rolling stones vs. led zeppelin

stones

yeah, Stones are better if only for the fact i still like most of their hits, as oppose to Zep.

Stones. They're intentionally funny, whereas Zep are unintentionally funny (mostly through their pomposity - I think 'Stairway to Heaven' is hilarious).

I'm sure members of the Stones are guilty of some dreadful shit, but ever since I found out about Jimmy Page kidnapping 14 year old Lori Maddox and locking her up in his house I haven't been able to comfortably listen to Zep.

so Stones will take it in a landslide?

TS: Rolling Stones v. Led Zep

Yeah, but...POLL

Sure, just linking the earlier thread if someone wanted it.

Also, Zep obv.

stones

I think I'd probably vote for most other canonical classic rock bands over the Stones tbh.

They're OK though.

as far as canonical classic rock goes, only Neil Young wins over the stones imo

this is stones pretty easy. even their most overplayed songs still feel sharp and smart to me, something i'll always turn up the radio for, whereas i love zep but i'd probably love them a little more if i hadn't od'd on so much of their best stuff.

lasagna

agreed about the overplayed songs, but i guess lots of Metal/hard rock fans think the opposite

I'm sure members of the Stones are guilty of some dreadful shit, but ever since I found out about Jimmy Page kidnapping 14 year old Lori Maddox and locking her up in his house I haven't been able to comfortably listen to Zep.

Prolly the Stones win this, even though I listen to Zep a lot more, but holy crap, if you're looking for a felony/debauchery-off, I'm pretty sure these acts would tie.

Interestingly, that Zep books alludes to lots of the horrible stuff but tries to put it in context, often from a female perspective. Doesn't make it any less gross, but the takeaway is that the '70s were pretty gross and horrifying in general, at least as far as these transgressions go. Piles of coke on the table, piles of bodies in the back (in every sense).

like zep but cmon.

Zep. Stones have sucked for longer than they were good, there's way more garbage in their catalog, and Mick Jagger is ridiculous.

ever since I found out about Jimmy Page kidnapping 14 year old Lori Maddox and locking her up in his house

the Stones otoh would never indulge in such shamelessly abusive behavior, nope.

ILM's eternal hard on for the Stones is kinda sad imo

Fitting, then.

Is Hammer of the Gods the only source for that kidnapping story? I've seen it framed differently elsewhere and I'm really hesitant to trust everything in that book. (Not that it seems like the healthiest relationship any way you slice it.)

Xp to shakes
http://saintbarry.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/mick-jagger.jpg

Lori Maddox is quoted and referenced at length in the Hoskyns book and this never really comes up.

Mick Jagger is ridiculous.

Part of what makes them great. Jagger knows he's ridiculous, and consciously doubles-down on it, with a wink; Plant is utterly blind to how ridiculous he is.

(and anyway, Who better than both)

led zeppelin, noted unridiculous band

It may or may not be true to the extent it's been reported, but she was still 14 and he was...way older. I guess by that criteria, though, I'd have to stop listening to music because everybody's a perv.

I understand the internal conflicts people have with R. Kelly now. I've always thought he was terrible, so having to cut him out of my life meant very little. I only heard about the Jimmy Page thing in the wake of the DeRo/Hopper interview, though, so I haven't really resolved how to deal with the knowledge yet as it pertains to still enjoying Zep as a band.

The Stones were also more versatile than zep

don't really know the stones deep catalogue after goats head soup - did they ever do 'metal'?

did they ever do 'metal'?

Never even got close to attempting it.

"Crazy Mama" kinda sounds like Thin Lizzy tho.

I don't think that's quite right Tarfumes, but it sort of depends on what era we're discussing. Plant does not come across as humorless to me, quite the opposite, he seems full of joy in a way that Jagger - always the awkwardly cold and calculating one - never does. For ex. Jagger on the T.A.M.I. show is embarassing to watch; I feel bad for him, I feel bad for the audience, I feel bad for James Brown, I feel bad for anybody exposed to that painfully pale imitation of JB's showmanship. Or at Altamont where he's lamely trying to control the crowd in his top hat and cape, playacting at being dangerous while simultaneously scared of not being able to control the actually dangerous situation he's created. Or lip-syncing with David Bowie to Dancing in the Streets... I mean yeah you can enjoy some of these moments (and there are many of them in Jagger's career) as camp, they are genuinely laughable, but after awhile they just become tiresome. I don't ever want to see him chicken-walk and naughty-teacher fingerwag at me ever again. It's just obnoxious.

Plant has aged with more dignity but even at his peak I feel like he was better as a front-man at splitting the difference between reveling in the majesty and power of the music and being down-to-earth and having a bit of humor about it (I remember laughter).

I will grant that Jagger at his peak was a better lyricist than Plant, who gets by on a fair amount of gobbledeegook. But Plant had a better voice, a better presence, and could pillage and pay homage to the same sorts of sources that Jagger did without veering into the bizarre racist parody clown territory that Jagger could sometimes occupy. Plant could do country and folk and blues better, with more sympathy and more emotion. It's ALWAYS camp with Jagger. At his best the material overcomes this approach (Dead Flowers) at its worst its an abomination (You Gotta Move).

xp

Xp...and Mick Taylor later said "It's Only Rock and Roll" was an attempt at a Slade-style glam song.

Zep, and it's not that close.

The Stones were also more versatile than zep

def don't think this is true from a technical level, but you're right, Zep was not around long enough to go through all the horrid genre "experiments" Jagger wrought on, say, Bridges to Babylon. And Zep did better reggae and folk and metal than the Stones.

OTM

The Stones were also more versatile than zep

True...but Led Zeppelin sure could do a lot. If I had answered this at two- or three-year intervals throughout my life, the answer would have been the Rolling Stones more often than not. But sometimes I would have said Led Zeppelin. Right now, I'd be more inclined to play the Rolling Stones. But the thing that allows me to still love their music is to literally think of Exile and before as a different band than whatever came later.

Did they Stones ever do 30+ minute version of "Satisfaction" with multiple guitar solos?

That sounds awful. I hope the answer is no.

Stones were pop in a way Zep never were, I think that's the main issue here

I like Zep! The tension between Page and Jones' precision and Plant's yelling. Christgau was wrong: Plant wasn't a second guitar, he was Bonham's second snare drum.

I love the Stones. It isn't the "variety" or whatever -- it's Jagger's affectations versus his colleagues' grime. I dunno why Bowie and Ferry got so much shit for being "mannered" -- they learned it from Mr D.

'issue'

Stones. They're intentionally funny, whereas Zep are unintentionally funny (mostly through their pomposity - I think 'Stairway to Heaven' is hilarious).

― an office job is as secure as a Weetabix padlock (snoball), Friday, May 30, 2014 4:35 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
^^ OTM

but lol at people in this thread being "oh yeah that 35 years of utter garbage? that doesn't matter"

xp

Zep just has this pretentious quality to them that the Stones don't. Hence tortuously long guitar solos full of garbage. Hence that interview where Page interrupts himself to comment on how important everything he is saying is.

she was still 14 and he was...way older.

