Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
mstork

Keith Richards "Slated" the Led Zeppelin Reunion

Recommended Posts

The 2 most important factors are album sales and ticket sales.

Says who?

It depends on your definition of the word "bigger".

When I say "bigger" I mean more widely known.

The Rolling Stones' music and the members of the band are recognizable to a larger amount of people. They are recognizable to people who have never even bought a record. Which I can't say is true for Zeppelin.

Thriller has sold more copies than any Zeppelin album. Would you still be using the same "sales are the most important factor" argument if we were having a discussion of "Led Zeppelin vs Michael Jackson?" Since the tendancy around here seems to be to side with Zeppelin no matter what I don't think you would...

Edited by billee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like both bands but being a guitarist i know that led zeppelin was way more talented then the stones ever where or will be.

and don't even get me started on this one...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and don't even get me started on this one...

Why NOT get started on this one? You might as well-thus far, your argument has failed miserably. So you define "bigger" as more widely known? Alright, I can accept the fact that the Stones are more widely known-BECAUSE THEY WERE PUMPED THROUGH THE MEDIA.

I define bigger by other means: Led Zeppelin has sold over 300 million albums worldwide, is the top third or fourth selling act in history, is tied with The Beatles as the only other act to have five Diamond Awards(awarded by the R.I.A.A. for listing an album at 10 million or more units sold and EASILY drew and STILL can draw live crowds as large as the Stones ever did.

Incidentally, Keith Richards is a prick...

Edited by NastyNole1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's the history of the Rolling Stones, the Who and Led Zeppelin slamming each other as I know it.

[*]In 1986 in the Guitar World tribute to Jimmy Page Keith says, "Jimmy's the best. Now, Zeppelin I never cared for, all those histrionics. The Who, either. Sorry chaps and all, but piss on `em. I could never get along in a band like that with a posing, posturing lead singer." Like Mick Jagger doesn't pose and posture?!

Didn't Mick sleep with david bowie and Micks daughter is the biggest slut in London. Ive never seen jimmy fallon make fun of Robert plant likes he does on Mick. If somebody said that the Stones were a bigger band then zep. i can't argue with them because they been around the longest and they always will be considered the Anti Beatles back in the early sixties. But lets take a look at the sales numbers for records

The stones according to wiki has 17 studio albums at least 10 compilations albums (greatest hits) 10 live albums and countless singles. so that's 37 record releases.

Zep has 9 studio albums (inc. Coda) 3 greatest hits ( early, latter and Mother ship) 3 live and 3 box sets ( re masters, box sets) so thats 18 records.

Stones have 66 mil sold divided by 37 thats 1.7 mil per record

Zep have 111 mil sold divided by 18 thats 6.1 per record

The stones been around for 47+ years

Zep been around for 39 but only played for 12.

The stones are the greatest Rock and Roll Band

Zep is the greatest Rock Band

This would've been the perfect discussion for the ol 59

Edited by Pb Derigable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oh please clearly your just biased to the stones

Actually, if you put a gun to my head and made me choose one, I'd probably go with Zeppelin.

It's just annoying when you read comments on a board devoted to ANY band, because 95% of the people who post on it are incapable of any kind of objectivity.

I'm assuming that with your "I'm a guitarist so I know that Zeppelin has more talent" comment you are implying that the songs are more difficult to play, thus making the person who wrote them more talented.

1. Difficulty does not equal talent. There's more to writing a good song than coming up with a tricky riff or great guitar solo.

2. If you think Rolling Stones songs are "easy" then you're probably playing them wrong.

3. I'm a guitarist too, so for me anyway that's not going to give your argument anymore merit.

Edited by billee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why NOT get started on this one? You might as well-thus far, your argument has failed miserably. So you define "bigger" as more widely known? Alright, I can accept the fact that the Stones are more widely known-BECAUSE THEY WERE PUMPED THROUGH THE MEDIA.

OK.

So you agree with me.

Awesome.

(you'll notice if you actually read my posts that I never said The Stones were "better" )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, if you put a gun to my head and made me choose one, I'd probably go with Zeppelin.

It's just annoying when you read comments on a board devoted to ANY band, because 95% of the people who post on it are incapable of any kind of objectivity.

I'm assuming that with your "I'm a guitarist so I know that Zeppelin has more talent" comment you are implying that the songs are more difficult to play, thus making the person who wrote them more talented.

