I dont doubt Zeppelin had more fans, which would reflect record sales, and votes.
It doesn't mean they are better.
You have to look at those lists and see who is above both. Are they better? The Clash, Oasis, Massive Attack, Blur, The Stooges, Captain Beefheart, and so on.
And that is your opinion, so it doesn't over ride mine.
There is no filler on Who's Next, and the segmenst on Tommy and Quadrophenia that could be cnsidered such are actually parts of a story.
Those albums are far more complex than most otherbands could achieve.
Quadrophenia is a brlliant album, with hardly a duff moment.
but overall, the who had a lot more filler material than zep, who really had none
The Who started at the beginning of a new era in music, so their first album cant be compared to what was going on in 1969.
of course it can be compared. you just listen to one after another and compare them
Just look at the difference in The Beatles over those six years to see how things changed. That doesn't happen now.
It all boils down to personal opinion.
I like both bands, and cant say which is best. No one can. I just like The Who more.
well that's the difference between you and me, looking at it objectively (as zep aren't my favourite band by a mile), zep wins hands down based on the music they released alone, as every album was all killer and no filler, unlike the who
And that is what it is about. Opinion. Nothing can prove one is better than the other.
The poll here is about even, which shows how good they both were.
says the man who started an argument in post 21
i stated my views, so why challenge them if the thread is about "Who do you prefer ??" to directly quote the OP. i've also stated clearly my reasons why i made that decision
no you cant do a straight album comparison without taking into consideration that in the years between the whos first album and led zeps, there was major evolution in music .
however, if its a definitive view on which of these two great acts are the best, i dont think many could argue against its led zep thats had the greatest impact on music, ie is 'the best'.
i stated my views, so why challenge them if the thread is about "Who do you prefer ??" to directly quote the OP. i've also stated clearly my reasons why i made that decision
It was not an argument, more surprise that you claimed The Who had loads of filler. That is not factually true, becuse what is filler? Songs you dont like?
I dont think they did.
Neither of us can prove we're right, it is just opinion.
They are different bands, and as the poster above says, you cant really compare bands and come up with an answer, because there is nothing to define about what is better.
The simple answer is who does an individual like better.
It was not an argument, more surprise that you claimed The Who had loads of filler. That is not factually true, becuse what is filler? Songs you dont like?
I dont think they did.
Neither of us can prove we're right, it is just opinion.
They are different bands, and as the poster above says, you cant really compare bands and come up with an answer, because there is nothing to define about what is better.
The simple answer is who does an individual like better.
but every time i replied you argued against it. you started an argument, and you continued it after every explanation as to why zep was better, and of course you can compare bands
LZ by a mile. Even their 'throw away' songs were brilliant. Boogie With Stu, D'yer Mak'er. The Who were brilliant too. But Led Zeppelin, class of their own.
but every time i replied you argued against it. you started an argument, and you continued it after every explanation as to why zep was better, and of course you can compare bands
I'm saying they are not better. it is impossible to define better. You just like them better, I dont.
You can only compare based on personal likes.
I'm sure many will argue Westlife are better than Led Zep, and wont be turned.
Hmmmm tough one....love them both but for me it has to be Led Zep......just watched the 02 gig they did in 2007 (a Christmas prezzie from the missis). Amazing is all I can say. Plants voice has certainly stood the test of time better than Daltry's IMHO.
It was not an argument, more surprise that you claimed The Who had loads of filler. That is not factually true, becuse what is filler? Songs you dont like?
it is factually true. and no, it's not songs i don't like
Neither of us can prove we're right, it is just opinion.
They are different bands, and as the poster above says, you cant really compare bands and come up with an answer, because there is nothing to define about what is better.
The simple answer is who does an individual like better.
so why the hell argue the toss about it? you ask a question, i give an answer and you keep banging on. as you can see i have genuine reasons for what i have said
so why the hell argue the toss about it? you ask a question, i give an answer and you keep banging on. as you can see i have genuine reasons for what i have said
That doesn't confirm for a fact that The Who had "loads of filler" on their albums.
Most Who fans will like all the albums, the same any fan will like all their faves albums.
Who decides what is the quality, compared to the filler? If you like something, it is a good song. I'd be interested in what you consider sub standard material, therefore filler.