Sure, but a creepy/gross age difference is in a way different category than kidnapping and forcibly confining someone against her consent imo. (Fwiw, 14 was the age of consent in Canada until about a decade ago. I realize that this was not the case in CA or the UK.) From her accounts in many reports, Maddox was an eager and willing partner in the relationship: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/the-10-wildest-led-zeppelin-legends-fact-checked-20121121/jimmy-page-dated-a-14-year-old-girl-while-he-was-in-led-zeppelin-19691231

My favorite Zep moment will always be when in "In the Evening" the song drops for a couple seconds and Page returns with a DRDRGAGGRDGRGRGRGRGRG effect that sounds like a Hobbit trying to cut the Ring of Power with an axe.

The Stones are better bc they aged without dignity and released a bunch of terrible, tasteless genre experiments like the slasher-disco "too much blood" and the opportunistic, simplistic "sweet neocon". Just one middle finger after another toward the sensibilities of the sensible.

both of which are good songs

"Angie" and "Emotional Rescue" are far, far worse

I don't think that's quite right Tarfumes, but it sort of depends on what era we're discussing.
...
― Οὖτις, Friday, May 30, 2014 6:34 PM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

All good points, but I wouldn't say that Jagger created the situation at Altamont; he helped to create it, by agreeing to hire the Hell's Angels as security, but there were too many factors involved that made that festival a nightmare (which it already was before the Stones even arrived), and it can't all be pinned on Jagger.

Plant has indeed aged with dignity, and I'm glad Jagger hasn't. Again, part of the appeal. Also, Jagger's too ridiculous to take your eyes off of; Plant never developed a commanding stage presence. I also think Plant is the single most negative influence on vocalists in the last 50 years; I'll take a thousand half-assed imitations of Jagger's half-assed imitations over a single self-serious reedy-voiced (pseudo-) metal vocalist any day.

All that said, I genuinely love both bands' music. The Stones made many more crapulent records, but that's likely down to them just hanging around longer. But the best Stones music is transcendent in ways Zep's never was for me.

Mine too. It's the best thing that ever happens on a Zep record. xps to Soto

"oh yeah that 35 years of utter garbage? that doesn't matter"

Myself, I'm saying the exact opposite--it does matter, which is why I have to not even think about the Rolling Stones after Exile (especially the '80s and '90s versions) to still hear the earlier records the same.

i understand that the Stones are 'cooler' but i have to be true to my adolescence of listening to tons and tons of Zep (initially inspired by my drum teacher who idolized Bonham, had the same transparent drums, could play exactly him when he wanted to) and zero Stones. i was pretty convinced by flashy playing at the time and didn't really get the Stones, and i still love those Zep records.

Bonham and Watts are the best members of each band, imo.

You can like Zep and loathe "Whole Lotta Love," right? So there it is.

Writing credits notwithstanding, I really feel like Zep used their blues and folk influences as a springboard to create something unique, distinctive, and powerful, while I can't imagine why anyone would prefer to listen to the Stones' versions of "Little Red Rooster" or "Hitch Hike".

especially when by 1972 the Stones were writing their own great blues and folk songs

I guess "All My Love" is as dumb as "Angie."

The Rolling Stones, Bruce Springsteen, U2, Radiohead, Bob Dylan...my disinterest in these acts helps define my disconnection from society.

Zep, on the other hand, were musically interesting in a way the Stones never approached. I personally never cared about how either band looked, their stage presence (never saw either live), or how authentic their blues approximations were. Zep played cool chords, and had amazing beats. If that's all a band did, it would probably be enough for me to like them -- and "interesting" doesn't do their music justice. It was visceral, epic, heavy, funky, unique -- it filled a metal void in me before I found metal I liked, but also some eccentric, Beatlesque (for lack of a better reference to 16-year-old-me) love of experimentation, odd harmonies, rhythms, unexpected textures and progressions.

especially when by 1972 the Stones were writing their own great blues and folk songs

I don't think the Stones ever really got folk music, certainly not the British variety. If it doesn't present an opportunity to play at being crude and primitive the Stones can't really inhabit it, at best they can (again) turn it into some kind of morbid camp about wealthy aging English dowagers or something. Whereas Plant and Page *really* got this stuff, connected with Fairport Convention and Bert Jansch and California folk and this weird kind of mystical, hermetic, pagan mystery that can be alternately beautiful, elegiac, haunting or scary... nothing in the Stones catalog nails that feeling of being connected to a long-gone world - a REALLY long-gone world, not just America of the 30s or the 50s but something much more ancient - like Zep at their folksy best (so sayeth the guy who was married to the strains of Bron-Yr-aur).

many xps

i def listen to iii the most.

Page-Plant wrote marvelous folks songs: "Going to California," "That's the Way," "Tangerine," and so on. But I'd set "Sweet Virginia," "Torn and Frayed," "Sweet Black Angel," "Moonlight Mile," and even the so-funny-it's-serious "Dead Flowers" against every one of them.

In short, it's a draw on this front.

"even", like dead flowers isn't literally the best song ever

"35 Years of Utter Garbage" is overkill: (starting with Emotional Rescue in 1980) there's 8 studio albums that admittedly are hit and miss but not a in ratio meriting such a write off. Of course I'm not counting live stuff or cash grab tours/ads/licensing agreements...which can skew things.

for the benefit of skeptics

xpost

35 Years of Utter Garbage would be a great comp title

uh

http://eil.com/images/main/Rolling+Stones+-+Sucking+In+The+Seventies+-+LP+RECORD-322488.jpg

Xp Call Shirley Manson with that in, oh, 16 years.

finally an excuse to call shirley manson

a pity Neneh Cherry beat her to the "When the Levee Breaks" sample.

"Dead Flowers" is easily my favorite Stones song fwiw

I hate everything post-Some Girls myself.

you're not by yourself on that position

fwiw I don't really get how Torn & Frayed, Sweet Virginia or Moonlight Mile are folk songs (the latter might qualify if it didn't have the bombastic accompaniment popping in and out). #genre semantics

let's ask Don 'n' Glenn

Zep, easily.

i wonder how bill magill will vote

you don't get how "Sweet Virginia" and MM are folk songs? Okay.

Pretty sure Jagger hates all post-Some Girls Stones.

Jagger luvs him some post-Some Girls ballads.

Pretty sure Jagger hates all post-Some Girls the Stones.

DON: For all of our influence and success, I have to admit that the '70s kind of belonged to the Stones and Zeppelin. The former had been leading the way since the '60s with a great run of albums and tours, while the latter simply threw out the rule book and let us know "Everything Is Permitted".

GLENN: Of course, we became used to bringing up the rear...ends of 14 year-olds!

DON: Well, yeah.

Obv answer is Zep tho i love the Stones too

My favorite Zep moment will always be when in "In the Evening" the song drops for a couple seconds and Page returns with a DRDRGAGGRDGRGRGRGRGRG effect that sounds like a Hobbit trying to cut the Ring of Power with an axe.

Haha my guitar buddy in the 90s took pains to point out this exact moment to me one time. My jaw dropped. That was when I understood there was WTF to be mined on them thar zep hills.

Also I feel like page has that thing in common with Steve Howe of being a flashy renowned guitarist who was also not shy of sounding weirdly brittle and unpolished.

