothing to be jealous about Led Zeppelin about. He is 4 times as rich and famous and he is still playing his music, something Zeppelin stopped doing 40 years ago. In the 1970s it was Zeppelin that was jealous of the Stones not the other way around,. We know what happened in the 70s when Zeppelin tried to tour at the same time as the Stones. Zeppelin was very upset about it and everyone knows it.  

 

 

 

 

Zeppelin were upset because the Stones received all of the press coverage while Zep received little. Both bands were selling out however Zeppelin actually made more money off their tour than the Stones did on theirs. It had nothing to do with popularity and everything with feeling ignored by the press. However Zeppelin brought this on themselves by their behavior to the press prior to 73'.

I always found this bit of history quite funny and silly. Zeppelin first shuns the press then gets upset because the press will not cover them. Its kinda like ignoring a girl and then getting pissed off because she no longer comes around.

[stanlove]

8 minutes ago, IpMan said:

Zeppelin were upset because the Stones received all of the press coverage while Zep received little. Both bands were selling out however Zeppelin actually made more money off their tour than the Stones did on theirs. It had nothing to do with popularity and everything with feeling ignored by the press. However Zeppelin brought this on themselves by their behavior to the press prior to 73'.

I always found this bit of history quite funny and silly. Zeppelin first shuns the press then gets upset because the press will not cover them. Its kinda like ignoring a girl and then getting pissed off because she no longer comes around.

 

The Stones got bigger box office then Zeppelin in the 1970s.. Zeppelin because of Grant might have taken more of the box office money but the Stones were usually getting better gates when they toured in the same years. They charged more per ticket and they played to bigger crowds.  Both were huge but the Stones were the established act at the time and Zeppelin was on the way up.

[IpMan]

8 hours ago, stanlove said:

 

The Stones got bigger box office then Zeppelin in the 1970s.. Zeppelin because of Grant might have taken more of the box office money but the Stones were usually getting better gates when they toured in the same years. They charged more per ticket and they played to bigger crowds.  Both were huge but the Stones were the established act at the time and Zeppelin was on the way up.

Of course, after all, it's just money. I am sure Keith and Mick were thrilled as larks that Zeppelin were bringing in more money, yet playing smaller venues.

I don't know where you are from but where I come from that is a big win for Zeppelin, laughing all the way to the bank.

[stanlove]

11 hours ago, IpMan said:

Of course, after all, it's just money. I am sure Keith and Mick were thrilled as larks that Zeppelin were bringing in more money, yet playing smaller venues.

I don't know where you are from but where I come from that is a big win for Zeppelin, laughing all the way to the bank.

 

 

If the Stones wanted to demand the same percentage as Zeppelin they could have obviously. 

[IpMan]

2 hours ago, stanlove said:

 

 

If the Stones wanted to demand the same percentage as Zeppelin they could have obviously. 

I believe you have won most ridiculous comment of the day !!!

So, you are saying they simply did not want the money? Ok, sure, that makes sense.

[stanlove]

56 minutes ago, IpMan said:

I believe you have won most ridiculous comment of the day !!!

So, you are saying they simply did not want the money? Ok, sure, that makes sense.

So you are saying the Stones could not get the same deal despite playing to just as big or bigger crowds and charging more per ticket. Does that make any sense to you?  I have read that Bill Graham said the Stones were more reasonable, meaning they thought the deal they had was fair. Obviously ( unless you want to explain why not ) they could have asked for as much as Zeppelin did.

Someone brought up Zeppelins 1977 concert as a record breaker but the Stones played before 82 thousand in 1975 and charged as much per ticket in 1975 as Zeppelin did for their Tampa concert of 1977. Grant was the best manager of a rock band ever and I like the way the whole thing was about building the Zeppelin myth.  One myth that he and the band started was the fact that they were a bigger live draw then the Stones. They all commented on it because the Stones were the top dog and the one who everyone was compared to. It was a way to build the myth. The Stones paid little attention to Zeppelin in the 70s. They were already the established band.

Edited January 29, 2018 by stanlove

[Stryder1978]

stanlove,

The Stones blow...should have hung it up 40 years ago.  I play better lead guitar than Keef...and I suck at guitar!

