Lee Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 (edited) 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. Edited January 27, 2008 by Lee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot dog Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 I've seen The Who live a number of times now (alas, also never with Moon) and they are still a formidable live act; you can tell they both mean it. The last time I saw the Stones was at Cardiff in 2006 and I have to say I found it an utterly soul-less experience - more theme park ride than rock & roll concert. The ticket prices were ridiculous (I bought a ticket on the lower tier directly opposite the stage off a tout outside for £40. The face value was about £90!!) and hence the venue wasn't sold out. You could actually buy seats incorporated into the stage set if you wanted to depart with even more money. Yes, Jagger is still full of energy, but you could see they were just going through the motions. I too was as the O2 for Zeppelin and have to say they were simply breathtaking. It would make a superb tour just as it was, but I can completely understand Robert's reluctance - it would be a great shame if they ended up like the Stones, IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ally Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 The difference is that they were 3 different bands that had they're own sound ...and vibe. Loved all of it. Pioneers in rock music along with the Beatles. Try naming 4 bands like that today. Fuck me i'm glad i'm over 50 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr E Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 They are my top three favourite bands! Each have their own unique style. I wish I was alive during the 60s/70s to witness them live in their heyday. I've seen the Rolling Stones and The Who live in recent years and they were both terrific. Unfortunately I wasn't lucky enough to attend the O2 reunion gig for Led Zeppelin so I guess I will never know what it's like to see them live . Still, I consider all three to be the greatest bands of all time and amazingly they all released my three favourite albums in same year! 1971 Led Zeppelin IV Sticky Fingers Who's Next Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 The difference is that they were 3 different bands that had they're own sound ...and vibe. Loved all of it. Pioneers in rock music along with the Beatles. I agree. I don't see why anyone would need their differences explained because I honestly don't see how anyone could get the sound of the three confused. Try naming 4 bands like that today. Fuck me i'm glad i'm over 50 I could name way more than 4 but here's 4 just for starters: R.E.M. Drive-By Truckers Wilco Ryan Adams and the Cardinals Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ally Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 I agree. I don't see why anyone would need their differences explained because I honestly don't see how anyone could get the sound of the three confused. I could name way more than 4 but here's 4 just for starters: R.E.M. Drive-By Truckers Wilco Ryan Adams and the Cardinals Fair enough, but I don't think the bands you mention carry the same...influence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 (edited) Fair enough, but I don't think the bands you mention carry the same...influence Perhaps not all three but I'd say R.E.M. have definitely had a very profound influence on music. Just look at how the musical landscape changed once they arrived on the scene. Like them or not, they've been credited with pioneering alternative music altogether, no mean feat. As for the others, what influence they may (or may not wield) may well occur over time. Edited January 29, 2008 by Jahfin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Action Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 This is easy. Led Zeppelin>Rolling Stones>Who. Next... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ally Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Perhaps not all three but I'd say R.E.M. have definitely had a very profound influence on music. Just look at how the musical landscape changed once they arrived on the scene. Like them or not, they've been credited with pioneering alternative music altogether, no mean feat. As for the others, what influence they may (or may not wield) may well occur over time. Yip, they did ..and I do like them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Posted January 29, 2008 Author Share Posted January 29, 2008 I agree. I don't see why anyone would need their differences explained because I honestly don't see how anyone could get the sound of the three confused. The sound of the three is not really what I meant, more to do with the appeal. For example, I'm really into all three, but there are some people on the Stones IORR website that can't stand Robert Plant's voice, or even Led Zeppelin as a band. That's something I find very hard to grasp, although I could easily see why some people wouldn't be into Bob Dylan, for example. For the record, by the way, IMO... Led Zeppelin>Cream>Who>Rolling Stones (in terms of band I've seen playing live) I'll admit seeing Cream was something I never thought I would get to do, so that colours my judgement a bit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.