Alternate Frey line...

GLENN: What we did have in common with the Stones is that we too would bring a giant phallus out onstage...we called ours "Don Felder"!

Sticky "Fingers"

Husker Du - Zep
Replacements - Stones

Former totally uninterested in the 'ultimate bar band' of the latter, and sonically transcended it

Zeppelin

i love the stones tons and tons but sorry they never scaled heights as cosmic as "four sticks" or "kashmir," a couple of the most sublime moments in all of rock. i realize for some that's a strength but whatevs -- i'll go for the sublime over the earthy 9 times out of 10

"Gimme Shelter."

"when the levee breaks"

what is zep's 'sway'

"friends"/"celebration day"

i probably like the Rolling Stones more but voting Led Zeppelin here.

nah xp

what is the stones' "how many more times"?

Probably "Midnight Rambler."

i wasn't being pejorative (i'd probably vote zeppelin), just wondering if there was an ilm-consensus awesome deep cut. i don't think friends/celebration day is it, but maybe that's just me. immigrant song is probably a better candidate imo

Going by the Zep ballot poll, I'd say "Rain Song."

ugh

an ilm-consensus awesome deep cut.

does Tangerine count?

HOT DOG

awesome deep cut: "ten years gone"

otm

They're all deep cuts

I wish I liked either of these bands more, feels like some kind of failing

I associate Zeppelin with Pink Floyd as one of the bands in my youth that was my stepping stone away from middle school nu-metal stylings into "serious" music but of course they're totally different

Stones seems like the more justifiable answer but without thinking about it the answer is Zep

I can come up with lots of reasons why the Stones are the "better" band, but 7 times out of 10 I'd rather listen to Zep

Yeah this is Zep.

in college, i had a much harder time coming to terms with the problematic sexism and racial insensitivity of the rolling stones than i did with the politically unsavory aspects of any of the major authors i studied. i just loved the stones so much, i didn't want to have to temper my enthusiasm in any way.

Nobody's really saying this outright - but feel like there's a bit of characterizing The Stones as one-dimensional blues-rockers in contrast to the sublime and ethereal Led Zep that isn't really fair or accurate. Moonlight Mile, Sway, You Got The Silver, Loving Cup, 2000 Light Years From Home, She Smiled Sweetly, Citadel, Shine a Light - just to name some relatively deep cuts let alone the hits - there's tons of range and experimentation and different lyrical styles and personas. Fine if you like Zep more - but it's totally not right to think of the Stones as meat and potatoes rockers.

Also I love Led Zep but there is something kind of dour and burnt-out about them. I'm not saying they don't have their fun moments at all - tons of them in fact - but the Stones in general have a giddy goofball spirit, kind of wise-cracking and dedicated to good times. I don't get that from a lot of Led "Does anyone remember laughter?" Zeppelin. By the way I'm not calling them pretentious or bombastic or anything loaded like that - I like Zep's artiness and experimentation and trippiness. It's more of an attitude and worldview that feels a little alien and frosty to me relative to the Stones.

Except for Radiohead, Dominique totally OTM.

Brio, some of my favourite Stones songs are in that list but I really don't think they're that representative of the band's catalogue as a whole. On a song-for-song basis, "meat and potatoes rockers" doesn't seem that inaccurate to me (and I've listened to a bunch of their albums and have seen them live).

I mean, I'd probably be a huge stan if more Stones sounded like "She's a Rainbow" or "2000 Light Years from Home".

I don't dislike them btw or even feel like the kind of disconnection that I feel with Dylan most of the time. I enjoy a lot of their stuff.

there is a kazoo solo on "cool, calm, collected".

No doubt they are more of a straight-ahead rock band than Zep in a lot of ways - but there is a lot of variety and cool shit going on especially in the Brian Jones era and immediately after - no way Ruby Tuesday or Can't Always Get What You Want or Paint It, Black or Sympathy or Gimme Shelter are basic or unambitious or less daring and audacious than Zep... and those are huge hits, songs that define the Stones as much as "It's Only Rock N Roll" etc.

Also if they're meat and potatoes they're fucking Julia Child. Nobody's meat and potatoes, including Zep's, would taste as good if the Stones didn't show everyone how to cook. (based on a tremendous debt to Black American music of course)

In fact I think it's pretty hard to argue Led Zep has a broader musical palette than the Stones - the Stones played straight up blues and r&b, country, folk, shlocky pop, disco, funk, twee psychedelia, trippy psychedelia, faux elizabethan shit, some heaviosity in there too. But the argument could certainly be made that Zep brought a broad spectrum into their own sound and made it their own, while the Stones were dilettante pretenders who smirkily put on different drag depending on what was hip.

ilm specializes in false binaries

the Stones were dilettante pretenders who smirkily put on different drag depending on what was hip.

precisely why they were great and why their music is so liberating.

re: false binaries - I hope it doesn't sound like I'm creating one - I know Zep has a huge range and pegging them as just "Whole Lotta Love" is just as silly as pegging the Stones as just "Satisfaction" or something.

and I also dig the smirky dilettanteism of the stones most of the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1X6S34luGuE

I don't remember what prompted the response, but in an old Mojo interview, Ron Wood dismissed Zep as "A bunch of fuckin' farmers".

I think you have to take guitar players like Townshend and Keith with a tremendous Jimmy Page-sized grain of salt when they say Zep just didn't do it for them - they must have been completely fucking devastated when Zep came out and were that huge, doing something that did seem new and heavier and appealed to a younger audience than the Who and Stones - plus Page Page Page, as Keith admits

Both? But Zep. <I>I</I> through <I>Physical Graffiti</I> is a streak that's hard to top.

But Beggars Banquet through Exile on Main St. is awesome too.

http://persimusic.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/led-zeppelin-vs-rolling-stones.jpg

if you just look at their career while Zep was recording (which is totally unfair to the Stones) here's how the studio albums line up:

Zep I (January, 1969) vs Beggars Banquet (December, 1968)
Zep II (October, 1969) vs Let It Bleed (December, 1969)
Zep III (October, 1970) vs Sticky Fingers (April, 1971)
Zep IV (November, 1971) vs. Exile on Main Street (April, 1972)
Houses of the Holy (March, 1973) vs. Goat's Head Soup (August, 1973)
Physical Graffiti (Feb, 1975) vs. It's Only Rock N Roll (October, 1974)
Presence (March, 1976) vs. Black and Blue (April, 1976)
In Through The Out Door (August, 1979) vs. Some Girls (June, 1978)
Coda (Nov, 1982) vs. Emotional Rescue (June, 1980) + Tattoo You (August, 1981)

But keep in mind the Stones put out 8 records of some of their best stuff before Zep existed, including Now!, Out of Our Heads, December's Children, Aftermath, Between The Buttons, and Satanic Majesties.