I kike more of the Who's music than Zeps, but I wouldn't call what I dont like filler.
Your genuine reasons are personal opinion, as are mine. Nothing to do with fact. Fact cant tell you one of these bands is better than the other.
You seem to suggest The Who are crap now. I watched them on the New York show last night, and they put on a great performance, one of the best of the concert, and the crowd seemed to respond with similar thoughts.
I also watched the Led Zep dvd from the O2 show in 2007 last week. That is great too.
They are two great bands, and only personal opinion separates them.
For proper comparison, that has to be done when both at at their peak.
Hmmmm tough one....love them both but for me it has to be Led Zep......just watched the 02 gig they did in 2007 (a Christmas prezzie from the missis). Amazing is all I can say. Plants voice has certainly stood the test of time better than Daltry's IMHO.
Daltrey is a bit older, and has had problems with his voice, for which he has had to adapt his style at times, but he is still powerful most of the time.
This is something that all the great rock singers of the era have had to address.
I'm pleased so many of them are still going, rather than giving up as some seem to suggest they should, purely because they are not as good as when they were in their 20s.
Paul McCartney has had a load of flak on forums claiming he's past it, and should give up, but that is rubbish too. He was very good in New York, and events like the Olympics dont have tv sound that does singers any favours, and their future, or quality shouldn't be judged on such shows.
Townshend is one of the best songwriters and visionaries of modern music. He can put a simple emotion into a great pop song and put a complex philosophical concept into a great rock song. So it's the Who for me.
My verdict on the two is equal but different as i love them both and have CDS galore of them each had a different sound although of course music is very subjective.
That doesn't confirm for a fact that The Who had "loads of filler" on their albums.
i said "the who had loads of filler", which they did. as a who fan you will know that not all the material on all albums is top notch, thus taking their entire recorded output, it's true to say they had loads of filler as there is loads of material that's not of the same quality as their best material
on the other hand that's something zep don't have, and why album by album comparing first zep album with first beatles, stones, floyd, who, bowie, etc album and so on, and moving to each album consecutively you will find they zeps albums stand up better than the others
Most Who fans will like all the albums, the same any fan will like all their faves albums.
that's just stating the obvious and has no real bearing on the point
Who decides what is the quality, compared to the filler? If you like something, it is a good song. I'd be interested in what you consider sub standard material, therefore filler.
I kike more of the Who's music than Zeps, but I wouldn't call what I dont like filler.
what you don't like isn't necesarily filler. those are just tracks you don't like. filler material is that which is not of the same quality as the best of an artists usual work, or the rest of the tracks on an album. this is pretty typical on double albums and concept albums
Your genuine reasons are personal opinion, as are mine. Nothing to do with fact. Fact cant tell you one of these bands is better than the other.
well you can if a clear set of criteria is defined
there are three lists on the subject by three of the most well known music related magazines and channels, rolling stone, q and vh1, and zep is much higher up on lists than the who. so this isn't my personal opinion, and my opinion wasn't counted in those polls
You seem to suggest The Who are crap now. I watched them on the New York show last night, and they put on a great performance, one of the best of the concert, and the crowd seemed to respond with similar thoughts.
do you mean the show that i mentioned earlier in the thread that i had watched and said they were great, whilst forgetting i had seen the who in the flesh (and if you are a real who fan you would have not only seen it by may own it on dvd too) and said they were one of the best live acts i've seen? thus you shouldn't be writing off over 3 decades of the bands history which comprises of 2 thirds of their career?
I also watched the Led Zep dvd from the O2 show in 2007 last week. That is great too.
i though i had also mentioned on this same thread watching that bluray followed by one of their 70s shows. it indeed was a great gig
They are two great bands, and only personal opinion separates them.
a lot more seperates them than that, sales, reviews, chart positions, etc
For proper comparison, that has to be done when both at at their peak.
but why? when assessing anything you should be taking everything into consideration from start to end, otherwise you end up with flawed results. it sounds like you know yourself that if you were to compare the entire work of both bands, zep would come out on top, just as the lists of best bands/acts of all time shows zep far higher rated than the who. sales wise zep has sold about 3 times what the who have sold, even though zep split about 30 years ago and the who are still going till this day, and they have more dates resuming at the end of january
I dont agree there is loads of filler on Who albums. There isn't.
