Rolling Stones vs Pink Floyd vs Led Zeppelin vs The Who:
Maneatingcow
question that the 60's and 70's were dominated by these 4 bands more
than anyone. Sure, Deep Purple was good, Rainbow had their moments
w/Dio, and Black Sabbath had theirs, but from that incredible 64-79 15
year span, (narrow it further to the 68-73 years for the elite of the
elite), these were THE years that the best rock music the world ever
saw came out.
And the 4 bands listed here were the main reason. Granted many people
here like all these bands (ok, not everyone, certain Pink Floyd fans
[ksmith] here think LZ eat shit and Page was lame, but whatever)
I'm curious to see, with this question posted in all 4 NG's, how the
following questions would be answered.
-#1 - What band has aged the worst of the four?
#2 - Between these 4 bands, what are your top 3 album picks?
# 3 - Which band was the most musically talented/skilled?
#4 - Rank the bands, best to worst in your opinion if you are willing.
Now, here's some of the slightly mopre interesting stuff between the
bands I had questions about
#1 - Did Robert Plant ripoff the longer curly hair look from Roger
Daultry, or vice versa?
#2 - True or False - Mick Jagger once said he was a much better
singerthan Roger was. I had yet another Stones fan tell me this at the
1st Stones show this tour, and that Mick said this back in a UK
magazine in the early 70's. That's the same thing I heard from another
person. What exactly WAS said?
#3 - Which band has the most arrogant/worst fans?
#4 - Has ANYONE here seen all four of these bands live? Or even 3 of
them? Who was the best of these bands live in your opinion? (I'm just
waiting for a Who fan to bring up the recent "Zeppelin sucks live; Who
own them" comments)
Some of the NG's are a little slow, hopefully this will drum up some
talks.
The Man From Mars
First of all I think leaving The Beatles off this list is sinful and with
that in mind I will attempt my answers of these questions.
>
> -#1 - What band has aged the worst of the four?
Definitely the Stones.
>
> #2 - Between these 5 bands, what are your top 3 album picks?
Beatles
1. The White Album
2. Sgt. Pepper
3. Revolver
Stones
1. Some Girls
2. Hot Rocks
3. Undercover
Pink Floyd
1. Animals
2. The Final Cut
3. The Wall
Led Zep
1. Houses of the Holy
2. Physical Grafitti
3. II
The Who
1. Who's Next
2. Tommy
3. Quadraphenia
OVERALL
1. The White Album
2. Houses of the Holy
3. Sgt. Pepper
>
> # 3 - Which band was the most musically talented/skilled?
Definitely The Beatles overall.
I would say vocal wise it is hard to beat Lennon/McCartney/Harrison with
Robert Plant a distant 4th and I like Plant very, very much.
Guitar - Definitely Page with John Lennon a surprise second pick.
Bass - Entwistle with McCartney as a second pick.
Drums - Bonzo with Keith Moon a second pick
Piano - McCartney with John Paul Jones a second pick.
Songwriting - Lennon/McCartney are #1 with Roger Waters #2 and
Jagger/Richards, Page/Plant tied for #3.
>
> #4 - Rank the bands, best to worst in your opinion if you are willing.
#1. The Beatles
#2 Led Zeppelin
#3 The Rolling Stones
#4 Pink Floyd
#5 The Who
>
> Now, here's some of the slightly mopre interesting stuff between the
> bands I had questions about
>
> #1 - Did Robert Plant ripoff the longer curly hair look from Roger
> Daultry, or vice versa?
Robert Plant didn't rip anything off from Roger Daltry. Never. Ever.
>
> #2 - True or False - Mick Jagger once said he was a much better
> singerthan Roger was. I had yet another Stones fan tell me this at the
> 1st Stones show this tour, and that Mick said this back in a UK
> magazine in the early 70's. That's the same thing I heard from another
> person. What exactly WAS said?
Who knows?
>
> #3 - Which band has the most arrogant/worst fans?
On the internet it seems that The Who have the worst fans. JMO. I only say
that because a few years ago in the Zep newsgroup it seemed every time there
was some stupid thread it was started by some Who fan.
>
> #4 - Has ANYONE here seen all four of these bands live? Or even 3 of
> them? Who was the best of these bands live in your opinion? (I'm just
> waiting for a Who fan to bring up the recent "Zeppelin sucks live; Who
> own them" comments)
I've seen the Stones twice ('89 and '99) and Page/Plant once in '98. I
enjoyed them all but seeing P&P was my favorite.
JMO...
Iggles
"The Man From Mars" <dead...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vedeerl...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> First of all I think leaving The Beatles off this list is sinful and with
> that in mind I will attempt my answers of these questions.
Fair enough.
> > -#1 - What band has aged the worst of the four?
>
> Definitely the Stones.
> >
> > #2 - Between these 5 bands, what are your top 3 album picks?