According to the book, twas Keef that introduced Page to heroin. Sabotage?

fuck bands used to make a lot of records - and the Stoones had actually slowed down by the time Zep arrived, it was about 2 a year from 64-67

And even more in America, thanks labels cutting up the albums for more, shorter releases.

this won't do anything to settle the debate, but Steve Shelley's band Two Dollar Guitar had a really excellent song called "Stones Vs. Zep":
http://open.spotify.com/track/48xO8fhdihM1fh158xSvr3

One thing that the Stones aren't getting any credit for at all is the great mid period, the Jones era...Between the Buttons, Aftermath, up through Beggars.. So many great, wonderfully produced inventive pop songs... Classic singles

Feel like everyone is just pitting let it bleed, sticky fingers, and exile against zeps stuff, with the usual ilx/Alfred overestimation of some duff late period stuff

Also people sort of dismiss the early blues records but you sour listen to them! They are a hot shit band,Brian kills on guitar, you can tell why the Yardbirds were in the front row coping his shit before they formed

Also, and FYI I can't bring myself to vote in this poll, both these bands rule, but it do think the Stones had a way of very casually and effortlessly channeling that spooky dread that zeppelin tried very hard to affect

But yeah I dunno on the whole it's hard to compare, the stones were huge in the 70s but they were a 60s band. Zeppelin was a band truly of the 70s. Two different beasts

the usual ilx/Alfred overestimation of some duff late period stuff

only because of the usual ILX overestimation of the sixties! BTB is my favorite of the late sixties albums these days.

but don't make me call Dirty Work in here!

yeah I think if the Stones had stopped existing after Some Girls or Emotional Rescue this'd be a different fight, but I do these matchups on body of work/lifetime achievement and that's not just highlights - it's the whole picture. solo/post-breakup stuff doesn't figure into it for me, I don't hold Goddess in the Doorway against the Stones, but Zep I through Out Door has very few low points. whereas the Stones have been making forgettable music for at least twice as long as they made good (great) music. if Charlie Watts had died in '79, the Stones would have found another drummer and plugged right on. Zeppelin seemed to care more about their music than that, to be more of a band than a proposition or an alliance between two guys and the other guys who play with them. that makes Led Zeppelin the greater band for me. if we lined up the best Stones albums to match Zep II through Physical Graffiti, tough fight for sure, but it's more fair to pit all the Zeppelin albums against nine Stones album chosen at random. Unless you roll real lucky dice there Zeppelin will walk away from that fight holding all the marbles.

I wouldn't have minded if the Stones had ended in 1980, but, no, I don't mind the many good songs they've recorded since, in part because worrying about their place in history or whatever leaves me cold. How is it fair pitting a band who released eight albums + outtakes comp against a band w/as many album as the Stones? More fair is to compare 1962-1972 Stones against Zep.

i think it's fair to pit the best of both bands against each other. the 50 best stones songs vs. the 50 best zep songs. i don't really care that Jagger and Richards experienced their creative decline together while Plant & co. experienced theirs mostly apart.

that said, i still choose Zep, and having one of the most consistent, all-steak-no-gristle discographies in history is certainly a big factor in their favor.

way way upthread, someone sez they can't abide LZ cuz of the Lori Maddox matter…well Bill Wyman did not imprison Mandy Smith as far as anyone has ever established…but they began, ahem, "dating" when she was 13/14 and he was —hold onto your hats— 47. They married when she turned 18, and his son later married her mom. BLLEEEAARRGGGHH…

Of all '60s brit-rock royalty, wyman is the least essential/most lucky. Take him away from the stones there's no difference…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ceWVKvM3lE

Another way of looking at it is the stones would have done enough to be one of the greatest rock band ever before zeppelin even formed..... And the early 70s for both bands is probably a draw

plant's solo albums are waaaaaaaaaaay better than jagger's, but no hesitation i'll take keith solo over jimmy without robert. too bad mick and jimmy never hooked up and likewise keith and robert. i'd love to hear what they'd have come up with. also, i kind of think of zeppelin as a 60s band (a wire to the beatles' new york dolls and stones' stooges?), maybe the last great one? zeps I and II both came out in 69! sure their prog era's my favorite but zeppelin ii is the album i'd play on my deathbed

But I agree w aero, who's own band is right up there w the stones and Zep for me, the was Zep existed is much more aesthetically pleasing

And as far as diverse, not sure you can do more than hot dog into carouselambra on in through the outdoor

When the world turned digital, they should have put a gap between those two songs at least as long as it takes to get up, cross the room and turn the vinyl over.

the usual ilx/Alfred overestimation of some duff late period stuff

I have the same problem on every one of these threads, whether the Rolling Stones or Dylan or Elton John or Steely Dan or Rod Stewart or whoever--the debate over music that almost doesn't exist for me. (Seinfeld: "poring over the excruciating minutia of every single daily event.") And I know that there's some truth--some--to Alfred's rejoinder above. I just don't have the curiosity to seek out the occasional pretty good song on one side of the divide when there's so much there on the other. (I'll exempt Dylan, because everyone insists I should.)

i think it's fair to pit the best of both bands against each other. the 50 best stones songs vs. the 50 best zep songs. i don't really care that Jagger and Richards experienced their creative decline together while Plant & co. experienced theirs mostly apart.

yeah but Plant's solo output over the past ten years or so has been fucking tremendous!

come to me, late period albums. Soto will give you love.

Time is finite, we always have new albums to listen to and review, and at first glance listening to Undercover is a waste of time. I don't expect anyone to have my endurance. And, yeah, part of my inspiration is boredom with established canonical stances, i.e. "Rod Stewart stopped being good in 1979" or whatever. I like to be surprised! I'd no idea L&T would be in my top three or four Dylan albums.

Haha I kind of admire it! I'll check out almost anything but at the end of the day a lot of classic stuff is classic for a reason... Dylan is an exception to a degree, and Neil

I bet there's no site on the internet with more references to Empire Burlesque than ilx

I get aero's concept of looking at the totality of a band's output - but I don't feel it actually affects how great an artist's high points were at all. I don't listen to TB Sheets or Veedon Fleece and think, "this is actually not that great because Van Morrison made shitty solo records 20 years later", I don't listen to "Wouldn't It Be Nice" and think less of it as an artistic achievement because The Beach Boys ended up cranking it out on the county fair circuit. Funhouse is not less good because of The Weirdness.

But even if I accept the "look at the big picture" argument - then I need to factor in the pre-Zep Stones records - a fucking amazing run of 8 top-shelf records, gigantic pop hits and weirdo experiments and great visual aesthetics and probably their peak as a live band - and with all that, to me, it's an easy Stones win.

the almost complete absence of late period stuff in the tracks polls for the Stones, SD, Elton, Bowie, Springsteen, Neil, other long-running artists suggests that there really isn't a tendency to overrate that stuff on ilx. although this is definitely a place where Alfred and I and others take liberties with going against conventional wisdom and finding things to champion from post-peak periods.

Can't go wrong with sports analogies. Stones: bigger wins and more crushing defeats. Zep: better winning percentage.

wonder if the Dylan poll will break the trend

xpost

I think you have to take guitar players like Townshend and Keith with a tremendous Jimmy Page-sized grain of salt when they say Zep just didn't do it for them - they must have been completely fucking devastated when Zep came out and were that huge, doing something that did seem new and heavier and appealed to a younger audience than the Who and Stones - plus Page Page Page, as Keith admits

― brio, Saturday, May 31, 2014 12:15 AM (8 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

brio otm itt, except I honestly don't think Townshend was jealous of Zeppelin's music. I think the Who considered themselves to be on an entirely different planet from Zep (and, for that matter, the Stones, though Townshend says he reveres them) -- they just didn't bother with them (also, the Who were never part of the blooz purist scene that the Stones and Yardbirds came out of). And if Townshend ever wished he had Page's facility, he's rocketed past Page in recent years, off into this insane Coltrane-esque fingerpicking stratosphere.