You cant class filler as songs that dont match their most outstanding. No band can do that, although it is still subjective, not factual.
If I say I only like about 10 songs that I would class as their very best, does that mean the rest is filler? Of course it doesn't. Same applies to The Who.
I saw The Who live in their glory days, so know how good they were. I've also seen them on their last two tours, and they were brilliant. Certainly not worthy of being called crap!!
Any comparison of songs/a;bums is based on personal opinion, not fact, and that means one cant be assessed as better on that criteria.
Polls dont answer it, and record sales etc prove nothing.
The Spice Girls are probably better than both using that.
but the fact of the matter is the who had a lot of filler
If I say I only like about 10 songs that I would class as their very best, does that mean the rest is filler? Of course it doesn't. Same applies to The Who.
do you actually read what people post, or do you just like to type replies without bothering to read what someone said first. i already answered that question and said it doesn't mean it's filler. it just means you don't like something or think it's best or whatever. it's a different think
I saw The Who live in their glory days, so know how good they were. I've also seen them on their last two tours, and they were brilliant. Certainly not worthy of being called crap!!
again, you obviously aren't reading what i'm posting. i never once said the who were crap. didn't you see my posts, like the one you just replied to, where i said the who were a great live band and i had seen them live myself?
Any comparison of songs/a;bums is based on personal opinion, not fact, and that means one cant be assessed as better on that criteria.
of course they can. people have done this for years, thus lists of the best songs and albums, like this one...
1. London Calling - The Clash
2. Purple Rain - Prince & The Revolution
3. The Joshua Tree - U2
4. Remain In Light - Talking Heads
5. Graceland - Paul Simon
6. Born In The U.S.A. - Bruce Springsteen
7. Thriller - Michael Jackson
8. Murmur - Rem / (Circus Animals - Cold Chisel)
9. Shoot Out The Lights - Richard And Linda Thompson /(Diesel And Dust - Midnight Oil)
10. Tracy Chapman - Tracy Chapman
Polls dont answer it, and record sales etc prove nothing.
of course they do. they prove what people are buying, and people typically buy what they like
The Spice Girls are probably better than both using that.
no they aren't. you can check for yourself, but zep had sold about 10 times what spice girls sold and even the who have sold 3 times what spice girls sold
It's The Who every time for me. I first saw them in 1965 when they had only had two hits and they were amazing even then. When you think they were all between the ages of 17 and 19, they had so much talent. They have been consistantly good ever since.
That doesn't mean I don't agree that LZ are also talented because they are, but The Who are better.
Grew up with both bands, cant say one is better than the other as they are different, only saw Zep live but wished i had seen the Who with Keith Moon drumming. Zep did crack America which is hard for most British bands leading to huge sales and record breaking concerts and i still listen to them today a lot
but the fact of the matter is the who had a lot of filler
You've said The Who had lots of filler, and large amounts of filler, which equates to loads. It's no good giving a link describing what filler is, and claiming that applies to the works of The Who, and stating it is a fact. I doubt Mr Townshend would agree.
I dont think they had lots of filler. What is the filler? How does it differ from songs you dont like? Who judges what drops below their very best? If you asked any fan to give their top 20 songs of any band, you'd have many 1000s of different answers.
Polls, and record sales do not mean best. How can they? Of course comparisons can be done in terms of sales etc, and personal opinion, hence your list of "best songs". Do you believe those polls are always right?
There is no way to define best.
I like The Who better than Led Zep. You are the reverse. Neither of us will change that, and there is no way of proving who is best, because they are both excellent, and they both appeal to great numbers of people.
These arguments are pointless, unless it is a simple "who do you like best"?
I remember the 60s and the same nonesense applied to The Beatles and Stones. People would argue over who was best, rather than thinkling they could like both.
I dont know how many records the Spice Girls sold, but one of my very favourite bands is Free, and they wouldn't have sold as many as the Spice Girls, or been watched by as many. Does that mean they are not as good as the Spice Girls? That is how silly it is to judge best on sales.
