Led Zeppelin VS The Rolling Stones

ItsEvolutionBaby74
ItsEvolutionBaby74 Posts: 490
edited July 2007 in Other Music
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.
"Feel it rising, yeah next stop falling!"

<a href=http://www.topcomments.com><img src=http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r114/tcbm7/img/other/44.gif title="MySpace Comments" border=0></a><br><left><a href='http://www.topcomments.com'><font size="2">MySpace Comments</font></a></left>
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13

Comments

  • Ledbetterman10
    Ledbetterman10 Posts: 16,994
    I think Zeppelin is far superior to the Rolling Stones in every way imaginable.
    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, 2025: Pittsburgh 1

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • ItsEvolutionBaby74
    ItsEvolutionBaby74 Posts: 490
    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 ;)
    "Feel it rising, yeah next stop falling!"

    <a href=http://www.topcomments.com><img src=http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r114/tcbm7/img/other/44.gif title="MySpace Comments" border=0></a><br><left><a href='http://www.topcomments.com'><font size="2">MySpace Comments</font></a></left>
  • Trailer
    Trailer Posts: 1,431
    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.
    Whoa, chill bro... you know you can't raise your voice like that when the lion's here.
  • Ledbetterman10
    Ledbetterman10 Posts: 16,994
    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
    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, 2025: Pittsburgh 1

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • aNiMaL
    aNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    Ledbetterman10 wrote:
    I think Zeppelin is far superior to the Rolling Stones in every way imaginable.
    I wholeheartedly agree.
  • pearljam0000
    pearljam0000 Posts: 450
    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
    deadnothingbetter Posts: 2,202
    well, i like Led Zeppelin wayyyyy better but why not compare Black Sabbath vs Led Zeppelin? that's a far greater battle.
    This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
  • DCGARDEN
    DCGARDEN Posts: 515
    Zeppelin = Nolan Ryan

    Stones = Don Sutton
    I'll keep taking punches
    Untill their will grows tired
  • CornishMan
    CornishMan Cornwall, UK Posts: 455
    I like the rolling Stones... but I love Zeppelin :)
    London #1 2000, Reading 2006, London 2007, London 2009, London 2010, Manchester #1 2012, Manchester #2 2012, Manchester 2012 (EV), Milton Keynes 2014, London #2 2017 (EV), London #1 2018, London #2 2018, London #1 2022, London #2 2022, Manchester 2024.
  • snipes824
    snipes824 Posts: 870
    its really close but i'll take zep.
  • Skitch Patterson
    Skitch Patterson Posts: 642
    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
    Matty Boy Posts: 421
    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
    Kraven Posts: 829
    I would take the Stones
    32 shows and counting...
  • red mos
    red mos Posts: 4,953
    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 ;).
    PJ: 10/14/00 06/09/03 10/4/09 11/15/13 11/16/13 10/08/14
    EV Solo: 7/11/11 11/12/12 11/13/12
  • ISUal
    ISUal Posts: 40
    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...
    "I know I was born, and I know that I'll die, but in between is mine..." Ed
  • Trailer
    Trailer Posts: 1,431
    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 ;)
    Whoa, chill bro... you know you can't raise your voice like that when the lion's here.
  • Kraven
    Kraven Posts: 829
    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.
    32 shows and counting...
  • SPEEDY MCCREADY
    SPEEDY MCCREADY Posts: 26,856
    ill take the STONES........
    Take me piece by piece.....
    Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
  • markymark550
    markymark550 Columbia, SC Posts: 5,217
    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
    mrwalkerb Posts: 1,015
    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.
    "I'm not suicidal, except when I drink. That's why we don't all drink at the same time, there'd be no-one alive to drive home..."
    Chris Cornell

    http://www.myspace.com/mrwalkerb

Categories