Jimmy Page is on Dirty Work (forget what tracks).

"One Hit (To the Body)"

yeah, I don't think jealousy would be exactly right - but I imagine they must have seen them as competition and at least something of a threat when they came on the scene, so you have to filter their perceptions of Zep through that... but it's also probably true they might have sincerely not been into Zep as a band

I know Pete and Roger had no use for them musically, but I suspect Entwistle wouldn't have minded playing with them (after all, it was his and Moon's idea to begin with), and Moon liked everyone because he was always drunk:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyM6-QibDFM

I really like Bridges to Babylon and A Bigger Bang, both at least as good as the Page/Plant album.

I get aero's concept of looking at the totality of a band's output - but I don't feel it actually affects how great an artist's high points were at all. I don't listen to TB Sheets or Veedon Fleece and think, "this is actually not that great because Van Morrison made shitty solo records 20 years later", I don't listen to "Wouldn't It Be Nice" and think less of it as an artistic achievement because The Beach Boys ended up cranking it out on the county fair circuit. Funhouse is not less good because of The Weirdness.

otm

Zep doesn't have a "Flowers" in them. They do have some amazing stuff but they also have loads and loads of bloated live jams. Stones do as well but they also have 3-4 LPs worth of classic pop singles that are quite often pretty experimental at the same time as being super poppy. Hell, Stones probably have this won with the music they recorded before Zep even dropped their first LP.

stones

Bill Wyman made the best solo single out of all these people, namely "(Si, si) je suis un rock star"

Hell, Stones probably have this won with the music they recorded before Zep even dropped their first LP.

this. and I love Zep

Stones

has anyone ever polled Exile and Physical Graffiti? I'd be curious as to what the outcome of that would be.

i bet 'exile' would win. they're both killer doubles -- for me it's down to even though 'exile' ends stronger, it never brings the pure fucking awesome power majesty like 'physical graffiti' does, but pure fucking awesome power majesty is undervalued in these parts. (i'd be curious too how 'exile' would fair against 'fun house' -- those two are my favorite old school raw pre-prog rock albums ever)

Certainly Zep *sounds* better than the Stones.

Exile trounced PG in this old thread i did, although there were other albums in the mix:
best big iconic classic rock studio double LP of the 1960s and 1970s

Stones sounds better than Zep BECAUSE they sound worse than zep

Xpost

I guess I can see that too.

Charlie's drums are almost miced like a jazz drummer's.

best big iconic classic rock studio double LP of the 1960s and 1970s

Went back and checked that thread...towards the bottom, there was the beginning of a good list for part II of that poll, but I guess it never happened. One complete poll would be neat.

American Graffiti: controled,calculated,repetitive, less experimental.

Exile:
The opposite and it has much less fillers.

Conclusion: Exile for sure

Imagine a world where Led Zeppelin never happened and instead Jimmy Page ended up producing a whole bunch of 70s rock and that great Zep sound ended up all over everything.

About charlie's drumming: fits them peefectly.
The "bigger" drum sound in Some Girls and further is a disadvantage imo

American graffiti is p lame its true

Calling PG less than experimental is p wrong tho

best big iconic classic rock studio double LP of the 1960s and 1970s

Went back and checked that thread...towards the bottom, there was the beginning of a good list for part II of that poll, but I guess it never happened. One complete poll would be neat.

― clemenza, Saturday, May 31, 2014 12:14 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah, never got around to it, probably never will. feel free to take the ball and run with it.

Charlie's drumming is awesome, but about as far from Bonham as it gets. And I love how he really has not changed his approach, either.

I could easily imagine the Stones making "Ventilator Blues" sound like Zep, but I could not imagine Zep making anything quite as loose and swinging as "Ventilator Blues."

yeah, but can you imagine the Stones ever making anything that sounds like Black Dog, Communication Breakdown, Four Sticks or What is and What Should Never Be?

this all comes down to weather you prefer loose & jammy vs. tight & more pre-conceived (for lack of a better word).

Lots of loose & jammy stuff in the seventies: "Can You Hear Me Knocking," quite a few tracks on IOR&R and B&B...

would like to say that alfred going beyond canon to rescue desiccated '80s material has led to some of my favorite posts and threads on ilx and a lot of personal music discovery

^^^ tight connection to my heart

Hmmm... the band that did 'Luxury' vs. the band that did 'D'yer Mak'er'...

would like to say that alfred going beyond canon to rescue desiccated '80s material has led to some of my favorite posts and threads on ilx and a lot of personal music discovery

― emo canon in twee major (BradNelson), Saturday, May 31, 2014 1:37 PM (36 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Seconded. I dug into Dirty Work not too long ago, and found it vastly better than I imagined it would be.

yeah maybe it's just me but like - when a band just goes belly-up as severely as imo the Stones, I don't hear the great stuff with the same ears. with the Stones it's not as pronounced as for example with my own band, Aerosmith, whose post-'77 fall from dizzying heights has for me completely recontextualized the old stuff: I can still dig it, but it's lost so much of its power; it feels like a happy accident of dope & the right managers. this is auteurist garbage I know but what can I say, I got auteurist skeletons

another thing about Zep though is they become interested in uncommon scales/modes/tunings/time signatures, which gives their music lasting appeal for me. whereas the Stones are blues-based forever, which is fine, but which for me means once I've played their record enough times, it's going to run out of steam for me. Page seems, or seemed, a lot more curious than Keef.

My initial reluctance I blamed on Plant tbh

Tbf keef is into alternate tunings. Granted they're all kind of similar open tunings.

Well just one alt tuning really. No DADGAD for Keef.

when a band just goes belly-up as severely as imo the Stones, I don't hear the great stuff with the same ears.

I totally understand this on an intellectual level, but when I'm listening to the good shit, the memories of their crapulence never intrude. I know that the same band (more or less) made "Rip This Joint" and "Rock and a Hard Place," but when I'm listening to the former, the latter may as well have never existed. The sounds on the recording of "Rip This Joint" did not change because they later made awful records.

Yeah, that's definitely how music works for me too - but I do see how Aero's point might have a bit more resonance in this case, where both bands are in the GOAT stratosphere and their mythos is inescapable. It's one thing for a band like X to make a couple lacklustre records after a key member leaves, easy enough to ignore when you think about what a great band they are... a different degree of betrayal for the Stones to be more or less not good for 30 years.

Maybe for the same reasoning, I'd rate CCR over the Grateful Dead in a good part because CCR got out when the getting was good, whereas what the Dead went on to do (and to stand for to people I know) makes even the Dead stuff I love a bit harder to love.