Comments
And that is what it is about. Opinion. Nothing can prove one is better than the other.
The poll here is about even, which shows how good they both were.
so no ones 'right' or 'wrong'.
Amongst my many faves (Massive Attack).
but overall, the who had a lot more filler material than zep, who really had none
of course it can be compared. you just listen to one after another and compare them
well that's the difference between you and me, looking at it objectively (as zep aren't my favourite band by a mile), zep wins hands down based on the music they released alone, as every album was all killer and no filler, unlike the who
says the man who started an argument in post 21
i stated my views, so why challenge them if the thread is about "Who do you prefer ??" to directly quote the OP. i've also stated clearly my reasons why i made that decision
however, if its a definitive view on which of these two great acts are the best, i dont think many could argue against its led zep thats had the greatest impact on music, ie is 'the best'.
I love them both but would not compare either with each other.:)
It was not an argument, more surprise that you claimed The Who had loads of filler. That is not factually true, becuse what is filler? Songs you dont like?
I dont think they did.
Neither of us can prove we're right, it is just opinion.
They are different bands, and as the poster above says, you cant really compare bands and come up with an answer, because there is nothing to define about what is better.
The simple answer is who does an individual like better.
but every time i replied you argued against it. you started an argument, and you continued it after every explanation as to why zep was better, and of course you can compare bands
I'm saying they are not better. it is impossible to define better. You just like them better, I dont.
You can only compare based on personal likes.
I'm sure many will argue Westlife are better than Led Zep, and wont be turned.
it is factually true. and no, it's not songs i don't like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filler_%28media%29
so why the hell argue the toss about it? you ask a question, i give an answer and you keep banging on. as you can see i have genuine reasons for what i have said
That doesn't confirm for a fact that The Who had "loads of filler" on their albums.
Most Who fans will like all the albums, the same any fan will like all their faves albums.
Who decides what is the quality, compared to the filler? If you like something, it is a good song. I'd be interested in what you consider sub standard material, therefore filler.
I kike more of the Who's music than Zeps, but I wouldn't call what I dont like filler.
Your genuine reasons are personal opinion, as are mine. Nothing to do with fact. Fact cant tell you one of these bands is better than the other.
You seem to suggest The Who are crap now. I watched them on the New York show last night, and they put on a great performance, one of the best of the concert, and the crowd seemed to respond with similar thoughts.
I also watched the Led Zep dvd from the O2 show in 2007 last week. That is great too.
They are two great bands, and only personal opinion separates them.
For proper comparison, that has to be done when both at at their peak.
Daltrey is a bit older, and has had problems with his voice, for which he has had to adapt his style at times, but he is still powerful most of the time.
This is something that all the great rock singers of the era have had to address.
I'm pleased so many of them are still going, rather than giving up as some seem to suggest they should, purely because they are not as good as when they were in their 20s.
Paul McCartney has had a load of flak on forums claiming he's past it, and should give up, but that is rubbish too. He was very good in New York, and events like the Olympics dont have tv sound that does singers any favours, and their future, or quality shouldn't be judged on such shows.
As this thread is proving.;)
i said "the who had loads of filler", which they did. as a who fan you will know that not all the material on all albums is top notch, thus taking their entire recorded output, it's true to say they had loads of filler as there is loads of material that's not of the same quality as their best material
on the other hand that's something zep don't have, and why album by album comparing first zep album with first beatles, stones, floyd, who, bowie, etc album and so on, and moving to each album consecutively you will find they zeps albums stand up better than the others
that's just stating the obvious and has no real bearing on the point
what you don't like isn't necesarily filler. those are just tracks you don't like. filler material is that which is not of the same quality as the best of an artists usual work, or the rest of the tracks on an album. this is pretty typical on double albums and concept albums
well you can if a clear set of criteria is defined
http://rateyourmusic.com/list/therapking/the_immortals__the_100_greatest_artists_of_all_time__by_rolling_stone_magazine_
http://stereogum.com/495331/vh1-100-greatest-artists-of-all-time/list/
http://www.xfm.co.uk/article.asp?id=43600
there are three lists on the subject by three of the most well known music related magazines and channels, rolling stone, q and vh1, and zep is much higher up on lists than the who. so this isn't my personal opinion, and my opinion wasn't counted in those polls
do you mean the show that i mentioned earlier in the thread that i had watched and said they were great, whilst forgetting i had seen the who in the flesh (and if you are a real who fan you would have not only seen it by may own it on dvd too) and said they were one of the best live acts i've seen? thus you shouldn't be writing off over 3 decades of the bands history which comprises of 2 thirds of their career?
