Arguably the two biggest bands of the '70s, both battled for the title of the "World's Biggest Rock Band" in the wake of the Beatles' breakup in 1970. Both bands produced hit albums and singles all throughout the '70s, changed the face of Rock with their experimentation and their big, legendary style, had some of the most memorable concert tours of all time, hit their musical peak from 1971-1975, and ended the decade by experimenting even further (The Stones with Punk, Disco and Dance music on Some Girls; Led Zeppelin with New Wave, Dance and Electronic music with In Through the Out Door). Both bands were arguably the biggest of the '70s overall and really everyone else tried to be them in one way or another, admitting it or not; they sort of defined the whole "Rock Star" lifestyle and the mythos that goes with it.

So, which do you prefer, who was bigger in the '70s, do you have any memories of these bands at that period of time?

The Rollings Stones or the Rollings Stones Tribute Band....That's the question?

It's only Rolling Stones but I like it!

The Rollings Stones or the Rollings Stones Tribute Band....That's the question?


How would you call LZ a tribute band to the Stones...Two pretty different sounds...If anything both bands are a tribute to the old bluesmen of the 30s-60s.

I'm going Led Zeppelin all the way. 

i'd prefer LZ although the rolling stones' massive popular impact was undeniable. but they did, frankly, really basic, homogeneous three-chord rock. LZ was much more skilled and varied musically. keith richards literally had trouble keeping his guitar in tune, but Jimmy Page was one of the most gifted guitarists in a decade known for gifted guitarists in pop music.

that said, D&M has a fascinating take on LZ, she basically feels that they were serial plagiarists, as i recall, and she makes a pretty good case.

i'd prefer LZ although the rolling stones' massive popular impact was undeniable. but they did, frankly, really basic, homogeneous three-chord rock. LZ was much more skilled and varied musically. keith richards literally had trouble keeping his guitar in tune, but Jimmy Page was one of the most gifted guitarists in a decade known for gifted guitarists in pop music.

that said, D&M has a fascinating take on LZ, she basically feels that they were serial plagiarists, as i recall, and she makes a pretty good case.


Both bands are great. 

I prefer RS because they did a whole raft of classic pop songs I can listen to over and over again.  I'd take a closer listen before I'd write them off as "homogeneous three-chord rock." 

I've never personally been into LZ.  My siblings loved Zep and their songs bring back many memories.  However, I don't like Plant's voice and I find the band's improvising sloppy and bland.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a00_tPLcE_g

How would you call LZ a tribute band to the Stones...Two pretty different sounds...If anything both bands are a tribute to the old bluesmen of the 30s-60s.


You know what...I was reading Led Zep and thinking Aerosmith.  My bad.  My opinion of Led Zep is even lower than my opinion of Aerosmith.  If you can possibly get past the fact that their first album was plagiarized, and many songs in subsequent albums, and that Jimmy Page stole just about every lick he ever played, well...I can't get past that so there really isn't any reason to go on.

You know what...I was reading Led Zep and thinking Aerosmith.  My bad.   My opinion of Led Zep is even lower than my opinion of Aerosmith.  If you can possibly get past the fact that their first album was plagiarized, and that Jimmy Page stole just about every lick he ever played, well...I can't get past that so there really isn't any reason to go on.


Oh yeah?  Well, B.B. King never played his guitar with a violin bow, so what do you have to say about that?
:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4UJkl6eaGQ

that said, D&M has a fascinating take on LZ, she basically feels that they were serial plagiarists, as i recall, and she makes a pretty good case.



 

This isn't just me...Howard Stern no less, as well as quite a few artists and their lawyers.  Listen to the whole thing, it says a lot.


http://www.hark.com/clips/qmqjfdsztg-howard-stern-exposes-led-zeppelin-as-a-farce

They play different riffs, but if you listen to the whole songs they continue, so it isn't just riffs, they stole whole songs.  People argue that all musicians take from each other, but they would credit the original artist.  I don't know why Zep fans have a brain freeze when it comes to this.  Paige and Plant tried to take all the credit (and all the money). 

Apples and oranges to an extent.  Their audiences were different, despite that there was overlap.