>
>
> Beatles
>
> 1. The White Album
> 2. Sgt. Pepper
> 3. Revolver
>
> Stones
>
> 1. Some Girls
> 2. Hot Rocks
> 3. Undercover
>
Ok that's IT! end of responding. Your tastes are way out of whack. To
not list either Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, or Exile on
Main St. has their musical tastes really skewed. Hot Rocks is not an album,
it's a compilation. For that, I'd say your rankings of bands should be
disqualified. :-)
Maneatingcow
<dead...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>First of all I think leaving The Beatles off this list is sinful and with
>that in mind I will attempt my answers of these questions.
>>
I knew this was coming :)
They weren't much of a factor in the 70's was why.
Iggles
"Maneatingcow" <acdc18...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jqadev8v680b83jp8...@4ax.com...
> When you get right down to it, I really do not think that there is any
> question that the 60's and 70's were dominated by these 4 bands more
> than anyone. Sure, Deep Purple was good, Rainbow had their moments
> w/Dio, and Black Sabbath had theirs, but from that incredible 64-79 15
> year span, (narrow it further to the 68-73 years for the elite of the
> elite), these were THE years that the best rock music the world ever
> saw came out.
>
> And the 4 bands listed here were the main reason. Granted many people
> here like all these bands (ok, not everyone, certain Pink Floyd fans
> [ksmith] here think LZ eat shit and Page was lame, but whatever)
>
> I'm curious to see, with this question posted in all 4 NG's, how the
> following questions would be answered.
>
> -#1 - What band has aged the worst of the four?
Pink Floyd, at least the Stones are in shape.
> #2 - Between these 4 bands, what are your top 3 album picks?
>
1. Who's Next
2. Live at Leeds
3. Sticky Fingers
> # 3 - Which band was the most musically talented/skilled?
Led Zeppelin. The Who are a close second because of Entwistle and Moon.
Whoever said the Beatles does not know these bands.
> #4 - Rank the bands, best to worst in your opinion if you are willing.
1.The Who
2.Led Zeppelin
3. The Stones
4. Floyd (since I don't smoke pot, I guess the order would be reversed with
a switch of Zep and the Stones.
> Now, here's some of the slightly mopre interesting stuff between the
> bands I had questions about
>
> #1 - Did Robert Plant ripoff the longer curly hair look from Roger
> Daultry, or vice versa?
Actually the real question should be, did Roger Plant steal Daltrey's stage
moves (without the swinging mic)? Either way someone copied the other. As
for the curly hair, both of them naturally have it. I think Roger's and
Robert's hair grew about the same time. I guess you can say that by
watching the other, they didn't cut it short.
> #2 - True or False - Mick Jagger once said he was a much better
> singerthan Roger was. I had yet another Stones fan tell me this at the
> 1st Stones show this tour, and that Mick said this back in a UK
> magazine in the early 70's. That's the same thing I heard from another
> person. What exactly WAS said?
no idea
> #3 - Which band has the most arrogant/worst fans?
>
1. Led Zeppelin
2. The Who
3. Stones
4. Floyd
> #4 - Has ANYONE here seen all four of these bands live? Or even 3 of
> them? Who was the best of these bands live in your opinion? (I'm just
> waiting for a Who fan to bring up the recent "Zeppelin sucks live; Who
> own them" comments)
I saw the Stones' opening night at RFK for the Voodoo Lounge tour. I hated
it. I saw the Who at VA. Beach in 1997. Of all the acts I've seen
(Allmans in '89, '90 Dylan 89, 91, Jethro Tull 96, etc.) The Who took me to
a higher level than any other act I'd seen. I remember the Live at
Leedsesque jam that ended the show. wow!
Iggles
"Iggles" <iggl...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:...
>
> Actually the real question should be, did Roger Plant steal Daltrey's
stage
> moves (without the swinging mic)? Either way someone copied the other.
As
> for the curly hair, both of them naturally have it. I think Roger's and
> Robert's hair grew about the same time. I guess you can say that by
> watching the other, they didn't cut it short.
>
LOL, sorry my brain was crossed. Robert Plant Robert Plant Robert Plant
Bedwarmer
<acdc18...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>First of all I think leaving The Beatles off this list is sinful and with
>>that in mind I will attempt my answers of these questions.
>>>
>
>I knew this was coming :)
>
>They weren't much of a factor in the 70's was why.
You're kidding, right? You put the time frame at 68-73 for the best
of the best and the Beatles ended in 1971. Besides, all the bands on
your short list are British bands and without the Beatles, the 60s
British invasion might not have happened and none of those bands would
either. Furthermore, the best work the Beatles ever did, IMO, was
Abbey Road, right in the middle of your time span.
Bedwarmer
--
Roger Waters has given me a new reason to be a pacifist,
in that if we stop having wars, Roger Waters will quit putting out new albums
Bedwarmer
wrote:
>at least the Stones are in shape.
Yeah, for a bunch of dead guys.
Andreas Zimmermann
some people won't recognize.
Let me try:
> -#1 - What band has aged the worst of the four?
The Who
>
> #2 - Between these 4 bands, what are your top 3 album picks?
1. Stones Sticky Fingers
2. Led Zep II
3. Stones Their Satanic Majesties Request
(really experimental, pushed rockmusic far more than they realized
themselves)
> # 3 - Which band was the most musically talented/skilled?
Led Zep
>
> #4 - Rank the bands, best to worst in your opinion if you are willing.