1. Difficulty does not equal talent. There's more to writing a good song than coming up with a tricky riff or great guitar solo.

2. If you think Rolling Stones songs are "easy" then you're probably playing them wrong.

3. I'm a guitarist too, so for me anyway that's not going to give your argument anymore merit.

No actually I agree with you 100% difficulty doesn't equal talent who's to say whats difficult anyway everyone plays there own way. Also I never said I think stones songs are easy. In fact I found some of their songs harder then some of Zeppelins. But the amount of creativity in some of Zeppelins stuff blows the Stones out of the water. Plus the sales numbers speak for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Says who?

It depends on your definition of the word "bigger".

When I say "bigger" I mean more widely known.

The Rolling Stones' music and the members of the band are recognizable to a larger amount of people. They are recognizable to people who have never even bought a record. Which I can't say is true for Zeppelin.

Thriller has sold more copies than any Zeppelin album. Would you still be using the same "sales are the most important factor" argument if we were having a discussion of "Led Zeppelin vs Michael Jackson?" Since the tendancy around here seems to be to side with Zeppelin no matter what I don't think you would...

Sales is the most objective way to measure who is bigger and when 1 band has sold more albums AND has bigger tours, they're the bigger band. I couldn't care less, I love the Stones and Zep equally. I'm just telling you the way it is. Zep dominated in a way the Stones never will. As for Michael Jackson, Thriller was a bigger album than any Zep album, but Zep was a bigger group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the Stones (or anyone else for that matter), announce a one off concert and hold a lottery for 18000 tickets over the internet and more than 100 million hits (requests for tickets), cause the site to meltdown....

Then and only then, they could be deemed bigger than Zeppelin.

As for the initial reaction to Keef's comments you can't tell if he was being serious or taking the piss because unlike video, printed media shows no emotion.

And besides Uncut want to sell magazines, don't they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why NOT get started on this one? You might as well-thus far, your argument has failed miserably. So you define "bigger" as more widely known? Alright, I can accept the fact that the Stones are more widely known-BECAUSE THEY WERE PUMPED THROUGH THE MEDIA.

I define bigger by other means: Led Zeppelin has sold over 300 million albums worldwide, is the top third or fourth selling act in history, is tied with The Beatles as the only other act to have five Diamond Awards(awarded by the R.I.A.A. for listing an album at 10 million or more units sold and EASILY drew and STILL can draw live crowds as large as the Stones ever did.

My thoughts exactly. We have to remember here that the Stones, along with the Beatles, were more media friendly than Zeppelin were, so that alone makes them more WIDELY known. Also, the Stones are still recording new albums and touring and that gives them more exposure to the world. Zep is by far my favorite rock band of all time, but the Stones would be 2nd on my list. I still love Keef too!! B)

Edited by Melanie_72

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to this topic and to what Keith Richards has said, I say one thing: FUCK THE ROLLING STONES! I have NEVER understood the appeal that they have. Titled them the "Greatest Rock and Roll Band"?? Ya right. Now, don't get me wrong, the Stones have got some good tunes but anyone comparing them with Zeppelin is highly mistaken. First, The Stones power peaked (for me at least) on Let It Bleed. That is their best album and it still comes nowhere close to ANYTHING Zeppelin put out. I'm sure that these statements I'm making are "too harsh" or some bullshit like that right? I'm positive someone is going to come along and say "everyone is entitled to their own opinion" but WTF does that mean? Everywhere I go on this site I see some dumbass saying "let everyone have their own opinion". But, guess what? No one is taking your opinions away from you! I hate that "opinion" crap that's posted here. Let me have my opinions, say what I want to say, you have yours, and then shut the fuck up about people not letting others have opinions. I'm fine with everyone hating what I've said here, just don't acuse me of stripping opinions away!

Edited by MightyZep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly, here's how it is with Keith Richards:

I have read numerous interviews of Jimmy Page saying Led Zeppelin will not get back together and be like the Stones -- on a nostalgia tour. In other words, he states that the Stones have not continued growing, but instead are living off past hits, doing the same things over and over again. I guess this is perceived as a slight against the Stones. I believe that Keith Richards has read/heard this and took a little jab back at the Page and the guys. Seemed a little childish to me.