But - and maybe it's from getting older myself - I'm kind of over harshing out too hard on artists who just keep chugging along past their prime... Used to think much more critically of ageing past-due bands, now I kind of think "what else are they supposed to do?" Just not realistic - or particularly kind-hearted- to expect people to sit down and shut up to protect what someone else might think of their legacy.

sorry - that might be overstating things - I'm not accusing people bagging on the Stones of having darkness in their hearts or anything. I think you know what I mean.

ha no it's cool, believe me, "what are we supposed to do, get day jobs?" is a question with which I expect at some point to sympathize heavily

i have no problem with people who are musicians and in bands wanting to stay in bands till they croak. can't help but feel that part of the distaste we have for bands who 'overstay their welcome' is some kind of hyper-capitalist planned obsolescence mindfuck spillover where we're conditioned to want new!new!new! and disdain "old"old"old" -- dylan, scott walker, plant himself all put the lie to the notion that rock is only a young person's game. that being said, the stone haven't released a song that's moved me since "undercover of the night"

yeah that's the thing - even robert plant is still making interesting and great music - I think "rock is the province of the young" is ridiculous and that most artists get better as they grow longer in the tooth - the Yeatses outnumber the Wordsworths on this question imo. But the Stones lost all interest in making interesting music after the Some Girls sessions, pace Alfred

Stones probably lost interest well before that. It's everyone else that lost interest after.

will defend A Bigger Bang as their last will and testament -- sorry.

I already went to bat for that. People had become so accustomed to by the numbers that they missed out on a good one.

somebody jizzed on me / I'm gettin' nuttin' for Christmas

LOL wrong thread in the most major way

http://www.ilxor.com/ILX/ThreadSelectedControllerServlet?boardid=77&threadid=91241#unread

he Stones lost all interest in making interesting music after the Some Girls sessions

a) vast steppes of rong

b) twice as long as LZ

Stones destroy Zep and I'm not even that big of a fan of the stones.

certainly not for the first time, this thread reveals ILM to be a nest of rockists…

signed,

I went to the WFMU record fair so me = in glass house

If you go on a thread called stones v Zep you can be sure there will be some "rockist" discussion.

I'd go so far as to say the stones lost it after Exile and rallied somehow for Some Girls.

Fucking useless Ron Wood.

it got nothing to do with Ron Wood.
if Taylor would have stayed it would be the same.

the mediocre songwriting and the generic-to-lousy production take the fault imo

(lthough they had their moments here and there even post-Exile)

Ron Wood is awesome!

He was already killed it in 2 amazing bands before he was even in the stones

Blaming the decline of the Stones on Ronnie Wood is class-A challops.

Voting Zep, but I've been binging on them lately. Could probably go the other way at some other point. The coldness and lack of charm of the Stones is sometimes somewhat in the way of my enjoyment of them, however, and why I tend to prefer the Faces despite their admittedly weaker catalogue.

Telling Stones observation: listen to the iconic (late period) riff of "Start Me Up" and you'll actually hear two or three different interlocking guitar parts. You get that a lot with the band, and it also underscores the role that Ron Wood plays, especially in the later years.

I think this poll works best as a '70s vs. '70s comparison. Early Stones are so varied, adventurous and productive that it gives them a leg up over Zep. Later Stones, after Zep broke up, is generally hit or miss or thought less of, which gives them a disadvantage. So I guess what I'd compare is Zep vs. "Beggars Banquet" - "Some Girls." And if I limit it to that, it's Zep.

Everyone solo>>>>>>Mick solo, though, save perhaps Page. And yet, at his strongest in the band, Mick>>>>Plant. But Plant as a singer post '70s >>>>>>>>>>>>> Mick post-'70s

Bill Wyman most underrated of the whole bunch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fp-YvsVqtbE

Sup:

http://dreamchimney.com/tracks/artist_images/14591_image0_20061231_auto.jpg

Omg

None of those things was ever a good idea in any context.

Headless bass?

Steinberger swag

steinbergers sound cool as shit fuiud god damn it

I've seen Robert Plant twice in the past 5 years or so,once with Alison Krauss and once with the Space Shifters. I don't think anyone would have predicted that Plant would be the most interesting performer of those 2 bands had they been making predictions at the end of the 70s.

Still, Sticky Fingers.

Probably due to this thread I dreamed last night that I was recruited to play acoustic guitar with a couple members of Zeppelin on a song I didn't really know at a local block party. I sucked real bad and broke a string.

Stones.

If you go on a thread called stones v Zep you can be sure there will be some "rockist" discussion.

― Prince Kajuku (Bill Magill), Sunday, June 1, 2014 12:12 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Kind of like how you can be sure to find Bill Magill proclaiming to the world his proud contempt for Led Zeppelin

I think jagger solo might be slightly underrated, if only bc I think 'wandering spirit' is really pretty good. but plant the last decade has been a master class in aging rock singers just totally owning.

wandering spirit is good. Everything else is garbage.

Plant is actively trying not to look ridiculous; he's very self-aware. And he knows how to relinquish the spotlight, too, unlike all-eyes-on-me Jagger. Jagger is the only one in the Stones that does not look embarrassed to be onstage. And of course also probably the only one who should be embarrassed.

Charlie's looked embarrassed, period, since 1963 tbh

Well, he's embarrassed for everyone else.

at this point the RS review of Goddess In The Doorway is kind of the defining embarrassment that solo Jagger will never get out from under

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/8/30/1377870887256/keith-richards-charlie-wa-008.jpg

None at their best:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/02/23/article-2283333-18388026000005DC-488_634x495.jpg

It is a clear-eyed and inspired Mick Jagger who crafted Goddess in the Doorway, an insuperably strong record that in time may well reveal itself to be a classic. World, meet Mick Jagger, solo artist.

"Jagger is the only one in the Stones that does not look embarrassed to be onstage"

they just look embarrassed: nobody forced them to play you know

A famous anecdote relates that during the mid-1980s, an intoxicated Jagger phoned Watts' hotel room in the middle of the night asking "Where's my drummer?". Watts reportedly got up, shaved, dressed in a suit, put on a tie and freshly shined shoes, descended the stairs, and punched Jagger in the face, saying: "Don't ever call me your drummer again. You're my fucking singer!"[10]

oldie but goldie

One account has the force of Watts' punch being such that Jagger flew across the room and nearly out the window.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iMqBhNKfPo

slightly less bombastic version of that story:

Bill German, who started the Beggars Banquet fanzine in 1978 when he was still at high school in Brooklyn, describes a meeting held in Amsterdam to discuss whether the Stones should break up or carry on. At one point, Jagger referred to Charlie Watts as "my drummer".

Writes German: "[Jagger said] something like: 'None of this should matter to you because you're only my drummer.'

"[Watts] kept it bottled inside until he got back to his hotel room. He then clicked off his TV, put on his shoes, walked down the hall and knocked on Mick's door. When the lead singer of the Rolling Stones opened it, his drummer clocked him on the jaw. Charlie then turned round and calmly walked away.