1. Stones
2. Led Zep
3. The Who
4. Pink Floyd (sorry, but someone hast to be 4th)>
> Now, here's some of the slightly mopre interesting stuff between the
> bands I had questions about
>
> #1 - Did Robert Plant ripoff the longer curly hair look from Roger
> Daultry, or vice versa?
No to both.
>
> #2 - True or False - Mick Jagger once said he was a much better
> singerthan Roger was. I had yet another Stones fan tell me this at the
> 1st Stones show this tour, and that Mick said this back in a UK
> magazine in the early 70's. That's the same thing I heard from another
> person. What exactly WAS said?
Don't think that this is right. Mick always was (and is) aware that there
are pretty good singers around.
>
> #3 - Which band has the most arrogant/worst fans?
Pinky Floyd
>
> #4 - Has ANYONE here seen all four of these bands live? Or even 3 of
> them? Who was the best of these bands live in your opinion? (I'm just
> waiting for a Who fan to bring up the recent "Zeppelin sucks live; Who
> own them" comments)
Saw the Stones more than 30 times, they surprise you with every gig. I am
sure NO band is able to play a concert like the one at Circus Krone last
Sunday.
Pink Floyd was perfect, but that's the problem. Why to attend a concert when
you can listen to the record instead?
The Who were great, not far away from a Stones experience.
Never saw Led Zep live (sad).
--
Bryan Henderson
yes I saw all four bands live,
Zep - 71? Dundee, Caird Hall; 75 Earls Court; 79 - Knebworth (1st week) then
in 80's I saw The Firm and RP at the Edinburgh Playhouse and in 95 and 98 I
saw Page/Plant at the SECC Glasgow.
The Who - 74 or 75 Stafford Bingley Hall and 76 Swansea Football ground
(with Little Feat etc)
Pink Floyd - circa 75 Bristol Hippodrome? (btw the only gig I ever fell
asleep at!!)
Stones - 76? Knebworth
It would be hard to fall asleep at a Zep gig or Stones or Who. Anyway it is
difficult to say which was the best gig Zep were always brilliant and Pagey
is the greatest (living) guitartist IMHO, always stunning even with the Firm
and Page/Plant. I can't wait to see him play live again, meantime the DVD
will do. I was a fan before the first gig. I have every album. Brilliant
band hard to pick a best album but if pushed I would go for IV, HOH, PG and
II. III has some of their very best - Tangerine and SIBLY.
The Who were great more madcap than Zep but PT is not quite JP. I became a
fan at the first gig but still didn't buy every album. I am glad I saw KM
live - a really crazy guy!! Favourite albums - Who's next and live at Leeds
The Stones were a great live band when I saw them and MJ really strutted his
stuff as only he can but they have made too many mediocre albums recently.
Fav albums EOMS, BB, SF. Gram Parsons (a true star) did far more for the
Stones than the Stones did for him IMO. Also I don't think RW has done much
for the Stones or at least I can't see it, Pagey is in a different league. I
preferred Mick Taylor era or earlier Stones.
Floyd are quite a different type of band musically than the other three and
are at times soporific (whereas the other three never were) but have made
some great music. I haven't heard many of their albums or not enough to make
a list.
Olompali4
>> year span, (narrow it further to the 68-73 years for the elite of the
>> elite), these were THE years that the best rock music the world ever
>> saw came out.
Leaving out The Beatles and The Jimi Hendrix Experience even in your "elite of
the elite" is seriously misguided. Hell, Jethro Tull was better than Floyd.
Guess you had to be there
>-#1 - What band has aged the worst of the four?
Without question, The Who. No new material, embarrassing farewell and
reunion, the themes of teenage angst that dominate Townshend's songs are
ludicrous from 50-60 year old men, Tommy goes Broadway....geez the list is
endless
.
>#4 - Has ANYONE here seen all four of these bands live? Or even 3 of
>> them? Who was the best of these bands live in your opinion? <
The Rolling Stones. The very definition of a rock 'n roll band.
Saw LZ once and Plant was sick, really an off night..oh well. Saw the P/P show
and it was the best concert of the 90's besting Pearl Jam and U2.
stephen
news:a4ndevos60u7p15h7...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 05:30:41 GMT, "Iggles" <iggl...@attbi.com>
> wrote:
>
>>at least the Stones are in shape.
>
> Yeah, for a bunch of dead guys.
>
> Bedwarmer
Garbage.
bubipoo
> question that the 60's and 70's were dominated by these 4 bands more
> than anyone. Sure, Deep Purple was good, Rainbow had their moments
> w/Dio, and Black Sabbath had theirs, but from that incredible 64-79 15
> year span, (narrow it further to the 68-73 years for the elite of the
> elite), these were THE years that the best rock music the world ever
> saw came out.
>
> And the 4 bands listed here were the main reason. Granted many people
> here like all these bands (ok, not everyone, certain Pink Floyd fans
> [ksmith] here think LZ eat shit and Page was lame, but whatever)
>
> I'm curious to see, with this question posted in all 4 NG's, how the
> following questions would be answered.
