I love both, but for me it is a complete no brainer and I have to vote for the Greatest Rock'N'Roll Band that ever existed Page, Plant, Jones & Bonham.
Way too difficult for me to choose. Led Zep are the greatest technical band of all time... and without them a great deal of the music industry wouldn't even exist.
The Who have all the catchy tunes though, even surpassing the Rolling Stones and The Beatles on the way in my book.
Baba O'Riley
Won't Get Fooled Again
My Generation
I Can't Explain
Substitute
Love Reign Over Me
Real Good Looking Boy
Behind Blue Eyes
Who Are You
You Better You Bet
And a crap load more to add. I'm not sure any band could stand up to The Who when it came to a live performance either.
The best live band I've seen. Complete mayhem, and unbelievable rawness back in the day.
Their pre Tommy albums were all very good, then they hit the big time with three all time great albums. The Who By Numbers follwed, and is a brilliant album, overshadowed somewhat by what went before.
Way too difficult for me to choose. Led Zep are the greatest technical band of all time... and without them a great deal of the music industry wouldn't even exist.
The Who have all the catchy tunes though, even surpassing the Rolling Stones and The Beatles on the way in my book.
Baba O'Riley
Won't Get Fooled Again
My Generation
I Can't Explain
Substitute
Love Reign Over Me
Real Good Looking Boy
Behind Blue Eyes
Who Are You
You Better You Bet
And a crap load more to add. I'm not sure any band could stand up to The Who when it came to a live performance either.
i love baba o riley:D
i'm not really familiar with led zep but i do like the stuff i've heard of theirs but im not au fait with their entire works
zep by a mile. the who were very much second rated to zep. zep made all great albums then stopped. you only have the one bad cash in album that can be ignored, and they didn't keep playing 30 years after they should have stopped. too much filler on who albums too
As much as I like Led Zep, the simple fact is they are one of the most unoriginal sets of musical magpies going. They stole not just a riff, or something that sounded a bit like, but often entire songs. That's everything, whole tune + words off other people.
R&B song that not many white people had heard at the time? Led Zep would see nothing wrong with stealing it and pretend they'd written it. Former band mate from one of Jimmy Page's earlier bands writes song, that he played a few times with Page. Next thing he knows Led Zep do a version and Jimmy claims he wrote it.
There's actually a very good video on You-tube that shows all the steals, if you've never heard it, it may well make you change your opinion of them. Certainly in terms of the B.S. propaganda put out by Rock Dinosaur monthly and all those guitar magazines that waffle on like Led Zep were somehow innovators. Great stage men and musicians that sold a great image yes, but innovators no-way.
And the worst thing is whilst Led Zep may well have been technically superior musicians, they actually played a lot of those songs they stole worse. Often the case with technical skilled musicians, they rob things of the sha-wing factor and turn them into technical exercises. Somehow their versions are cold and well just so darned "white" in comparison with the original R&B tracks.
Add to that they popularized boring 20 minute solo's of not just guitars but any instrument in the friggin band, and you have a bloated band that its no surprise the punks took as a target for their vitriol of everything that was bloated, pompous and wrong with music.
I will still always respect them for the likes of Whole Lot of Love, Kashmir and Stairway. Even if the words from Whole Lot of Love were stolen off an R&B tune...but you know I just take all the platitudes thrown their way with a bit of a pinch of salt.
As much as I like Led Zep, the simple fact is they are one of the most unoriginal sets of musical magpies going. They stole not just a riff, or something that sounded a bit like, but often entire songs. That's everything, whole tune + words off other people.
R&B song that not many white people had heard at the time? Led Zep would see nothing wrong with stealing it and pretend they'd written it. Former band mate from one of Jimmy Page's earlier bands writes song, that he played a few times with Page. Next thing he knows Led Zep do a version and Jimmy claims he wrote it.
There's actually a very good video on You-tube that shows all the steals, if you've never heard it, it may well make you change your opinion of them. Certainly in terms of the B.S. propaganda put out by Rock Dinosaur monthly and all those guitar magazines that waffle on like Led Zep were somehow innovators. Great stage men and musicians that sold a great image yes, but innovators no-way.
And the worst thing is whilst Led Zep may well have been technically superior musicians, they actually played a lot of those songs they stole worse. Often the case with technical skilled musicians, they rob things of the sha-wing factor and turn them into technical exercises. Somehow their versions are cold and well just so darned "white" in comparison with the original R&B tracks.