[Strider]

50 minutes ago, stanlove said:

So you are saying the Stones could not get the same deal despite playing to just as big or bigger crowds and charging more per ticket. Does that make any sense to you?  I have read that Bill Graham said the Stones were more reasonable, meaning they thought the deal they had was fair. Obviously ( unless you want to explain why not ) they could have asked for as much as Zeppelin did.

Someone brought up Zeppelins 1977 concert as a record breaker but the Stones played before 82 thousand in 1975 and charged as much per ticket in 1975 as Zeppelin did for their Tampa concert of 1977. Grant was the best manager of a rock band ever and I like the way the whole thing was about building the Zeppelin myth.  One myth that he and the band started was the fact that they were a bigger live draw then the Stones. They all commented on it because the Stones were the top dog and the one who everyone was compared to. It was a way to build the myth. The Stones paid little attention to Zeppelin in the 70s. They were already the established band.

You are arguing apples and oranges. You sound like a Rolling Stones fanboy trying to troll the Zep forum.

Your various posts and arguments are scattershot and don't take context into account but I don't have time to address and correct all of your mistaken assumptions.

But I will address one. It clearly stated in the Guinness Book of World Records that the record was for paid attendance for a single act. Led Zeppelin broke the Beatles record in 1973 at Tampa, then the Who broke the record in 1976 at the Silverdome, which is where Zeppelin set the new record in 1977.

The Rolling Stones never played solo. They always had two or sometimes even three opening acts to help sell tickets. That was the case in 1975. That was also the case in 1981 at the New Orleans Superdome where a large percentage of the crowd was there more to see Van Halen than the Stones.

As for the fact that you brag how the Stones charged more for tickets in 1975 than Led Zeppelin, that just points up the fact that Led Zeppelin cared more about their fans than the Stones. If you look at their touring schedules through the 1970s, the Stones were more into playing crappy outdoor stadium gigs where they could take the money and run and their ticket prices inflated more than Led Zeppelin's as the decade went on.

As for your claim that the Stones paid little attention to Led Zeppelin, that's a baldfaced lie. Plenty of interviews and books over the years prove that the Stones, especially Mick, paid a lot of attention to what Zeppelin was doing and the gate money they were getting.

Both bands were huge draws in the 1970s. They were equally dominant at the box office...1a and 1b. Everyone else was playing for second place. There is no shame in being honest and admitting that point.

What is inarguable and what the numbers show as unassailable fact is that Led Zeppelin's records far outsold the Rolling Stones in the 1970s...and beyond.

[Autumn Moon]

40 minutes ago, Stryder1978 said:

stanlove,

The Stones blow...should have hung it up 40 years ago.  I play better lead guitar than Keef...and I suck at guitar!

It`s all very well to say that,  he has been playing rythm guitar most of the time, anyway.

[Sems Fir]

Hi Stanlove,

I hope you are well.  I see the topic is going to be revisited again.  It's unfortunate our previous discussion was sidetracked.  The old thread was here: 

 

Last mention I posted the cancelled JFK show Zep where Zep were going to play in front of over 90 thousand without an opening act, but I didn't see a response from you.  If you'd like to continue our discussion let me know.

Robert

www.anextranickel.com

[stanlove]

16 hours ago, Sems Fir said:

Hi Stanlove,

I hope you are well.  I see the topic is going to be revisited again.  It's unfortunate our previous discussion was sidetracked.  The old thread was here: 

 

Last mention I posted the cancelled JFK show Zep where Zep were going to play in front of over 90 thousand without an opening act, but I didn't see a response from you.  If you'd like to continue our discussion let me know.

Robert

www.anextranickel.com

I know you put too much emphasis on opening acts. I saw the other day an article where the Stones sold out the 1975 tour immedietly and they did not announce opening acts. The used opening acts because they did not want to play for three hours., hey did not need them to sell out stadiums. Most of their tours the opening acts did not even play for long. You are making the case that people were paying huge ticket prices to watch an opening act for 40 minutes. Didn't happen.

[stanlove]

19 hours ago, Strider said:

You are arguing apples and oranges. You sound like a Rolling Stones fanboy trying to troll the Zep forum.