>
> -#1 - What band has aged the worst of the four?
zep
>
> #2 - Between these 4 bands, what are your top 3 album picks?
exile
sticky
tatto
>
> # 3 - Which band was the most musically talented/skilled?
tough one...
guitar keef then pete then page and gilmour... tough call
drums charlie
bass john e
vocals... roger or mick
>
> #4 - Rank the bands, best to worst in your opinion if you are willing.
stones by miles
who
zep
beatles
floyd
>
> Now, here's some of the slightly mopre interesting stuff between the
> bands I had questions about
>
> #1 - Did Robert Plant ripoff the longer curly hair look from Roger
> Daultry, or vice versa?
who cares
>
> #2 - True or False - Mick Jagger once said he was a much better
> singerthan Roger was. I had yet another Stones fan tell me this at the
> 1st Stones show this tour, and that Mick said this back in a UK
> magazine in the early 70's. That's the same thing I heard from another
> person. What exactly WAS said?
who cares
>
> #3 - Which band has the most arrogant/worst fans?
who cares
upside down m
<acdc18...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>When you get right down to it, I really do not think that there is any
>question that the 60's and 70's were dominated by these 4 bands more
>than anyone.
Well, fuck McCarteny-Lennon.
Gil Ulrik
>When you get right down to it, I really do not think that there is any
>question that the 60's and 70's were dominated by these 4 bands more
>than anyone. Sure, Deep Purple was good, Rainbow had their moments
>w/Dio, and Black Sabbath had theirs, but from that incredible 64-79 15
>year span, (narrow it further to the 68-73 years for the elite of the
>elite), these were THE years that the best rock music the world ever
>saw came out.
Who fucking cares?
> Some of the NG's are a little slow, hopefully this will drum up some
>talks.
While I admire your attempt to start an interminably boring crossposted
flamewar, I am even moreso overcome by overwhelming apathy.
Besides, Iggy and the Stooges kick all their asses.
--
WHO STOLE MY SIG
GChampa354
Yeah, Iggy Pop and the Stooges are considered the godfathers of punk. I heard
Rage Against the Machine's version of "Down On The Street", then downloaded The
Stooges original version. Raw and gritty. What do the rest of the Zep fans
think of the Stooges? Are you guys anticipating a possible Stooges reunion
tour?
Rufus Leaking
>think of the Stooges?
Stooges, and Jimmy O. solo rock out with the best of them. My personal
favorite is the album "Party"...
Dave
"Hid in the reeds are eyes that peek,
voices I don't understand.
Flamingos fly endlessly,
To the silent sky"
Rattus the RAT
> question that the 60's and 70's were dominated by these 4 bands more
> than anyone. Sure, Deep Purple was good, Rainbow had their moments
> w/Dio, and Black Sabbath had theirs, but from that incredible 64-79 15
> year span, (narrow it further to the 68-73 years for the elite of the
> elite), these were THE years that the best rock music the world ever
> saw came out.
>
> And the 4 bands listed here were the main reason. Granted many people
> here like all these bands (ok, not everyone, certain Pink Floyd fans
> [ksmith] here think LZ eat shit and Page was lame, but whatever)
>
> I'm curious to see, with this question posted in all 4 NG's, how the
> following questions would be answered.
>
> -#1 - What band has aged the worst of the four?
The Who
>
> #2 - Between these 4 bands, what are your top 3 album picks?
LZ II, LZ I, LZ PG or IV
>
> # 3 - Which band was the most musically talented/skilled?
LZ, by far.
>
> #4 - Rank the bands, best to worst in your opinion if you are willing.
Led Zep
Stones
Pink Floyd
Who (I'd put many other band way above the Who)
RAT
Tony B
<dead...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>First of all I think leaving The Beatles off this list is sinful and with
>that in mind I will attempt my answers of these questions.
>>
>> -#1 - What band has aged the worst of the four?
>
>Definitely the Stones.
Yeah - Robert Plant is such a vision of youth!
At least Mick can still move around!
Zeppelin look like shit.
>> #2 - True or False - Mick Jagger once said he was a much better
>> singerthan Roger was. I had yet another Stones fan tell me this at the
>> 1st Stones show this tour, and that Mick said this back in a UK
>> magazine in the early 70's. That's the same thing I heard from another
>> person. What exactly WAS said?
>
Mick said this I believe. And he is a better singer than Roger. The
Stones made way more good albums than the very mediocre Who
>>
>> #3 - Which band has the most arrogant/worst fans?
>On the internet it seems that The Who have the worst fans. JMO. I only say
>that because a few years ago in the Zep newsgroup it seemed every time there
>was some stupid thread it was started by some Who fan.
I agree.
Tony B
wrote:
Robert Plant as far as I know, copied Roger on a lot of different
levels. No surprise, since Jimmy Page stole riffs from Keith Richards.
Tony B
Ulrik) wrote:
>Maneatingcow come on down:
>
>>When you get right down to it, I really do not think that there is any
>>question that the 60's and 70's were dominated by these 4 bands more
>>than anyone. Sure, Deep Purple was good, Rainbow had their moments
>>w/Dio, and Black Sabbath had theirs, but from that incredible 64-79 15
>>year span, (narrow it further to the 68-73 years for the elite of the
>>elite), these were THE years that the best rock music the world ever
>>saw came out.