Add to that they popularized boring 20 minute solo's of not just guitars but any instrument in the friggin band, and you have a bloated band that its no surprise the punks took as a target for their vitriol of everything that was bloated, pompous and wrong with music.
I will still always respect them for the likes of Whole Lot of Love, Kashmir and Stairway. Even if the words from Whole Lot of Love were stolen off an R&B tune...but you know I just take all the platitudes thrown their way with a bit of a pinch of salt.
wow...thats interesting, ive heard similar criticisms before but as my knowlege/interest in led zep isnt that great i never followed it up or was able to counter/agree with these charges.
pity you didnt post a link to the youtube clip mentioned.
but in all fairness, they werent the first to rip off obscure r n b tracks, many did it including the beatles.
zep by a mile. the who were very much second rated to zep. zep made all great albums then stopped. you only have the one bad cash in album that can be ignored, and they didn't keep playing 30 years after they should have stopped. too much filler on who albums too
You cannot be serious :eek:
I think serious comparison of the two should be limited until the point their respective drummers died.
Obviously. Zep called it a day, and The Who carried on. They never reached the same heights again, but much of that was down to Townshends style changing from the earlier classic Who.
At their peak, both bands were superb, and produced a vast amount of top quality material, as well as being great live.
It is just personal opinion in the end as to who we like better.
I think serious comparison of the two should be limited until the point their respective drummers died.
Obviously. Zep called it a day, and The Who carried on. They never reached the same heights again, but much of that was down to Townshends style changing from the earlier classic Who.
At their peak, both bands were superb, and produced a vast amount of top quality material, as well as being great live.
It is just personal opinion in the end as to who we like better.
my comparison of zep vs who was mainly based on the 70s period. if you take similar band, the stones, beatles, floyd, or who etc and compare album by album (ie. 1st album to 1st album, 2nd album to 2nd album), zep comes out on top
take the eponymous first album, look at the tracklisting, it's classic zep from start to end. unlike other acts like beatles, stones, floyd, who etc, zep don't have that "early" sound that seperates the first material from the later more matured albums, such as the beatles from rubber soul/revolver onwards, or the stones maturing from the jimmy miller period onwards, or the who's early rnb period
the other thing the who suffered from is large amounts of filler material compared to the zep who had none. even the beatles suffered from the ringo tracks
so album by album zep has the strongest catalogue by far. the who have far too much filler, perhaps as a result of their interest in album concepts. when you have great tracks on an album, the bad ones stick out a lot more, so the who's albums aren't as cohesive as zeps
from there onwards, the who's legacy is further spoiled from the 80s onwards. they spent more than double the time being shit than they were good
my comparison of zep vs who was mainly based on the 70s period. if you take similar band, the stones, beatles, floyd, or who etc and compare album by album (ie. 1st album to 1st album, 2nd album to 2nd album), zep comes out on top
take the eponymous first album, look at the tracklisting, it's classic zep from start to end. unlike other acts like beatles, stones, floyd, who etc, zep don't have that "early" sound that seperates the first material from the later more matured albums, such as the beatles from rubber soul/revolver onwards, or the stones maturing from the jimmy miller period onwards, or the who's early rnb period
the other thing the who suffered from is large amounts of filler material compared to the zep who had none. even the beatles suffered from the ringo tracks
so album by album zep has the strongest catalogue by far. the who have far too much filler, perhaps as a result of their interest in album concepts. when you have great tracks on an album, the bad ones stick out a lot more, so the who's albums aren't as cohesive as zeps
from there onwards, the who's legacy is further spoiled from the 80s onwards. they spent more than double the time being shit than they were good
Personally I prefer the "early" period of the Who and Pink Floyd to what both bands did later, and I also like the "early" period of both the Beatles and the Stones. It may have not been "matured" rock music, but in the case of all four bands it was still great music.
You claim that Zep didn't have a similar "early" period. Strictly speaking that's true, although some might claim that, indirectly, the Yardbirds were Zep's "early" period!
Matching Zep's seventies output against the Who's seventies output, then yes, it's Led Zeppelin for me. However if I take The Who's "early" period into account then The Who wins hands down for me every time.
Comments
i respect led zep, but im not a fan.
The Who have all the catchy tunes though, even surpassing the Rolling Stones and The Beatles on the way in my book.
