Home› Other Music

I think bands like the Stones are overrated...

VeddernarianVeddernarian Posts: 1,924
edited January 2008 in Other Music
And pale in comparison to Zeppelin. Plant's voice is currently awesome. I heard it on the Plant/Krause album. I heard it live. This Zeppelin show is going to be incredible! Plant's voice right now is where it was on Presence. Listen to Mick Jagger these days. He is a showman on stage but he doesn't sound good. Sadly, Daltrey now sounds like Molly Hatchet. I think Zeppelin is aware that 120million tried to get tickets. They know the pressure that is upon them. They wouldn't attempt it if they didn't think they could live up to the standard they created.
Up here so high I start to shake, Up here so high the sky I scrape, I've no fear but for falling down, So look out below I am falling now, Falling down,...not staying down, Could’ve held me up, rather tear me down, Drown in the river
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • spnkrispnkri Posts: 137
    I respect Led Zeppelin as musicians but I could never really get into their music. On the other hand, I have every album by the Stones although their best stuff was between 1964 and 1970. Maybe I should give Led Zeppelin another try.
  • Gremmie95Gremmie95 Posts: 749
    Both are great and have different styles of music. I love 'em both.
  • lisamlisam Posts: 75
    Led Zep are good but wouldnt call myself a fan. And as far as the stones go, well Mike Jagger went asking Jim Morrison for tips on how to put on a good concert and how to revive their failing career at that time.

    The Doors all the ways
    Shot me with your funk gun
  • MarblesMarbles Posts: 49
    I don't normally turn off the radio when the Stones play, but I react like, "So what?" when they play. They have maybe 8 good songs, and a whole bunch of crap.
  • ScotInAmsterdamScotInAmsterdam Posts: 1,004
    I think we forget how good the stones were cos they kept going... If they had stopped in the mid 70's we'd be begging them to reform... Same can be said of The Who, but on the other hand I'd rather have what we have from them today than nothing... I'm really thankful that led zeppelin didn't carry on into the 80's all their solo output in that decade was pretty embarrassing compared to their pedigree.
  • gabersgabers Posts: 2,787
    So which bands should be given more props than groups like The Stones, Beatles, Zeppelin, etc.? I'm not trying to be facetious, I just think that they deserve their accolades. They have mass appeal and are great bands. It's a difficult task o have mass appeal AND be actually a great band.
  • soulsingingsoulsinging Posts: 13,202
    ScotInAmsterdam wrote:
    I think we forget how good the stones were cos they kept going... If they had stopped in the mid 70's we'd be begging them to reform... Same can be said of The Who, but on the other hand I'd rather have what we have from them today than nothing... I'm really thankful that led zeppelin didn't carry on into the 80's all their solo output in that decade was pretty embarrassing compared to their pedigree.

    there is something to be said for quitting while you're ahead. led zeppelin and the beatles did it. the who and the stones didn't.

    same argument could be offered for nirvana vs. pearl jam. kurt was dead before he had the chance to release many albums. pearl jam hit the point the stones and the who did... a run of mediocre albums that only hardcore fans cared to hear anymore.
  • ScotInAmsterdamScotInAmsterdam Posts: 1,004
    I think the major difference between the old guard and the new boys is that the old classic albums are rarely over about 45 minutes, so they ended up with a far more focused effort. There was also a lot less scope for faffing about in the studio until the mid 70's which avoided the danger of over indulgence. The time taken to make albums now is phenominal compared to the time taken to make Led Zep 1 or Black Sabbath's first album.
  • gabersgabers Posts: 2,787
    ScotInAmsterdam wrote:
    I think the major difference between the old guard and the new boys is that the old classic albums are rarely over about 45 minutes, so they ended up with a far more focused effort. There was also a lot less scope for faffing about in the studio until the mid 70's which avoided the danger of over indulgence. The time taken to make albums now is phenominal compared to the time taken to make Led Zep 1 or Black Sabbath's first album.

    Exactly. How many albums did the Beatles release in the 60's? Seven? Eight? They were cranking out one like every year or two. Pearl Jam and Radiohead take 2 to 4 years to make albums. Beastie Boys take like 8 years.
  • VeddernarianVeddernarian Posts: 1,924
    This thread was an experiment; a fishing expedition. There are a few threads about Zeppelin and Robert Plant that have been hijacked by some very combatitive, negative people. There was this guy with the name Starf*cker who got banned a long time ago. Some of those other posts really took the form of what he used to do. He was like Beteljuice in the sense that you couldn't get rid of him, and he would highjack any thread that had any reference to Zep or Plant. On the other hand, he couldn't resist any thread about the Stones. Like a dog, he couldn't resist scraps of KFC. Any attack on the Stones made his mouth froth. So this was "bait" to see of any of these guys was him in a message pit afterlife.. Sorry if I offended anybody, except for him. My true opinion on the Stones, by the way, I don't like them that much but I don't hate them. My favorite song is Can You Hear Me Knocking. Can't fault a band too much after they came up with that.
    Up here so high I start to shake, Up here so high the sky I scrape, I've no fear but for falling down, So look out below I am falling now, Falling down,...not staying down, Could’ve held me up, rather tear me down, Drown in the river
  • Oh, JimmyOh, Jimmy Posts: 957
    Veddernarian wrote:
    This thread was an experiment; a fishing expedition. There are a few threads about Zeppelin and Robert Plant that have been hijacked by some very combatitive, negative people. There was this guy with the name Starf*cker who got banned a long time ago. Some of those other posts really took the form of what he used to do. He was like Beteljuice in the sense that you couldn't get rid of him, and he would highjack any thread that had any reference to Zep or Plant. On the other hand, he couldn't resist any thread about the Stones. Like a dog, he couldn't resist scraps of KFC. Any attack on the Stones made his mouth froth. So this was "bait" to see of any of these guys was him in a message pit afterlife.. Sorry if I offended anybody, except for him. My true opinion on the Stones, by the way, I don't like them that much but I don't hate them. My favorite song is Can You Hear Me Knocking. Can't fault a band too much after they came up with that.