>
>Who fucking cares?
>
Are you another of those "Jealous of the Stones" Who fans?
Hadji Derabertis
of the Beatles. To pick Entwistle and Mccartney over J.P.Jones on the bass is
hilarious. Lennon second only to Page on the guitar????.......Do you have any of
the stuff your smoking for sale? Lennon wasnt even a lead guitarist, he was an
adequate rhythm guitarist at best. Your entitled to your opinion,, but your way
off bass. Pound for pound Lez Zep had the best musicians ever to be in one band.
Page, Bonham, and J.P Jones are all masters of their craft.
Jason~~
mgold
> I'm curious to see, with this question posted in all 4 NG's, how the
> following questions would be answered.
....delurking....
yeah, i'll bite. why not....
> -#1 - What band has aged the worst of the four?
if you mean, whose records sound the most dated, i'd opt for the
who. as much as they're my favourite of the four, they're records
sound pretty dated (i'm basing this on production and engineering)
if you mean whose actually physically/personally aged the worst, it's
the stones by miles....
> #2 - Between these 4 bands, what are your top 3 album picks?
exile on main st., who's next, dark side of the moon
> # 3 - Which band was the most musically talented/skilled?
if it's songwriting, it's the who, if it's musicianship it's floyd
> #4 - Rank the bands, best to worst in your opinion if you are willing.
the who, the stones, pink floyd, zeppelin
> #1 - Did Robert Plant ripoff the longer curly hair look from Roger
> Daultry, or vice versa?
jesus. it's hair. it grows the way it grows. this is a stupid question.
> #3 - Which band has the most arrogant/worst fans?
based on what i've read over the last week here and on the zeppelin
group, i'd have to go with zeppelin fans...
Bill Moore
Tony B <emachi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 00:08:04 -0500, "The Man From Mars"
><dead...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>First of all I think leaving The Beatles off this list is sinful and with
>>that in mind I will attempt my answers of these questions.
>>>
>>> -#1 - What band has aged the worst of the four?
>>
>>Definitely the Stones.
>
>Yeah - Robert Plant is such a vision of youth!
>
>At least Mick can still move around!
>
>Zeppelin look like shit.
>
>
>>> #2 - True or False - Mick Jagger once said he was a much better
>>> singerthan Roger was. I had yet another Stones fan tell me this at the
>>> 1st Stones show this tour, and that Mick said this back in a UK
>>> magazine in the early 70's. That's the same thing I heard from another
>>> person. What exactly WAS said?
>>
>
>Mick said this I believe. And he is a better singer than Roger. The
>Stones made way more good albums than the very mediocre Who
They both made some of the greatest rock records ever. Calling
the Who "very mediocre" is garbage.
>>>
>>> #3 - Which band has the most arrogant/worst fans?
>>On the internet it seems that The Who have the worst fans. JMO. I only say
>>that because a few years ago in the Zep newsgroup it seemed every time there
>>was some stupid thread it was started by some Who fan.
>
>I agree.
>
>
--
Remove 'blackhole.' from the address to send e-mail.
Jumbo
<acdc18...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>-#1 - What band has aged the worst of the four?
The Stones. They look and sound dead. At least Pink Floyd retired with
dignity.
>
>#2 - Between these 4 bands, what are your top 3 album picks?
DSOTM, Tommy and Animals
>
># 3 - Which band was the most musically talented/skilled?
Pink Floyd.
>
>#4 - Rank the bands, best to worst in your opinion if you are willing.
Oh Pink Floyd by far, then Zeppelin, then the Who. The other band
doesn't even make the cut, and their own fans wouldn't even arue
otherwise.
>
>#1 - Did Robert Plant ripoff the longer curly hair look from Roger
>Daultry, or vice versa?
I think roger stole it from Robert. Plant used it in 68 and Roger then
used it at Woodstock.
>
>#2 - True or False - Mick Jagger once said he was a much better
>singerthan Roger was. I had yet another Stones fan tell me this at the
>1st Stones show this tour, and that Mick said this back in a UK
>magazine in the early 70's. That's the same thing I heard from another
>person. What exactly WAS said?
Mick isn't. Roger is far better, and Stones fans know it. Th Rolling
Stones never did anything for rock, and Pink Floyd still to this day
had sold more Cd's than them.
>
>#3 - Which band has the most arrogant/worst fans?
>
Probably the Stones, then Led Zeppelin.
>#4 - Has ANYONE here seen all four of these bands live? Or even 3 of
>them? Who was the best of these bands live in your opinion? (I'm just
>waiting for a Who fan to bring up the recent "Zeppelin sucks live; Who
>own them" comments)
Zeppelin did suck live. So did the Stones. The Who and Pink Floyd
always threw better shows, and that's really just the honest truth.
Zeppelin was always off key, and the Stones never had as much good
music.
Jumbo
>
>> # 3 - Which band was the most musically talented/skilled?
>
>if it's songwriting, it's the who, if it's musicianship it's floyd
>
>
I agree with this. Keith and Jimmy stole all their riffs from Chuck
Berry and Ritchie Blackmore/Hendrix in Page's case.