Baba O'Riley
Won't Get Fooled Again
My Generation
I Can't Explain
Substitute
Love Reign Over Me
Real Good Looking Boy
Behind Blue Eyes
Who Are You
You Better You Bet
And a crap load more to add. I'm not sure any band could stand up to The Who when it came to a live performance either.
The best live band I've seen. Complete mayhem, and unbelievable rawness back in the day.
Their pre Tommy albums were all very good, then they hit the big time with three all time great albums. The Who By Numbers follwed, and is a brilliant album, overshadowed somewhat by what went before.
i love baba o riley:D
i'm not really familiar with led zep but i do like the stuff i've heard of theirs but im not au fait with their entire works
R&B song that not many white people had heard at the time? Led Zep would see nothing wrong with stealing it and pretend they'd written it. Former band mate from one of Jimmy Page's earlier bands writes song, that he played a few times with Page. Next thing he knows Led Zep do a version and Jimmy claims he wrote it.
There's actually a very good video on You-tube that shows all the steals, if you've never heard it, it may well make you change your opinion of them. Certainly in terms of the B.S. propaganda put out by Rock Dinosaur monthly and all those guitar magazines that waffle on like Led Zep were somehow innovators. Great stage men and musicians that sold a great image yes, but innovators no-way.
And the worst thing is whilst Led Zep may well have been technically superior musicians, they actually played a lot of those songs they stole worse. Often the case with technical skilled musicians, they rob things of the sha-wing factor and turn them into technical exercises. Somehow their versions are cold and well just so darned "white" in comparison with the original R&B tracks.
Add to that they popularized boring 20 minute solo's of not just guitars but any instrument in the friggin band, and you have a bloated band that its no surprise the punks took as a target for their vitriol of everything that was bloated, pompous and wrong with music.
I will still always respect them for the likes of Whole Lot of Love, Kashmir and Stairway. Even if the words from Whole Lot of Love were stolen off an R&B tune...but you know I just take all the platitudes thrown their way with a bit of a pinch of salt.
wow...thats interesting, ive heard similar criticisms before but as my knowlege/interest in led zep isnt that great i never followed it up or was able to counter/agree with these charges.
pity you didnt post a link to the youtube clip mentioned.
but in all fairness, they werent the first to rip off obscure r n b tracks, many did it including the beatles.
You cannot be serious :eek:
I think serious comparison of the two should be limited until the point their respective drummers died.
Obviously. Zep called it a day, and The Who carried on. They never reached the same heights again, but much of that was down to Townshends style changing from the earlier classic Who.
At their peak, both bands were superb, and produced a vast amount of top quality material, as well as being great live.
It is just personal opinion in the end as to who we like better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyvLsutfI5M
And here's somemore:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zThdTAWQFAQ
And more:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5uMQDlKn8g
I do like both though.
my comparison of zep vs who was mainly based on the 70s period. if you take similar band, the stones, beatles, floyd, or who etc and compare album by album (ie. 1st album to 1st album, 2nd album to 2nd album), zep comes out on top
take the eponymous first album, look at the tracklisting, it's classic zep from start to end. unlike other acts like beatles, stones, floyd, who etc, zep don't have that "early" sound that seperates the first material from the later more matured albums, such as the beatles from rubber soul/revolver onwards, or the stones maturing from the jimmy miller period onwards, or the who's early rnb period
the other thing the who suffered from is large amounts of filler material compared to the zep who had none. even the beatles suffered from the ringo tracks
so album by album zep has the strongest catalogue by far. the who have far too much filler, perhaps as a result of their interest in album concepts. when you have great tracks on an album, the bad ones stick out a lot more, so the who's albums aren't as cohesive as zeps
from there onwards, the who's legacy is further spoiled from the 80s onwards. they spent more than double the time being shit than they were good
Personally I prefer the "early" period of the Who and Pink Floyd to what both bands did later, and I also like the "early" period of both the Beatles and the Stones. It may have not been "matured" rock music, but in the case of all four bands it was still great music.
You claim that Zep didn't have a similar "early" period. Strictly speaking that's true, although some might claim that, indirectly, the Yardbirds were Zep's "early" period!
Matching Zep's seventies output against the Who's seventies output, then yes, it's Led Zeppelin for me. However if I take The Who's "early" period into account then The Who wins hands down for me every time.