    You mean CAN'T You Hear Me Knocking.

    Sticky Fingers is a masterpiece.
  • mole1985mole1985 Posts: 1,119
    A lot of music is also about the time/era that they happen. If the beatles happened now noone would probably give a shit. It's hard to say some are overrated and some are not. They weren't then but we now live in a diff time if you get my meaning.
    Dublin 2006
    Katowice 2007
    London 2007
  • FinsburyParkCarrotsFinsburyParkCarrots Seattle, WA Posts: 12,223
    I prefer The Stones to Zep, but I rarely listen to either anymore. I've nothing against them in any way. They're just not my passion in the way Hendrix's music is.
  • even flow?even flow? Posts: 8,066
    I know some bands would crank out the albums back in the day. But to be fair, the touring schedules were not quite as drawn out. Or should I say extensive as they are now.
    You've changed your place in this world!
  • keeponrockinkeeponrockin Posts: 7,446
    gabers wrote:
    So which bands should be given more props than groups like The Stones, Beatles, Zeppelin, etc.? I'm not trying to be facetious, I just think that they deserve their accolades. They have mass appeal and are great bands. It's a difficult task o have mass appeal AND be actually a great band.
    From that era, Pink Floyd. Maybe not as much as the beatles, but certainly as much as Zep and the Stones.
    Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
  • VeddernarianVeddernarian Posts: 1,924
    even flow? wrote:
    I know some bands would crank out the albums back in the day. But to be fair, the touring schedules were not quite as drawn out. Or should I say extensive as they are now.

    Another thing, back in the day, an album was 6-10 songs, usually 8. Nowadays, 11 to 17, averaging 13 to 15.
    Up here so high I start to shake, Up here so high the sky I scrape, I've no fear but for falling down, So look out below I am falling now, Falling down,...not staying down, Could’ve held me up, rather tear me down, Drown in the river
  • brain of cbrain of c Posts: 5,213
    the rolling stones are under rated.......these days.
    d'oh!!!!!!

    http://www.myspace.com/brain_of_c
  • Coming back to lifeComing back to life Posts: 401
    I'm all for bands carrying on. Imagine if there was no Binaural, Riot Act, Avocado, The Final Cut (my favourite Pink Floyd album by the way), AMLOR, division bell. Some of the Pumpkins later stuff is amongst their best as well - stand inside your love and try try try are contenders for my favourite pumpkin's song.

    The Stones done some good songs after the 60's such as Wild Horses.

    The earlier stuff will always be there.
    A restaurant with a smoking section is like a swimming pool with a pissing section
  • Ledbetterman10Ledbetterman10 Posts: 16,941
    Coming back to life wrote:
    I'm all for bands carrying on. Imagine if there was no Binaural, Riot Act, Avocado, The Final Cut (my favourite Pink Floyd album by the way), AMLOR, division bell. -


    the world would be a much better place without Lapse of Reason and Division Bell.
    2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • AnonAnon Posts: 11,175
    i like the Stones and although i don't listen to them as much as i should i am discovering cool songs all the time by them. Zeppelin on the other hand i always felt were a tad overrated.

    can't really comment on this too much though because the only 70s artists i listen to are The Doors and Bruce Springsteen. other than that most bands i like broke up after an album or two.
  • Coming back to lifeComing back to life Posts: 401
    Ledbetterman10 wrote:
    the world would be a much better place without Lapse of Reason and Division Bell.

    The world would be a better place without trolls who talk shit like you
    A restaurant with a smoking section is like a swimming pool with a pissing section
  • Oh, JimmyOh, Jimmy Posts: 957
    even flow? wrote:
    I know some bands would crank out the albums back in the day. But to be fair, the touring schedules were not quite as drawn out. Or should I say extensive as they are now.


    You can't compare touring from back in the day, with today. It has to be 10x easier now to tour, and less gruelling.
  • Ledbetterman10Ledbetterman10 Posts: 16,941
    Coming back to life wrote:
    The world would be a better place without trolls who talk shit like you

    I don't know what a troll is but I'm not talking shit. Momentary Lapse of Reason is terrible. It's NOT a Pink Floyd album. on the flip-side, Waters' first couple solo efforts (Pros and Cons, Radio KAOS) keep true to late-era Floyd like The Wall and Final Cut.