Apples and oranges to an extent.  Their audiences were different, despite that there was overlap.
Overlaps indeed, the first hit for The Rolling Stones was "I Wanna Be Your Man" which was penned by Lennon–McCartney.

Apples and oranges to an extent.  Their audiences were different, despite that there was overlap.


No they weren't.  I was there.  Same audience.

No they weren't.  I was there.  Same audience.



I was there too, but don't want to dispute or argue.  I'll just agree to disagree.

I was there too, but don't want to dispute or argue.  I'll just agree to disagree.




Did they share groupies?
???

Did they share groupies?
???



Share and share alike  ;D  Not sure if they were memorialized by the Plaster Caster, I don't know if the whippersnappers know about the Plaster Caster. 

http://www.hark.com/clips/qmqjfdsztg-howard-stern-exposes-led-zeppelin-as-a-farce
fascinating. Funny, i found an Opie-and-Anthony show on the same subject, with the same audio clips, and someone commented, "Howard Stern did this show first!" I think Robin Quivers nails it with, 'LZ did the songs better, but they didn't write them" (although i really like the original Dazed and Confused, though...). As a big fan of the band i'd like to defend them, but that's pretty much caught red handed, man.  ;D I kinda like the idea that Peter Grant was the guy behind it all, that dude was a totally unreasonable mobster lunatic.

Part of the reason why i think you'll find LZ fans to be stubborn on this is because we've already had to accept so much incorrigible behavior from them, from the hotel-room trashing to robert plant's unbelievable flakiness to jimmy page's goofy satanic thing, that mostly we kinda don't like them personally anyway. still, the folks that they stole those songs from should be getting some major cash.

I also find the idea that the biggest rock epic of all time was totally cribbed to be perversely amusing.

Share and share alike  ;D  Not sure if they were memorialized by the Plaster Caster, I don't know if the whippersnappers know about the Plaster Caster. 




Or the teenage girl and the mudshark!
:-\\

Stones, baby. 

I'm not a big fan of either group but there are songs by both that I REALLY love.



This being one of them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXRExocnpUw




Cat

Angie is beeeeaaaaaaauuuuuuuuutiiiiiful. and i'm not even that into the stones, hardly at all. but if you're looking for a song about tragic romance and you're not trying to throw down the Radiohead card, "Angie" is it.

it's actually funny because one of the things that's struck me about this comparison between the stones and LZ and why it just seems offbeat to me, that i haven't been able to put my finger on before now, is that the stones were songwriters and led zep were technicians. (which is funny because they, LZ, were also such drunk, undisciplined, sloppy players, but if they hadn't been, i guess they would have actually gone into jazz) but they scratch different itches. the stones did songs where your heart beat with mic jagger's, the song concept and vocal delivery were key, the band just gave it shape. led zep were technical and instrumental and their energy was much more evenly distributed. plant wasn't a star of the kind that jagger was, jagger was a smart and savvy guy, plant had a brilliant voice but honestly? the guy's an idiot savant. great voice, no wherewithall. and robert plant's delivery and pitch were solid gold but the vocals of led zeppelin songs are mostly pretty stupid, or (as i think would be extra-galling to the performers whose songs got ripped off) that they took songs that were made on shoestring budgets, poured money all over them and thereby made them into something people would want to listen to. it sucks the world works that way, it really does.

Or the teenage girl and the mudshark!
:-\\

I believe they have dispelled that rumor, or at least blamed it on a roadie and not, infact, a band member  :-\\

I believe they have dispelled that rumor, or at least blamed it on a roadie and not, infact, a band member  :-\\


infact?  more like infect.

8-P

Here is what did not happen:  Marianne Faithfull and the Mars Bar. 

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/nono.gif

I've seen the Stones in concert, never had the opportunity to see Zep.
The more popular band (during my 1970s high school years) was Zeppelin, I'd say by a 2 to 1 margin. 

The Stones are the best rock and roll band ever tho, and it's hard to compare the two.  Zep was more hard rock, Stones were more "rock and roll". There was a little difference in their audiences, but obviously ( as someone put it earlier ) there was quite a bit of overlap.  Personally I prefer the Stones. 

Interesting short interview with Keith Richards on Zeppelin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1X6S34luGuE

Jumpin' Jack Flash is my favorite song of all-time