As for people here saying that the Stones are not legends, that is a little ridiculous. Head to head, they could never compete with Led Zeppelin for fan interest or musical talent, but they are a legendary rock group, partly due to longevity. You put each band in a two large stadiums located in the same city and see who sells out first or garners more interest. I suspect it would be Led Zeppelin. Skeptics will say it is because a Led Zeppelin concert is so rare and going to the Stones is easily attainable. However, I am basing this on if they each were around for the same amount of time doing the same amount of concerts. Of course, this is just my opinion. I believe that only the Beatles or Elvis would give Led Zeppelin a run for fan interest, but it would not be lop-sided, no matter who wins.

Just my two cents.

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Stones have always been jealous of Zeppelin. I believe this is because they (the Stones) came up in the early 60's and were in the shadow of the Beatles, then when the 70's began Zep was on top. The called themselves the Greatest Rock 'n Roll Band in the world, but Zep was known as the BIGGEST Rock 'n Roll Band in the world - which pissed them off. So, oh well - Keith go and try to climb another coconut tree you wasted bastard! :P

Peace.

____________________

"Art changes people, people change the world." - John Butler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ziggyp22...

I think there may be times during the 1970's when the sort of comparison you mention was possible to an extent. Did Zep and The Stones tour the U.S. A in the same year? Did they play the same venues,or places close to each other with similar capacities?What happened? Who sold out quickest and how many nights? Also, it's worth remembering that[ we're told] Zep didn't really employ much in the way of P.R until part way through the 1970's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keith Richards has basically never liked any rock bands, so this is nothing new.

If your not Chuck Berry or Muddy Waters, he doesn't respect you, thats just Keith.

What bothers me is his need to put down Mick Jagger all the time, this has really gotten old, boring, repetetive and worst of all, totally irrelevant.

Maybe Keith Richards still enjoys needling Jagger in the press, but I find it rather sad at this point in time.

Hey Keith, shutup and play yer guitar.

Edited by snapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clearly, here's how it is with Keith Richards:

I have read numerous interviews of Jimmy Page saying Led Zeppelin will not get back together and be like the Stones -- on a nostalgia tour. In other words, he states that the Stones have not continued growing, but instead are living off past hits, doing the same things over and over again. I guess this is perceived as a slight against the Stones. I believe that Keith Richards has read/heard this and took a little jab back at the Page and the guys. Seemed a little childish to me.

As for people here saying that the Stones are not legends, that is a little ridiculous. Head to head, they could never compete with Led Zeppelin for fan interest or musical talent, but they are a legendary rock group, partly due to longevity. You put each band in a two large stadiums located in the same city and see who sells out first or garners more interest. I suspect it would be Led Zeppelin. Skeptics will say it is because a Led Zeppelin concert is so rare and going to the Stones is easily attainable. However, I am basing this on if they each were around for the same amount of time doing the same amount of concerts. Of course, this is just my opinion. I believe that only the Beatles or Elvis would give Led Zeppelin a run for fan interest, but it would not be lop-sided, no matter who wins.

Just my two cents.

Thanks!

I know Robert has said something to that effect but I didn't realize Jimmy also stated the same thing. Now it seems he's raring to go again! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In regards to this topic and to what Keith Richards has said, I say one thing: FUCK THE ROLLING STONES! I have NEVER understood the appeal that they have. Titled them the "Greatest Rock and Roll Band"?? Ya right. Now, don't get me wrong, the Stones have got some good tunes but anyone comparing them with Zeppelin is highly mistaken.

No I agree with you...

I've never really thought the Stones were that good. I mean their Hyde Park concert in '69 was a bit pissweak.

Although love him or hate him, Mick is the most original front man you'll ever find and god bless him for it (just thank god her never persued that acting career).

But as for the rest of the stones, I couldn't care less about them. None of them were brilliant musicians (have you ever heard Charlie Watts play a drum fill??) they had some decent songs like Lets Spend The Night Together and Jumpin Jack Flash, although I always much prefered the version of that song by Leon Russell at the Bangladesh Do.

But the thing about the Stones for me is that, they chased for hit songs like The Beatles, but they never had the musical depth of The Beatles, and they had their rock riffs but never fleshed out and played as well as Zep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was there too, and it was fucking great. :D

Yes, that show was raw and ragged. And they were breaking in a new guitarist (who SHINED anyway!). But it was not any sloppier than a few Zep shows I've heard. They played a lot of stuff you'd never hear again as well. Might have been sloppy, but in a magnificent way. Great show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×