"Keith [Richards] saw Charlie in the hallway and asked him where he was coming from. The laconic Charlie answered: 'I've just punched Mick Jagger in the face' - and kept walking."

great story in any form though

hey just look embarrassed: nobody forced them to play you know

Actually, when a band becomes this multi-billion dollar operation, there's a ton of pressure on the band to produce. Total aside, but I was talking to someone who worked with Seth MacFarlane, and they basically outlined untold dozens of people who depend on him and his stupid boob 'n' fart jokes and his power/wealth for their livelihood. Like, entire orchestras on retainer, that sort of thing. So back to the Stones, if the Stones break up or stop, then dozens of people lose their jobs, just like a corporation. And, at the same time, per Watts' and/or Keef's weariness, if the band commits to a tour, that basically means two or more years of your life contractually locked up. So forced? No, not really. But I don't think it's an entirely independently made decision, either. I'm sure JPJ and Page remain baffled that Plant will not tour with them, though I bet if Bonham were alive it would be harder for him to resist.

A bit o history:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKIbCNBzI-k

Charlie's looked embarrassed, period, since 1963 tbh

― guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, June 1, 2014

http://i412.photobucket.com/albums/pp201/sharonjoy666/charlietongue.jpg

"I Love The Look On Charlie's Face" - A Visual Catalog of Charlie Watts

" if the Stones break up or stop, then dozens of people lose their jobs"

true, though i can't see The Stones as the-good-heart-fellows for the sake of others sort of people.

especially not Mick.
i think they are doing it because they can, to prove they can: Ego.
and they do seem to like to be on stage, at least imo.

can't imagine Richards drinking tea in his mansion till he drop dead anyway.

Mick is doing it for ego. The others ... who knows.

Still, I've always defended current Stones in a roundabout way. I've seen the Stones be really good, and I've seen them be not so good. I know writers personally contacted by Mick Jagger, who asked them to review the next night, because the first was not so hot. To me that shows the band knows the difference between a good show and a bad show, and knows how to work/do better, which means they care, at least somewhat. As opposed to other bands that are just professionally solid night after night, with no risk or looseness or whatever. Like, I like Radiohead, and used to like them a lot, but stopped seeing them live because I knew exactly what I would get. Now, there are a million other things keeping me from seeing the Stones these days - $$$$$$$$$ - but at least there was the thrill of potentially getting a good - or bad - one. I've seen other legacy bands who basically doubled the band - two bassists, three guitarists, two drummers - basically ensuring a session dude safety net no matter what happens. But the Stones, bless em, rely on the same reliables night after night. Will Woody be sober? Will Keith give a shit? Will Bobby Keys be solid? Aside from Daryl Jones, they're full of x-factors.

BTW, speaking of Jones, I heard that at his audition he showed up only casually familiar with the Stones catalog, and that basically won him the gig. I also heard he had to alter his playing to basically one finger, because his jazz fusion chops were too good for the band.

(same unreliables, I meant)

I've seen other legacy bands who basically doubled the band - two bassists, three guitarists, two drummers - basically ensuring a session dude safety net no matter what happens. But the Stones, bless em, rely on the same reliables night after night.

yeah this is kind of an interesting saving grace to me. they're probably, on a basic musical level, the least bombastic band playing stadiums, and they realize that and don't cushion everything, you actually heard what Keith and Charlie play like as old men, for better or worse. and the lack of precision or stadium rock theatrics means that hearing them as frail old men probably suits the Stones' sound more than a lot of other aging acts.

If we're going by looks then I used to have a Led Zeppelin gigography that traced their entire career and at some point in the mid 70s you can just see all the booze and drugs transformed Zep from a bunch of elvish pranksters to a bunch of bloated prune faced alcoholics. The Stones still look relatively healthy even in that "Start Me Up" video from 1981.

lol in what universe is Robert Plant "bloated"

Kind of like how you can be sure to find Bill Magill proclaiming to the world his proud contempt for Led Zeppelin

― What is a HOOSbeast? (Hurting 2), Sunday, June 1, 2014 1:43 PM (8 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalin

Kind of like how you can be sure Hurting 2 will make an utter fool out of himself in every thread he posts in

lol in what universe is Robert Plant "bloated"

― Now I Am Become Dracula (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Sunday, June 1, 2014 8:40 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

The man is a spokesman for Activia. Trust me, he's bloated.

plant is 65, 66? what's he supposed to look like?

both of these bands made a lot of good music but i kind of hate them both? i say that even with all the good stones albums on my shelf at home. i'll vote stones but they just seem like assholes. there just always seems to be this thick lack of sincerity in the stones that keeps me from really loving them.

Plant is 6,566

Dinosaur, iirc.

Apologies for the unwarranted Woody bash. Agree it's a cheap shot to blame him for the larger Stones malaise of the mid-Seventies.

but his joke at Dylan's expense in Annie Hall was perfect.

Wow, Now & Zen is awesome! Never heard it before today.

"Ship of Fools" is lovely, but "White, Clean and Neat" and "Billy's Revenge" are the real headturners.

I dug the opener a lot too with "all the romance of the tontons macoutes"

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

No way!

the only way!

http://lucky2zacky.img.jugem.jp/20090325_396852.jpg

You got the silver.

That seems like a pretty reasonable result to me. Who else could draw around 40% of a sizable sample against the Rolling Stones? Hardly anybody. Beatles, Dylan, Neil Young (maybe), Velvet Underground (maybe).

Yeats?

Yeats, yes. Also A.J. Foyt.

Predictably ridiculous.

NO

an uneven comparison from the start. zep are great an all but this is the stones we are talking about.

Yep. Wrong results

My first impression was this would be impossible to decide, but the more I thought about it the easier it became. As great as Zep are, I think the Stones at their best just connect on many more levels.

How different would this poll be if Zep had hits all through the 70s a la Stones?

Because I can't help think that Stones = connecting on more levels = the singles market that LZ were apathetic to

Zep did have hits through the 70s, though, didn't they? Even if they didn't release 45s, as far as rock radio was concerned, "Stairway," "The Ocean," "Kashmir," and "All My Love" were singles. And their albums handily outsold the Stones'.

yeah, but compared to the Stones, given the amount of singles they released and the number of albums in that time.

Let's be honest, the result (on ILX) was kind of a given.

mozart vs. beethoven
raggett vs. perry
weingarten vs. perpetua

what next, ilx?

Eagles vs. Byrds

Zep did have hits through the 70s, though, didn't they? Even if they didn't release 45s, as far as rock radio was concerned, "Stairway," "The Ocean," "Kashmir," and "All My Love" were singles. And their albums handily outsold the Stones'.

Wiki, dude:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Led_Zeppelin_discography#Singles

Yeats?

― guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn)

<3

How different would this poll be if Zep had hits all through the 70s a la Stones?

― Master of Treacle

this is a v strange question

Irelavant question.

It's 2014. The perspective is different and "hits" isn't a consideration.

Wiki, dude:

Yeah, I should've clarified: they did release 45s, but songs that Zep didn't release as singles were still treated like singles on rock radio. "All My Love" got top 40 AM airplay despite only being an album track.

"—" denotes releases that did not chart or were not released.

so the whole "Led Zep didn't release singles" thing basically only means "...in the UK."?

Sure, Jagger has the edge when it comes to the lyrics, but on the whole I can't see why this isn't Zeppelin. The musicianship in Zeppelin for a start is a hundred thousand million light years ahead of The Stones, and Zeppelin kept the quality control at quite a high level, whereas the gulf between The Stones best and worst stuff is as wide as its possible to be.

