Lee Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 I want to start a thread about the difference between The Stones, The Who and Zep. Can't see the thread yet, so I'll start one here! These are three of my favourite bands ever. All put on a brilliant live show. I saw all three last year, the Who twice (Albert Hall & Wembley Arena), the Stones three times at the O2, and Zeppelin once at the same venue. They are all more or less the same age and can still put out more energy than many bands half their age. The differences between the three would probably take up a small book if explored from every angle, so I'll limit it to their current abilities as live bands.... The Stones put on a great show, but are very much into the 'entertainment' aspect with Jagger the best frontman of the three (in terms of putting on a performance, getting the crowd on their feet etc.). Keith Richards playing was a lot worse than in previous years, and I suspect that without Ronnie (and sometimes Blondie and Mick) playing alongside him, he might be viewed in a different light. I really do think the brain op was a lot more dangerous than he is letting on, and I suspect his playing has been really impaired by this. It's a real shame, because I've seen the guy as the main driving force at previous Stones gigs...this time he seemed content to rest on his laurels and be The Legend. I should point out that I had a very good close-up view for all three gigs (7th row was the worst seat I had). The Who ('the two') have a lot more power behind them and can still blow me away. I must admit I lost interest after the Ox died and they just carried on with the tour they were on a few days later, just seemed really business-like, as if he was just a component that could be easily replaced. Entwhistle was one of the best bass players ever, and made a huge impact on their performance. However, my interest was rekindled after Live 8, and I saw them a couple of times in 2005, at Hyde Park and the Roundhouse, and they are definitely still worth seeing. As for Led Zeppelin...in this context it's probably a bit unfair. The Stones and to a lesser extent, the Who, have both been on the road quite a bit over the past 25 years. Led Zep played their first full concert since 1980 with a point to prove, and, as many have pointed out, went at it like a band that had just formed, with energy and enthusiasm more appropriate for a bunch of teenagers. In terms of the gigs I saw last year, they easily topped the list. I'll happily admit that I didn't see the Who until 1979, after Keith Moon died, so am prepared to imagine the Who circa 1969 - 1975 would have given Zep a run for their money. However, the first time I saw the Who (August 18th 1979) , was the same month I saw the Knebworth gigs, and Zeppelin were certainly better then, too. One final point: The Stones have about a dozen people on stage, including horn section, backing vocals, etc. The Who have about six (including the excellent Zak Starkey on drums). Led Zeppelin don't need any extra baggage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.