Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Music to Your Ears' started by BeatlesAreMyJam, Jan 4, 2015.
But yet......we all play a few LZ/Stones/Who/etc. when we pick up the guitar.
Oh I agree.
No they're not.
You can't be serious.
AC/DC has been ripping themselves off since day one and nobody complained.
What I miss in this whole discussion, that Led Zeppelin was much more flash than most bands at that point. They basically popularized this whole extravagant, selfindulgent rockstar thing, with 30 minutes drumsolos and the likes. The Who and the Stones didn't do anything of that and I don't think they approved of it either
as a drummer myself, bonham was by far the most influential of the brit classic rock drummers. he was better technically than either moon or watts but not as technical as mitchell. he had a way better groove than mitchell but probably not as good as watts who wouldn't know a fill if it kicked him in the nuts as opposed to moon and mitchell who did little else than stick in fills everywhere. bonham got it just right - groove, power, technique and he played EXACTLY what the song required. together with jones, they were the rhythm section par excellence, exactly what page needed, cos his timing was always a bit ropey.
The truly great ones invent a new kind of music. Grateful Dead and REM are a couple that did it. Pink Floyd did it. Nirvana did it. And Led Zeppelin.
And zep never did anything that touched Who's Next or Quadrophenia. Very different bands in the end .
But the world would be a much poorer place if we didn't have those three records...
The story is that Jimmy Page originally wanted Steve Marriott of the Small Faces for his lead vocalist and Entwistle and Moon to leave the Who and come play bass and drums, respectively. To my ears, Robert Plant's efforts on I and II are all about sounding like Steve Marriott. Listen to the Small Faces "You Need Lovin' and then listen to "Whole Lotta Love."
I love Led Zeppelin I, II and IV. Other than "Boogie With Stu," Physical Graffiti doesn't do anything for me. Between "Who's Next" and Quadrophenia, I'm still trying to figure out which of the two is the best album in the history of rock and roll.
Really? Ok I guess but I wouldn't even consider it a contest. Led Zeppelin, musically is in a completely different realm than the Who.
There are a couple of really, really great Who tracks that I can't get enough of but then it just kind of sounds the same to me. I don't find that with Led Zeppelin. I can listen to Led Zeppelin all day long and their catalog is diverse enough to keep me interested. Except for Presence.... I can't listen to Presence.
@Rick330man, Who wouldn't want Steve Marriott to front the band. He was amazing. Great pipes, good song writer and played a Telecaster most of the time. I only wish I listened to more Small Faces and Humble Pie when I was younger.
Really? There are some amazing tracks on that album. Tea for One is one of their best bluesy songs ever, and Achilles Last Stand is genius.
That's one of the things I enjoyed so much, they continued to evolve and explore new styles. But the two tracks I mentioned are classic Zeppelin. Nobody's Fault is also a fav of mine.
After all this talk I think I'll spend most of the day listening to Zep. Never really disliked any of their albums,but there was a couple that I didn't listen to as much. Over the years I've come to like those albums more.
As for the Who and the Stones, I still only like half of their songs and haven't started liking other songs later. I think it really boils down to what bands your a fan of for most of the posters on this thread. Same deal with early Stones vs the Beatles. Both were great, but it's the Beatles for me.
I don't know... I just never got into that album. I have it but I just don't listen to it much. I bought it for Candy Store Rock which I did like but I overplayed it. You're right about nobody's fault but mine though, that is a classic. I prefer "In through the out door" to presence though. Again, an evolution to their song writing and packed with amazing songs.
I tend to overdose in cycles on songs/albums I really like, playing them constantly, then I'll avoid them for long periods of time until the next cycle. Listening to a lot of Stones/Sticky Fingers right now, so many classics on that one.
This all sounds like an adolescent argument of "my dogs bigger than your dog" or just a wanking contest.
Everyone has and is entitled to have different musical tastes. To me Zeppelin is formulaic rock n roll for the most part with a few exceptions like "Ten Years Gone" which may be my favorite Zep song (in spite of Plants awful lyrics). Of course, that's just my opinion.
FWIW, I would pay money to see Townsend just performing acoustic or solo. I wouldn't pay a cent to hear Plant or Page do anything.
As to the OP question, I don't think "hate" is the right term. Townshend says it's about the music and not personal animus. Who knows the real story.
Here's a guess. They personally don't like the people in the band. All these famous British rock stars know each other to various degrees so this seems at least possible. I propose this because I know that a lot of sessions players get tons of work because - in addition to being excellent players - people like them. They are reliable, fun to work with, etc. Why wouldn't this factor be at work among the stars as well?
Whatever you think of Led Zeppelin, the fact that they are in the same conversation that has us musicians (internet rock stars) also mentioning the Who, the Beatles and the Rolling Stones says a lot about their proper place in rock and roll history.
Whatever you think of Jimmy Page, the fact that he went after Marriott, Entwistle and Moon tells me he knew talent. As I recall the story, I believe it was Entwistle who replied that the idea would take off like a lead balloon - a thought which Jimmy Page morphed into "Led Zeppelin."
Perhaps Pete is just upset that Jimmy Page tried to raid his band for a bass player and a drummer? I'd also say both bands did pretty well in the long run anyways.
I don't know - The Who was smashing instruments and setting off explosives. Not long afterward KISS was playing concerts, and we can all agree that they were more flash and marketing than music.
Did you even see what you did there?
You're chastising the thread for wanking about "my dogs bigger than your dog" arguments and then you proceeded to wank about how you'd "pay money to see Townsend just performing acoustic or solo" but "wouldn't pay a cent to hear Plant or Page do anything".
That's just too funny. I'll take it in good humour because who cares what a bunch of guitar nuts think about 60's/70's bands on the internet but that is classic