Led Zeppelin VS The Rolling Stones

ItsEvolutionBaby74 · July 2007

Well, I think most of you saw my other thread and know my stance on this debate, however for those of you who don't I am a huge Zeppelin fan, and because of an argument that I two people having the other day, which they for some strange reason started involving me, and a handfull of other random people in, and I'm just curious what the general viewpoint is on this forum.

Ledbetterman10 · July 2007

I think Zeppelin is far superior to the Rolling Stones in every way imaginable.

ItsEvolutionBaby74 · July 2007

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

I think Zeppelin is far superior to the Rolling Stones in every way imaginable.

Same, and on of my biggest arguments against the Rolling Stones is that Robert Plant actually had a good voice and range while Mick Jagger was well, nicely put not the best technical singer, and in addition to that fact the Rolling Stones hired countless musicians to play in the studio while Zeppelin played all of their stuff. As well as the fact that musically and lyrically Zeppelin is just better

Trailer · July 2007

I love both bands. Everybody is so quick to say that Zeppelin is way better, but you have to remember that the Stones came first. They were pioneering along with Dylan, Hendrix, and the Beatles.

Ledbetterman10 · July 2007

Trailer wrote:

I love both bands. Everybody is so quick to say that Zeppelin is way better, but you have to remember that the Stones came first. They were pioneering along with Dylan, Hendrix, and the Beatles.

yeah they came first. But I don't think there was anything innovative about the Stone....unlike Zeppelin, Dylan, Hendrix, or the Beatles

aNiMaL · July 2007

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

I think Zeppelin is far superior to the Rolling Stones in every way imaginable.

I wholeheartedly agree.

pearljam0000 · July 2007

If I had to only listen to one of these bands for the rest of my life I would easily choose Led Zeppelin. That being said thank goodness I don't have to choose because I love the Stones also.

deadnothingbetter · July 2007

well, i like Led Zeppelin wayyyyy better but why not compare Black Sabbath vs Led Zeppelin? that's a far greater battle.

DCGARDEN · July 2007

Zeppelin = Nolan Ryan

Stones = Don Sutton

CornishMan · July 2007

I like the rolling Stones... but I love Zeppelin

snipes824 · July 2007

its really close but i'll take zep.

Skitch Patterson · July 2007

ItsEvolutionBaby74 wrote:

Same, and on of my biggest arguments against the Rolling Stones is that Jimmy Paige actually had a good voice and range while Mick Jagger was well, nicely put not the best technical singer, and in addition to that fact the Rolling Stones hired countless musicians to play in the studio while Zeppelin played all of their stuff. As well as the fact that musically and lyrically Zeppelin is just better

A.) Yep. All the truely huge Zep fans know Jimmy PaIge did the singing.
B.) Ian Stewart (played with both zep and the stones... Sandy Denny.... Zep brought people in as well, although not to the same extent.
C.) I pick Zeppelin, because i like them better... but get your facts straight people.

Matty Boy · July 2007

I used to think that Zeppelin was better, but I find the older I get, the more I prefer The Stones. Robert Plant's shitty fucking lyrics and "Oh Babys" are sounding pretty cringe worthy to me these days. Zeppelin are better virtuoso players than the Stones but The Stones are better songwriters than Zeppelin. I always thought when Guns N' Roses came out with "Appetite For Destruction" it was the perfect mix of The Stones and Zeppelin.

Kraven · July 2007

I would take the Stones

red mos · July 2007

I'm a bigger Zeppelin fan. The Stones have good songs but I like Zeppelin's catalog alot more. Off the top of my head, I think I only actually like about 10 Rolling stone's songs (I have a feeling, I'm about to get reemed

.

ISUal · July 2007

Matty Boy wrote:

I used to think that Zeppelin was better, but I find the older I get, the more I prefer The Stones. Robert Plant's shitty fucking lyrics and "Oh Babys" are sounding pretty cringe worthy to me these days. Zeppelin are better virtuoso players than the Stones but The Stones are better songwriters than Zeppelin. I always thought when Guns N' Roses came out with "Appetite For Destruction" it was the perfect mix of The Stones and Zeppelin.

the Stones were way better songwriters. Songwriting, in my opinion, does much more to make music affective than virtuoso musicianship. For example, Umphrey's McGee puts on a good live show, and are incredible musicians, but none of their songs can move me like, In Hiding, for example. I like them alot, but would never place them on Pearl Jam's level. Pearl Jam are not virtuosos, but they are incredible song writers. Same with the Stones. Zeppelin could shred the Stones under the table, but Zeppelin never wrote anything as gorgeous as "Wild Horses." Besides, as much as I like Zeppelin, they did rip alot of people off...