i though i had also mentioned on this same thread watching that bluray followed by one of their 70s shows. it indeed was a great gig
a lot more seperates them than that, sales, reviews, chart positions, etc
but why? when assessing anything you should be taking everything into consideration from start to end, otherwise you end up with flawed results. it sounds like you know yourself that if you were to compare the entire work of both bands, zep would come out on top, just as the lists of best bands/acts of all time shows zep far higher rated than the who. sales wise zep has sold about 3 times what the who have sold, even though zep split about 30 years ago and the who are still going till this day, and they have more dates resuming at the end of january
You cant class filler as songs that dont match their most outstanding. No band can do that, although it is still subjective, not factual.
If I say I only like about 10 songs that I would class as their very best, does that mean the rest is filler? Of course it doesn't. Same applies to The Who.
I saw The Who live in their glory days, so know how good they were. I've also seen them on their last two tours, and they were brilliant. Certainly not worthy of being called crap!!
Any comparison of songs/a;bums is based on personal opinion, not fact, and that means one cant be assessed as better on that criteria.
Polls dont answer it, and record sales etc prove nothing.
The Spice Girls are probably better than both using that.
who said there was a lot of filler on who albums? do i need to repeat for the third time?
i said "the who had lots of filler"
i didn't class it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filler_%28media%29
i have nothing to do with that link
but the fact of the matter is the who had a lot of filler
do you actually read what people post, or do you just like to type replies without bothering to read what someone said first. i already answered that question and said it doesn't mean it's filler. it just means you don't like something or think it's best or whatever. it's a different think
again, you obviously aren't reading what i'm posting. i never once said the who were crap. didn't you see my posts, like the one you just replied to, where i said the who were a great live band and i had seen them live myself?
of course they can. people have done this for years, thus lists of the best songs and albums, like this one...
http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/rstone.html
1. London Calling - The Clash
2. Purple Rain - Prince & The Revolution
3. The Joshua Tree - U2
4. Remain In Light - Talking Heads
5. Graceland - Paul Simon
6. Born In The U.S.A. - Bruce Springsteen
7. Thriller - Michael Jackson
8. Murmur - Rem / (Circus Animals - Cold Chisel)
9. Shoot Out The Lights - Richard And Linda Thompson /(Diesel And Dust - Midnight Oil)
10. Tracy Chapman - Tracy Chapman
of course they do. they prove what people are buying, and people typically buy what they like
no they aren't. you can check for yourself, but zep had sold about 10 times what spice girls sold and even the who have sold 3 times what spice girls sold
That doesn't mean I don't agree that LZ are also talented because they are, but The Who are better.
You've said The Who had lots of filler, and large amounts of filler, which equates to loads. It's no good giving a link describing what filler is, and claiming that applies to the works of The Who, and stating it is a fact. I doubt Mr Townshend would agree.
I dont think they had lots of filler. What is the filler? How does it differ from songs you dont like? Who judges what drops below their very best? If you asked any fan to give their top 20 songs of any band, you'd have many 1000s of different answers.
Polls, and record sales do not mean best. How can they? Of course comparisons can be done in terms of sales etc, and personal opinion, hence your list of "best songs". Do you believe those polls are always right?
There is no way to define best.
I like The Who better than Led Zep. You are the reverse. Neither of us will change that, and there is no way of proving who is best, because they are both excellent, and they both appeal to great numbers of people.
These arguments are pointless, unless it is a simple "who do you like best"?
I remember the 60s and the same nonesense applied to The Beatles and Stones. People would argue over who was best, rather than thinkling they could like both.
I dont know how many records the Spice Girls sold, but one of my very favourite bands is Free, and they wouldn't have sold as many as the Spice Girls, or been watched by as many. Does that mean they are not as good as the Spice Girls? That is how silly it is to judge best on sales.