I do think Charlie Watts is underrated as a drummer (the way he handles the tempo changes on 'Midnight Rambler' for example, is masterful), but Bonham just kills him. You don't see the producer sitting in on drums on Zeppelin records 'cuz the drummer can't do it. John Paul Jones runs rings around Wyman. And Page vs. Keef? Goes without saying, really.

right well obviously if you just focus on musicianship the obvious answer is Rush

http://susiemadrak.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/wahmbulance-1.jpg

right well obviously if you just focus on musicianship the obvious answer is Rush

― resulting post (rogermexico.), Saturday, June 7, 2014 6:52 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yes, Rush run rings around The Stones too.

But y'know, Rush aren't an option here!

Yes, Rush run rings around The Stones too.

If the quantity and velocity of notes = musicianship, then yes, Rush absolutely runs rings around the Rolling Stones, no question.

Fortunately, general aesthetic standards have not fallen to those depths. At least, I hope they haven't.

suggest rush

If the quantity and velocity of notes = musicianship, then yes, Rush absolutely runs rings around the Rolling Stones, no question.

Fortunately, general aesthetic standards have not fallen to those depths. At least, I hope they haven't.

― Montgomery Burns' Jazz (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Saturday, June 7, 2014 11:35 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Quantity and velocity of notes? You're making it sound like Rush just jerk off on their instruments for the sake of it, and I couldn't disagree with that more. Every note they play has purpose.

"that's a load-bearing A# eh"

Sure, Jagger has the edge when it comes to the lyrics, but on the whole I can't see why this isn't Zeppelin.

Fortunately I don't listen to lyrics much and still prefer Jagger as a singer.

What do you I don't hear lyrics crowd hear when you listen to music? Jagger sounding like a dolphin or Charlie Browns teacher? Also I seem to remember you quoting all kinds of lyrics you didn't like in the War on Drugs thread

well yeah but that was an inquisition

You were also hyper analyzing Miranda Lambert post Burkean lyrics on your blog

you know, it's sorta, please allow me to introduce myself, i'm a man, of wealth, and taste, been around for a long lnagnlg yeeear sto manny a ma soool an faaayth ani s round when JESUS CHRIST hadis momen adoubt and pain

but usually less pieced-together than that

The musicianship in Zeppelin for a start is a hundred thousand million light years ahead of The Stones, and Zeppelin kept the quality control at quite a high level, whereas the gulf between The Stones best and worst stuff is as wide as its possible to be.

ilm often enjoys the challenging opinion that being interested in musicianship in any way = loving Yngwie and Paganini

j outed as the ghost of Rex Harrison, I had an inkling tbh

If you like lyrics and musicianship you only lore the fictional straw man band comprised of ynwgie, colin meloy from Decembrists, tony levin on stick bass, and terry bozio on drums

for a straw man band you gotta have a straw hat guy on geetar

http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/kiyukata51/imgs/5/c/5cd45752-s.jpg

What do you I don't hear lyrics crowd hear when you listen to music?

I hear the words, but they pass right through my mind—I don't remember more than a couplet or two from most songs I've heard in my life. (Some of those get stuck in my head as loops, which is really annoying.) That's one of the things I like best about death metal—the total incomprehensibility of the vocals makes the lyrics a non-issue.

ilm often enjoys the challenging opinion that being interested in musicianship in any way = loving Yngwie and Paganini

― Now I Am Become Dracula (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Sunday, June 8, 2014 2:19 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

That's interesting, since I loathe Yngwie Malmsteen with a passion. No denying his "chops", but his music doesn't excite me in any way. Whereas I can put on a Rush or Zeppelin album and focus on the note choices, the interplay between the instrumentalists and the way they serve the compositions and the whole musical quality of it is exciting to my ears. I get this feeling from the classic Deep Purple and original Alice Cooper band records, and '70s Queen too. Hell, pre-rehab Aerosmith too.

It's very rare that I feel that same sense of musicality from The Stones. There are occasions... such as 'Can't You Hear Me Knocking' and the way the tempos change on 'Midnight Rambler' etc. I appreciate that the Stones' sloppiness is part of the charm, though. Above all, however, it's the songwriting that draws me to The Stones, rather than the way it's played or performed. And I dare say most of my favourite "musical" moments in The Stones catalogue comes from sessioneers like Nicky Hopkins, Bobby Keyes, Al Kooper, Billy Preston etc.

Lets hope this poll helps end this recent run of Zeppelin related discussion on ILM. This was a total destruction, and well justified.

zeppelin fucking rules

"satisfaction" fucking rules

But Bill you know the thing about...tthhe...recent...zzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzz zzzzz

I actually didn't vote, couldn't decide also they seem so different to me

'Achilles Last Stand' fucking rules

indeed it does

Dancing Days fucking rules

You don't see the producer sitting in on drums on Zeppelin records 'cuz the drummer can't do it.
is this actually the reason that miller plays drums on some stones songs? genuinley curious - i think i just figured charlie wasn't around for the session and they needed a drummer.

i'm going to go out on a limb and say that zep rules and the stones rule

You don't see the producer sitting in on drums on Zeppelin records 'cuz the drummer can't do it.
is this actually the reason that miller plays drums on some stones songs? genuinley curious - i think i just figured charlie wasn't around for the session and they needed a drummer.

― tylerw, Monday, June 9, 2014 10:44 AM (4 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

in a doc i saw on the making of exile....basically....keith would sleep forever and then spend a bunch of time cutting up his heroin for the day from this big ass shipment he'd brought at the beginning of the summer....and so he's not ready to roll until like 9 at night by which point wyman and charlie had been waiting for him for like 6 hours or something and charlie would just say fuck off and leave before keith was ready so keith would do stuff w/the ppl who were around

also i love bonham and i love watts but we're not gonna play the "hard to do" necessarily = better thing are we?

yeah i mean, bonham couldn't play like watts, watts couldn't play like bonham. both were just right for their respective bands.

i'm not even a cream fan but man watching that ginger baker beware of mr. baker doc made a pretty good case that he was the best drummer of that era, that he could have done what bonham did and what watts did (and more in terms of playing african and jazz in a real way)

too bad about the whole being an asshole thing (albeit a v funny asshole)

more to the point: let's imagine Charlie playing with John Lydon.

is this actually the reason that miller plays drums on some stones songs? genuinley curious - i think i just figured charlie wasn't around for the session and they needed a drummer.

Watts was incapable of playing "You Can't Always Get..." with those odd accents, I've read.

guess so - jagger sez "It proved to be quite difficult to record because Charlie couldn't play the groove and so Jimmy Miller had to play the drums."
i'll have to listen to it, can't really think what would be so tough about the groove?

But Charlie managed to play it in concert without any trouble.

He played it differently though, without all the crash-cymbal stuff

Yeah, that's true. But his RnR Circus performance of it is fine, and not drastically different from the recording.

tbh i think i would rather listen to some of those epic versions from 1972 than the studio take.

you can't always get what you want... you can't always want what you get... this is not a love soooooooong