Trailer · July 2007

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

yeah they came first. But I don't think there was anything innovative about the Stone....unlike Zeppelin, Dylan, Hendrix, or the Beatles

Agree to disagree on that one

Kraven · July 2007

ISUal wrote:

Zeppelin could shred the Stones under the table, but Zeppelin never wrote anything as gorgeous as "Wild Horses."

Quoted for truth!

Wild Horses is one of the most beautiful songs ever written and I would take it over anything in the Led Zeppelin catalog.

SPEEDY MCCREADY · July 2007

ill take the STONES........

markymark550 · July 2007

my personal preference of these two bands is Led Zeppelin

I generally most everything I've heard from LZ. To me it's hit or miss (and miss badly sometimes) with the Stones.

mrwalkerb · July 2007

if you take both bands peak (generally regarded as I-IV for led zep and I think it's mostly agreed beggar's banquet through the early 70s with teh stones) I'd take the stones, I think Sticky Fingers is better than any LZ record. Plus while the stones have put out some uhh questionable material I could probably never listen to In through the out door and barely notice. both have amazing riffs and I think John paul Jones never gets near enough credit but Stones baby.

Matty Boy · July 2007

Music just doesn't get any better than "Sympathy For The Devil" and "Give Me Shelter". Plus The Stones did record my favorite album of all time, "Sticky Fingers".

Ved in the Head91 · July 2007

ISUal wrote:

the Stones were way better songwriters. Songwriting, in my opinion, does much more to make music affective than virtuoso musicianship. For example, Umphrey's McGee puts on a good live show, and are incredible musicians, but none of their songs can move me like, In Hiding, for example. I like them alot, but would never place them on Pearl Jam's level. Pearl Jam are not virtuosos, but they are incredible song writers. Same with the Stones. Zeppelin could shred the Stones under the table, but Zeppelin never wrote anything as gorgeous as "Wild Horses." Besides, as much as I like Zeppelin, they did rip alot of people off...

Wild Horses is good, but...

The Rain Song is pretty fucking gorgeous if you ask me.

Ved in the Head91 · July 2007

Kraven wrote:

Quoted for truth!

Wild Horses is one of the most beautiful songs ever written and I would take it over anything in the Led Zeppelin catalog.

Once again, The Rain Song.

Underrated fucking tune. Beautiful. Incredible.

glasshouse · July 2007

i've got it

NSYNC vs. BACKSTREET BOYS

how i love all these music vs music threads!

oh btw, i can't comment on this thread since i'm not really familiar with the Stones' catalogue, but i can say that led zep rocked for the A team.

Skitch Patterson · July 2007

ISUal wrote:

but Zeppelin never wrote anything as gorgeous as "Wild Horses."

Since Ive Been Loving You and Im Gonna Crawl.

dirtyT · July 2007

Rolling Stones are the best Rock band, period. Zepplin might have become that, however, they weren't around long to. As far as innovative gies, maybe the Stones weren't as innovative as Zepplin, give you that, but just pure raw, rock n' roll, it's hard to beat them. Richards wrote some killer riffs in his day. I do think these 2 bands are the best to come out, way better than the Beatles.

dirtyT · July 2007

dirtyT wrote:

Rolling Stones are the best Rock band, period. Zepplin might have become that, however, they weren't around long to. As far as innovative gies, maybe the Stones weren't as innovative as Zepplin, give you that, but just pure raw, rock n' roll, it's hard to beat them. Richards wrote some killer riffs in his day. I do think these 2 bands are the best to come out, way better than the Beatles.

let me rephrase before I get blasted, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, should have been the first lines here!!

fada · July 2007

The stones did have some great material and produced some good albums. There is filler on some . "you gotta move" I would class as filler on Sticky fingers.

"Their Satanic Majesties Request" was a major letdown for me.

Having not grown up in 60's I always wondered how intense it must have felt to have heard "Dazed and Confused" for the first time.

I would give it to Zeppelin but I have only up to Physical graffiti in their catolgue

CServant · July 2007

In My Humble Opinion it's not even close...

Zeppelin by a country mile!!!

FinsburyParkCarrots · July 2007

The Stones. I've never known big love for Zep, off this board.

Led Zeppelin VS The Rolling Stones

Comments