Olompali4
>>think of the Stooges?
Overrated garage rock at best. Hyped by the rock journalists jealous of the
brilliant musicianship/songwriting that was currently vogue. Liking Iggy was a
revisionist hip thing. Hard to listen to when you get to age 25.
Olompali4
>dignity.
No, they had ego problems that lead to a bitchfest breakup.
>The Rolling
>Stones never did anything for rock<
Close to the most imbecilic comment ever posted on an internet music board.
> The Who and Pink Floyd
>always threw better shows<
The Who maybe, until 1973. Floyd became so showbiz, packaged with other
musicians and tape loops they made Broadway look daring.
John W Hooper
<stephen...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Obviously your a die-hard Beatles fan. Plant has a greater vocal range then any
>of the Beatles. To pick Entwistle and Mccartney over J.P.Jones on the bass is
>hilarious. Lennon second only to Page on the guitar????.......Do you have any of
>the stuff your smoking for sale?
Preach it! Led Zeppelin emerged and drove the Beatles into retirement.
Led Zeppelin was so good, the Who NEVER got out from underneath their
shadow. The Who fans ae all jealous of Led Zeppelin's sucess IMO.
The only band here even worthy of mention other than Led Zeppelin is
the Rolling Stones. Pink floyd were only good when you wre on drugs.
People got off the drugs after the Wall, and Floyd collapsed hard. The
Who fans live in the delusional world of thinking their band somehow
had as much talen at Led Zeppelin. I hate when Who fans try to list
them as superior to Zeppelin.
Hey Who fans - who sold more albums?
LMAO
John W Hooper
wrote:
>>
>>>> #2 - True or False - Mick Jagger once said he was a much better
>>>> singerthan Roger was. I had yet another Stones fan tell me this at the
>>>> 1st Stones show this tour, and that Mick said this back in a UK
>>>> magazine in the early 70's. That's the same thing I heard from another
>>>> person. What exactly WAS said?
>>>
>>
>>Mick said this I believe. And he is a better singer than Roger. The
>>Stones made way more good albums than the very mediocre Who
>
>They both made some of the greatest rock records ever. Calling
>the Who "very mediocre" is garbage.
>
No it isn't. Not that big of a stretch really. Who made like what - 2
good albums? That puts them in the same class as Deep Purple.
>
>>>>
>>>> #3 - Which band has the most arrogant/worst fans?
>>>On the internet it seems that The Who have the worst fans. JMO. I only say
>>>that because a few years ago in the Zep newsgroup it seemed every time there
>>>was some stupid thread it was started by some Who fan.
>>
>>I agree.
>>
>>
I agree too.
Gil Ulrik
No, I'm one of those people who really doesn't fucking care.
oldpink
[...]
> naw, Keef got all his from Ry Cooder
I have to jump in here, but you may be right. I also have to comment
that Ry Cooder is quite possibly the most woefully underrated blues
guitarist out there, period. The man is an absolute genius.
[...]
--
And what exactly is a joke?
Nil
news:g7veevodho0p733ke...@4ax.com:
> Preach it! Led Zeppelin emerged and drove the Beatles into
> retirement. Led Zeppelin was so good, the Who NEVER got out from
> underneath their shadow. The Who fans ae all jealous of Led
> Zeppelin's sucess IMO.
AHAHAHA!
(this IS a joke, right??)
> The only band here even worthy of mention other than Led Zeppelin
> is the Rolling Stones. Pink floyd were only good when you wre on
> drugs. People got off the drugs after the Wall, and Floyd
> collapsed hard. The Who fans live in the delusional world of
> thinking their band somehow had as much talen at Led Zeppelin. I
> hate when Who fans try to list them as superior to Zeppelin.
You've really got a "talen" for comedy.
Gil Ulrik
>> #2 - Between these 4 bands, what are your top 3 album picks?
>
>LZ II, LZ I, LZ PG or IV
>
>> # 3 - Which band was the most musically talented/skilled?
>
>LZ, by far.
>>
>> #4 - Rank the bands, best to worst in your opinion if you are willing.
>
>Led Zep
>Stones
>Pink Floyd
>Who (I'd put many other band way above the Who)
Fanboy.
Gil Ulrik
>Obviously your a die-hard Beatles fan. Plant has a greater vocal range then any
>of the Beatles. To pick Entwistle and Mccartney over J.P.Jones on the bass is
>hilarious. Lennon second only to Page on the guitar????.......Do you have any of
>the stuff your smoking for sale? Lennon wasnt even a lead guitarist, he was an
>adequate rhythm guitarist at best. Your entitled to your opinion,, but your way
>off bass. Pound for pound Lez Zep had the best musicians ever to be in one band.
>Page, Bonham, and J.P Jones are all masters of their craft.
>Jason~~
Fanboy.
Progzilla
Olompali4 <olom...@aol.compton> wrote in message
news:20030611142850...@mb-m17.aol.com...
Exactly right. Musician wannabes that just scream a stream of crap...utterly
worthless.