Your various posts and arguments are scattershot and don't take context into account but I don't have time to address and correct all of your mistaken assumptions.

But I will address one. It clearly stated in the Guinness Book of World Records that the record was for paid attendance for a single act. Led Zeppelin broke the Beatles record in 1973 at Tampa, then the Who broke the record in 1976 at the Silverdome, which is where Zeppelin set the new record in 1977.

The Rolling Stones never played solo. They always had two or sometimes even three opening acts to help sell tickets. That was the case in 1975. That was also the case in 1981 at the New Orleans Superdome where a large percentage of the crowd was there more to see Van Halen than the Stones.

As for the fact that you brag how the Stones charged more for tickets in 1975 than Led Zeppelin, that just points up the fact that Led Zeppelin cared more about their fans than the Stones. If you look at their touring schedules through the 1970s, the Stones were more into playing crappy outdoor stadium gigs where they could take the money and run and their ticket prices inflated more than Led Zeppelin's as the decade went on.

As for your claim that the Stones paid little attention to Led Zeppelin, that's a baldfaced lie. Plenty of interviews and books over the years prove that the Stones, especially Mick, paid a lot of attention to what Zeppelin was doing and the gate money they were getting.

Both bands were huge draws in the 1970s. They were equally dominant at the box office...1a and 1b. Everyone else was playing for second place. There is no shame in being honest and admitting that point.

What is inarguable and what the numbers show as unassailable fact is that Led Zeppelin's records far outsold the Rolling Stones in the 1970s...and beyond.

Give me the proof that the Stones were paying alot of attention to what Zeppelin was doing. 

 

I have said before i am fine with just saying they were both so big that it was hard to say who was bigger. The only time i object is when a Zeppelin fan claims Zeppelin was bigger then the Stones on the road.  That myth was started by Zeppelin themselves and I have seen Zeppelin fans blindly repeat it for decades.

In 1978 actually the Stones put on  small club shows for the fans., They were bigger then they ever were and could have easily sold out stadiums all over the country ( they did play some stadiums and broke all records ) but decided to step back.

 

[IpMan]

8 minutes ago, stanlove said:

Give me the proof that the Stones were paying alot of attention to what Zeppelin was doing. 

 

I have said before i am fine with just saying they were both so big that it was hard to say who was bigger. The only time i object is when a Zeppelin fan claims Zeppelin was bigger then the Stones on the road.  That myth was started by Zeppelin themselves and I have seen Zeppelin fans blindly repeat it for decades.

In 1978 actually the Stones put on  small club shows for the fans., They were bigger then they ever were and could have easily sold out stadiums all over the country ( they did play some stadiums and broke all records ) but decided to step back.

 

I believe your statement is a wee bit disingenuous as it was you who started this whole pissing contest.

[stanlove]

1 hour ago, IpMan said:

I believe your statement is a wee bit disingenuous as it was you who started this whole pissing contest.

 

1 hour ago, IpMan said:

I believe your statement is a wee bit disingenuous as it was you who started this whole pissing contest.

No

 

21 hours ago, Strider said:

You are arguing apples and oranges. You sound like a Rolling Stones fanboy trying to troll the Zep forum.

Your various posts and arguments are scattershot and don't take context into account but I don't have time to address and correct all of your mistaken assumptions.

But I will address one. It clearly stated in the Guinness Book of World Records that the record was for paid attendance for a single act. Led Zeppelin broke the Beatles record in 1973 at Tampa, then the Who broke the record in 1976 at the Silverdome, which is where Zeppelin set the new record in 1977.

The Rolling Stones never played solo. They always had two or sometimes even three opening acts to help sell tickets. That was the case in 1975. That was also the case in 1981 at the New Orleans Superdome where a large percentage of the crowd was there more to see Van Halen than the Stones.

As for the fact that you brag how the Stones charged more for tickets in 1975 than Led Zeppelin, that just points up the fact that Led Zeppelin cared more about their fans than the Stones. If you look at their touring schedules through the 1970s, the Stones were more into playing crappy outdoor stadium gigs where they could take the money and run and their ticket prices inflated more than Led Zeppelin's as the decade went on.

