Thunderdome: Led Zeppelin VS Rolling Stones

[SecondEdition]

I'd go with the Stones in general - the '68-'72 albums do it for me - but this is a bullshit poll which amounts to little more than mouthbreathing pedantry.

They're not very similar bands.

[Wood Goblin]

I want everyone to admit the following: while Led Zep's mid-period material is pretty grand, the band's first two albums are unlistenable amalgamations of scud-rock Marshall-amp Leslie West lard, and that everything after Houses of the Holy suffers from lackluster, heroin-induced professionalism. Admit it.

Oh, and obviously "Stones" here means '68-'75 Stones.

This is a lovely trick you played here: we have to count the entire Zep catalog, but with the Stones, we're excluding 85% of their career.

[Dr. O' Nothing]

the band's first two albums are unlistenable amalgamations of scud-rock Marshall-amp Leslie West lard, ... Admit it.

Wrong again, nerbs.

Supro, not Marshall on LZ I.

being interviewed, JP said:

What kind of amplifiers were you using for session work?

A small Supro, which I used until someone, I don't know who, smashed it up for me. I'm going to try to get another one. It's like a Harmony amp, I think, and all of the first album (Led Zeppelin) was done on that.

[The MayorofRockNRoll]

Y'know...I may have started some polls that may have been rightfully ignored...

...but this is a new low for the ol' thunderdome. Pointless and trivial even for some not-so-serious discussion on musical taste.

This is basically a vehicle, I think, for Nerblybear to engage in some forum-baiting. Oh well...buttons' exposed; push away.

Boy the hive is really stirred on this one. Whoop-de-fucking-whoop.

[SweetDaddyPatty]

Led Zeppelin by a fucking country mile.

[Kyle Motor]

I want everyone to admit the following: while Led Zep's mid-period material is pretty grand, the band's first two albums are unlistenable amalgamations of scud-rock Marshall-amp Leslie West lard, and that everything after Houses of the Holy suffers from lackluster, heroin-induced professionalism. Admit it.

Oh, and obviously "Stones" here means '68-'75 Stones.

This is a lovely trick you played here: we have to count the entire zep catalog, but with the Stones, we're excluding 85% of their career.

He also tried to make "Leslie West" a derogatory term, which is supreme bullshit.

"Heroin-induced professionalism"? Since when has heroin made anything more professional?

[Earwicker]

Zep

I can't ignore 30 some years of old dudes playing the same thing over and over again.

Zeppelin had their own sound. I never thought the Stones did.

[scntfc]

Bonham is ass.

good one! this is why i come to this forum, for the comedy.





anywayz...did the stones ever sing about hobbits? no? then zep!

[STF]

...I listened to a live version of "Stairway" today and it made me cry actual tears, like a little girl. (Yeah, I'm a pussy.) The song is so fucking beautiful that I was feeling like I was actually in heaven, looking back on my past life and just digging everything that had happened.

I am routinely amazed by some of the stuff NerblyBear writes.

In a bad way.

[Brett Eugene Ralph]

This is a tough call, but I'm gonna go with the Rolling Stones. They never sang about Tolkien.

[AnthonyVillalobos]

Jagged Edge.

[Mark Lansing]

Both of these bands are ridiculously overrated (not bad, simply overrated), but as good as John Bonham was, Charlie Watts is the better drummer, and still has arguably the greatest backbeat on Earth more than four decades after joining the band. On even the worst Stones records, I find joy in hearing Charlie play drums. I can't say that for Bonham. Stones win.

[SecondEdition]

Charlie Watts... still has arguably the greatest backbeat on Earth more than four decades after joining the band.

Seconded. He's a god.

[ERawk]

NerblyBear, when is your retarded ass ever going to learn the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion?

You'd make a shit musicologist, BTW. Probably an even shittier lawyer.

[m.koren]

Bonham is ass.

Paging Stabby Cat...

[Ernest]

Keith Richards is the master of the riff. There's obviously no question about that.

"Master of the riff"? When I think of riffs and the guitarists who write them, Richards isn't even a contender.

[The MayorofRockNRoll]

NerblyBear, when is your retarded ass ever going to learn the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion?

You'd make a shit musicologist, BTW. Probably an even shittier lawyer.

I hope I learn his real name if I should ever get sent up and have to go on trial...so I know who not to hire

By the way...I love both the Stones and Zep in completely different ways, neither of them platonic.

So...Beatles Vs. Sabbath then?

[Colonel Panic]

Zack something.

BTW, I agree with the little twerp on his choice, but not for the same reasons. The Rolling Stones were a much better band IMO.

[FuzzBob]

Charlie Watts... still has arguably the greatest backbeat on Earth more than four decades after joining the band.

Seconded. He's a god.

I agree. Watts is amazing at the backbeat. I do think Bonzo is being sold a little short, though, because while both Watts and Bonzo could funk, Bonzo could put enough balls on his funk to be able to hang with JBs-era James Brown if pressed. That counts for a shit-ton as far as I'm concerned.

[tommydski]

I suddenly realised today the last time I found myself reading posts like the NB ones in this thread they were by one Waltermalling.

Some food for thought!