Progzilla
Dave
>On 11 Jun 2003, John W Hooper <runnin...@crew02.com> wrote in
>news:g7veevodho0p733ke...@4ax.com:
>
>> Preach it! Led Zeppelin emerged and drove the Beatles into
>> retirement. Led Zeppelin was so good, the Who NEVER got out from
>> underneath their shadow. The Who fans ae all jealous of Led
>> Zeppelin's sucess IMO.
>
>AHAHAHA!
>
>(this IS a joke, right??)
This is why Led Zeppelin fans suck. They think their band is so
fucking elite and they aren't. They simply released a bunch of CD's
one after the other after the other in such sucession that in 3 years
they had 4 CD's out and a lot of fans because of the rapid new
material. The Who were far their superior and the live performanches
showed this.
>
>> The only band here even worthy of mention other than Led Zeppelin
>> is the Rolling Stones. Pink floyd were only good when you wre on
>> drugs. People got off the drugs after the Wall, and Floyd
>> collapsed hard. The Who fans live in the delusional world of
>> thinking their band somehow had as much talen at Led Zeppelin. I
>> hate when Who fans try to list them as superior to Zeppelin.
>
>You've really got a "talen" for comedy.
No shit. I'd also put Pink floyd above them as well.
ksmith1016
myth/lie that all great Rock came from there.
Jimi Hendrix
Creedence Clearwater Revival
The Byrds
Love
13th Floor Elevators
The Velvet Underground
Dylan
The Band
Let's not forget the entire United States Garage/Psych Rock movement which
was FAR more influential than all those Ennnnnnnnnnnglish bands put
together. This spawned Punk & Alternative and continues to influence today.
America was where it was at as far as Rock was concerned. Always has been
and always will be.
The only group of that four that was any kind of original was Pink Floyd
when Syd Barrett was with them. All the others? They were great
popularizers. Jimmy Page stole every lick he ever had off somebody else. Ask
Eddie Phillips from the Creation or Willie Dixon.
Kiloh
jturb...@comcast.net
> When you get right down to it, I really do not think that there is any
> question that the 60's and 70's were dominated by these 4 bands more
> than anyone. Sure, Deep Purple was good, Rainbow had their moments
> w/Dio, and Black Sabbath had theirs, but from that incredible 64-79 15
> year span, (narrow it further to the 68-73 years for the elite of the
> elite), these were THE years that the best rock music the world ever
> saw came out.
>
> And the 4 bands listed here were the main reason. Granted many people
> here like all these bands (ok, not everyone, certain Pink Floyd fans
> [ksmith] here think LZ eat shit and Page was lame, but whatever)
>
> I'm curious to see, with this question posted in all 4 NG's, how the
> following questions would be answered.
>
> -#1 - What band has aged the worst of the five...(whatever)?
The Who and Beatles members are dying off, the Stones are the living
dead...but I'll have to go with Zeppelin....Plant and Page look like
slow-melting wax sculptures of themselves
>
> #2 - Between these 5 bands, what are your top 3 album picks?
>
Beatles
1. Pepper
2. White Album
3. Revolver
The Who
1. Who's Next
2. By Numbers
3. Quadrophenia
Led Zeppelin
1. II
2. Physical Graffiti
3. IV
Pink Floyd
1. Dark Side of the Moon
2. Animals
3. Wish You Were Here
Rolling Stones
1. Sticky Fingers
2. Let It Bleed
3. Exile on Main Street
> # 3 - Which band was the most musically talented/skilled?
Its not the Beatles, sorry. It really comes down between Zep and the Who,
every member of both those bands was a powerhouse and a pioneer in his
field. I'm gonna have to give it to The Who on this one.
> #4 - Rank the bands, best to worst in your opinion if you are willing.
1. The Stones
2. Beatles
3. Zeppelin
4. The Who
5. Pink Floyd
> Now, here's some of the slightly mopre interesting stuff between the
> bands I had questions about
>
> #1 - Did Robert Plant ripoff the longer curly hair look from Roger
> Daultry, or vice versa?
I think Daltrey was first, I'm not sure though.
> #2 - True or False - Mick Jagger once said he was a much better
> singerthan Roger was. I had yet another Stones fan tell me this at the
> 1st Stones show this tour, and that Mick said this back in a UK
> magazine in the early 70's. That's the same thing I heard from another
> person. What exactly WAS said?
No idea.
> #3 - Which band has the most arrogant/worst fans?
Zeppelin fans are ready to tell you that Hot Dog is a great song. Boo.
> #4 - Has ANYONE here seen all four of these bands live? Or even 3 of
> them? Who was the best of these bands live in your opinion? (I'm just
> waiting for a Who fan to bring up the recent "Zeppelin sucks live; Who
> own them" comments)
Haven't seen all of them, but have seen a few, and many other live acts, and
The Rolling Stones live are unbeatable. (Except by a certain legendary
Australian hard rock band...)