    I guess from your username I should have guessed that you would stick up for Division Bell. and to each their own: there are some good songs on it (High Hopes for instance). but it's still not Pink Floyd. but one of many good things about Pink Floyd is that there is so much different stuff. There's the Syd stuff, there's the pre-darkside stuff like Meddle and Saucerful of Secrets, there's Darkside through Animals, there's the dark Waters stuff (Wall, Final Cut) which is more of a hard rock sound, and then there's the crap (Lapse, Division Bell). to everything there's a season!

    enjoy Dogs of War my friend.
    2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • Oh, JimmyOh, Jimmy Posts: 957
    Ledbetterman10 wrote:
    I don't know what a troll is but I'm not talking shit. Momentary Lapse of Reason is terrible. It's NOT a Pink Floyd album. on the flip-side, Waters' first couple solo efforts (Pros and Cons, Radio KAOS) keep true to late-era Floyd like The Wall and Final Cut.

    I guess from your username I should have guessed that you would stick up for Division Bell. and to each their own: there are some good songs on it (High Hopes for instance). but it's still not Pink Floyd. but one of many good things about Pink Floyd is that there is so much different stuff. There's the Syd stuff, there's the pre-darkside stuff like Meddle and Saucerful of Secrets, there's Darkside through Animals, there's the dark Waters stuff (Wall, Final Cut) which is more of a hard rock sound, and then there's the crap (Lapse, Division Bell). to everything there's a season!

    enjoy Dogs of War my friend.

    I sorta agree. On The Turning Away is about the only realy good song off of MLOR, and none of those songs sound like Pink Floyd. Division Bell has a handful of good songs, but still nothin that sounds like Floyd.

    Having said that, if Waters wasn't such a cunt, it never woulda happened, so in the end that makes it OK to call those albums Pink Floyd albums.
  • ii44ii44 Posts: 430
    soulsinging wrote:
    there is something to be said for quitting while you're ahead. led zeppelin and the beatles did it. the who and the stones didn't.

    same argument could be offered for nirvana vs. pearl jam. kurt was dead before he had the chance to release many albums. pearl jam hit the point the stones and the who did... a run of mediocre albums that only hardcore fans cared to hear anymore.

    I call bullshit. Pearl jam has never put out a mediocre album.

    Also, the Stones are a huge influence on PJ, particularly Stone Gossard.
  • FARAWAY EYESFARAWAY EYES Posts: 24
    Veddernarian wrote:
    This thread was an experiment; a fishing expedition. There are a few threads about Zeppelin and Robert Plant that have been hijacked by some very combatitive, negative people. There was this guy with the name Starf*cker who got banned a long time ago. Some of those other posts really took the form of what he used to do. He was like Beteljuice in the sense that you couldn't get rid of him, and he would highjack any thread that had any reference to Zep or Plant. On the other hand, he couldn't resist any thread about the Stones. Like a dog, he couldn't resist scraps of KFC. Any attack on the Stones made his mouth froth. So this was "bait" to see of any of these guys was him in a message pit afterlife.. Sorry if I offended anybody, except for him. My true opinion on the Stones, by the way, I don't like them that much but I don't hate them. My favorite song is Can You Hear Me Knocking. Can't fault a band too much after they came up with that.
    Zep=Ripoffs as proven on Stern.
    Here's a real band.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDHbnF0z4EE
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usuPwYGlwvY
  • harmless_little_f***harmless_little_f*** Posts: 8,005
    Veddernarian wrote:
    And pale in comparison to Zeppelin. Plant's voice is currently awesome. I heard it on the Plant/Krause album. I heard it live. This Zeppelin show is going to be incredible! Plant's voice right now is where it was on Presence. Listen to Mick Jagger these days. He is a showman on stage but he doesn't sound good. Sadly, Daltrey now sounds like Molly Hatchet. I think Zeppelin is aware that 120million tried to get tickets. They know the pressure that is upon them. They wouldn't attempt it if they didn't think they could live up to the standard they created.

    I believe you are correct.
    'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'

    - the great Sir Leo Harrison
  • muppetmuppet Posts: 980
    I think Springsteen is one of the few who still gets good reviews for his new albums and good commercial sucesses.

    I'd say pretty much all of his albums are critically accalimed, apart from the Human Touch/Lucky Town albums in the 90s.

    It can be a bit painful to watch old acts like Springsteen or the Stones live, though. They can still amaze but sometimes it borders on the cringe-worthy for me.
  • AzwethinkweizAzwethinkweiz Posts: 547
    Led Zeppelin is beyond amazing and probably the greatest rockband ever.

    I dig the Stones a lot too. Saw them live this summer and they were great.

    Songs like Sympathy For the Devil and Gimme Shelter are musical masterpieces, if you ask me.
  • SomethingCreativeSomethingCreative Kazoo, MI Posts: 3,396
    I don't know if they're overrated but they've always been 2nd (along with the Beatles) to The Who and Zeppelin for me
    "Well, I think this band is incapable of sucking."
    -my dad after hearing Not for You for the first time on SNL .
Sign In or Register to comment.