As for your claim that the Stones paid little attention to Led Zeppelin, that's a baldfaced lie. Plenty of interviews and books over the years prove that the Stones, especially Mick, paid a lot of attention to what Zeppelin was doing and the gate money they were getting.

Both bands were huge draws in the 1970s. They were equally dominant at the box office...1a and 1b. Everyone else was playing for second place. There is no shame in being honest and admitting that point.

What is inarguable and what the numbers show as unassailable fact is that Led Zeppelin's records far outsold the Rolling Stones in the 1970s...and beyond.

By the way I won't argue about who cared more about their fans. The Stones deserve their reputation when it comes to that.

[Sems Fir]

1 hour ago, stanlove said:

I know you put too much emphasis on opening acts. I saw the other day an article where the Stones sold out the 1975 tour immedietly and they did not announce opening acts. The used opening acts because they did not want to play for three hours., hey did not need them to sell out stadiums. Most of their tours the opening acts did not even play for long. You are making the case that people were paying huge ticket prices to watch an opening act for 40 minutes. Didn't happen.

Obviously you didn't go back and reread the past thread.  I hardly was putting emphasis on opening acts.  I was stating facts not fiction and you bailed on the thread when I presented the 90,000 plus ticket sale number.  Why continue to come on Led Zeppelin's official website with a personal axe to grind?  If you are a Zeppelin fan then you know that years before The Stones small club tour Zeppelin performed a return to the clubs tour right?  Zeppelin could have played a larger venue circuit and sell out the tour but stepped back.  I also hardly made an emphasis on ticket prices.  If you want to discuss having other acts on the bill and still performing we can add the Bath Blues Festival (1970) in there if you want to talk attendance numbers.

Robert

anextranickel.com

[the chase]

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..    

Edited January 30, 2018 by the chase

[SymphonyX]

22 hours ago, Stryder1978 said:

stanlove,

The Stones blow...should have hung it up 40 years ago.  I play better lead guitar than Keef...and I suck at guitar!

 

 

The Stones are a snooze.  They have their Jukebox hits, but the also need 15 people on stage to get the crowd motivated.

[Strider]

8 hours ago, stanlove said:

 

By the way I won't argue about who cared more about their fans. The Stones deserve their reputation when it comes to that.

Yes, the Stones deserve their well-known reputation for gouging their fans. As far back as 1969, Ralph J. Gleason of the San Francisco Chronicle took note of this fact.

[stanlove]

On 1/30/2018 at 12:36 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..    

Agree with everything. Again i am not knocking Zeppelin at all i just bring it up when i see threads where people claim that Zeppelin was a bigger concert draw then the Stones in the 1970s. I have seen Zeppelin fans make that claim since the 70s and it's because Zeppelin themselves started the myth. I have seen everyone member of the band and grant repeat that myth but basic math shows it not to be true.  I agree that both were so big that it really doesn't matter.

I just a revisionist history thing going on with that topic. No knock on Zeppelin. 

 

[stanlove]

On 1/29/2018 at 2:18 PM, Stryder1978 said:

stanlove,

The Stones blow...should have hung it up 40 years ago.  I play better lead guitar than Keef...and I suck at guitar!

I don't get into the whole who sucks argument. There is no point.  All I see is you saying that you personally don't like the Stones., everyone has their opinions.  I think the Stones were a much better band then Zeppelin ( songwriting ) but that is just my opinion.

Edited February 2, 2018 by stanlove

[the-ocean87]

35 minutes ago, stanlove said:

I don't get into the whole who sucks argument. There is no point.  All I see is you saying that you personally don't like the Stones., everyone has their opinions.  I think the Stones were a much better band then Zeppelin ( songwriting ) but that is just my opinion.

Good songwriters, yes, but very weak performers (out of time, out of tune). Mick Taylor was the only one in the band who played his instrument above beginner level.

[Stryder1978]

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. 

[stanlove]

1 hour ago, the-ocean87 said:

Good songwriters, yes, but very weak performers (out of time, out of tune). Mick Taylor was the only one in the band who played his instrument above beginner level.

I don't argue with Zeppelin fans when they say that Zeppelin was a better live band. I am a huge Stones fan but I can see thinking that Zeppelin got their songs across better live then the Stones did. 69-70 live Zeppelin has a WOW factor to it no doubt.