Entwistle is the best bassist of all time. Jones was all-around great,
mandolin and arrangements and stuff, but Entwistle is a god. Listen to any
live version of 5:15
In terms of guitar players, its trickier. Pete is a great rhythm guitarist,
not a great lead. Same deal with Keith Richards. Beatles don't hold a candle
to any of the bands here. Gilmour, absolutely amazing stuff on Comfortably
Numb, but lacking something indefinable. It comes down to Jimmy Page, and
Mick Taylor from the glory era of the Stones, and its a touch decision from
here. Can't You Hear Me Knocking and live Gimme Shelter have absolutely
ridiculous lead parts. The guy could do slide, acoustic, anything. Page, as
is evidenced by HTWWW, was pretty fuckin' incredible himself. But in a live
setting, its gotta be Mick T.
-Rob
Olompali4
I'm old and lucky enough to claim CCR as my 1st concert...and Fogerty could
sing with the best of them. Man, he kicked ass.
Gil Ulrik
Fanboy.
Olompali4
>Jimi Hendrix
>Creedence Clearwater Revival
>The Byrds
>Love
>13th Floor Elevators
>The Velvet Underground
>Dylan
>The Band
Jefferson Airplane
Grateful Dead
Johnny Winter
ZZ Top
Janis Joplin
Neil Young and Crazy Horse
Nil
news:dh1fev8nu7sl8fiu1...@4ax.com:
> This is why Led Zeppelin fans suck. They think their band is so
> fucking elite and they aren't. They simply released a bunch of CD's
> one after the other after the other in such sucession that in 3 years
> they had 4 CD's out and a lot of fans because of the rapid new
> material. The Who were far their superior and the live performanches
> showed this.
Duuuuude... you're barking up the wrong tree. I like both bands very
much. I don't think one is "better than the other. I think people who
get excited about these "my band rocks! your band sux!" games are
either still in high school or belong there.
Not to mention that your picture of history has little or nothing to do
with the way it happened.
> No shit. I'd also put Pink floyd above them as well.
Put whatever you want wherever you want. It means nothing exept to
yourself.
Nil
news:GISdnf7qL5d...@comcast.com:
>> -#1 - What band has aged the worst of the five...(whatever)?
>
> The Who and Beatles members are dying off, the Stones are the
> living dead...but I'll have to go with Zeppelin....Plant and Page
> look like slow-melting wax sculptures of themselves
Ha! That's funny! But don't forget - you're going to look like that in
too few years. We all are.
Bill Moore
John W Hooper <runnin...@crew02.com> wrote:
>On 11 Jun 2003 11:40:59 -0600, bmo...@blackhole.nyx.net (Bill Moore)
>wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>>> #2 - True or False - Mick Jagger once said he was a much better
>>>>> singerthan Roger was. I had yet another Stones fan tell me this at the
>>>>> 1st Stones show this tour, and that Mick said this back in a UK
>>>>> magazine in the early 70's. That's the same thing I heard from another
>>>>> person. What exactly WAS said?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Mick said this I believe. And he is a better singer than Roger. The
>>>Stones made way more good albums than the very mediocre Who
>>
>>They both made some of the greatest rock records ever. Calling
>>the Who "very mediocre" is garbage.
>>
>No it isn't. Not that big of a stretch really. Who made like what - 2
>good albums?
No. And even if they had, no band that makes even 2 good records
can be fairly called that by any reasonable standards... and no
band that put on the kind of live shows the Who did can, either.
>That puts them in the same class as Deep Purple.
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> #3 - Which band has the most arrogant/worst fans?
>>>>On the internet it seems that The Who have the worst fans. JMO. I only say
>>>>that because a few years ago in the Zep newsgroup it seemed every time there
>>>>was some stupid thread it was started by some Who fan.
>>>
>>>I agree.
>>>
>>>
>I agree too.
upside down m
wrote:
>This is why Led Zeppelin fans suck. They think their band is so
>fucking elite and they aren't.
I'm elite LZ may or may not be. You sure as the fuck are not.
Bill Jillians
184144.news.dfncis.de>, we realised Bryan Henderson <bhendersonNOSPAM@f
reenet.co.uk> was serious and so replied thus:
>
>"Maneatingcow" <acdc18...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:jqadev8v680b83jp8...@4ax.com...
>> When you get right down to it, I really do not think that there is any
>> question that the 60's and 70's were dominated by these 4 bands more
>> than anyone. Sure, Deep Purple was good, Rainbow had their moments
>> w/Dio, and Black Sabbath had theirs, but from that incredible 64-79 15
>> year span, (narrow it further to the 68-73 years for the elite of the
>> elite), these were THE years that the best rock music the world ever
>> saw came out.
>>
>> And the 4 bands listed here were the main reason. Granted many people
>> here like all these bands (ok, not everyone, certain Pink Floyd fans
>> [ksmith] here think LZ eat shit and Page was lame, but whatever)
>>
>> I'm curious to see, with this question posted in all 4 NG's, how the
>> following questions would be answered.
>>
>>
>> #2 - Between these 4 bands, what are your top 3 album picks?
>>
>> # 3 - Which band was the most musically talented/skilled?
>>
>>
>> bands I had questions about
>>
>> #1 - Did Robert Plant ripoff the longer curly hair look from Roger
>> Daultry, or vice versa?
>>
>> singerthan Roger was. I had yet another Stones fan tell me this at the
>> 1st Stones show this tour, and that Mick said this back in a UK
>> magazine in the early 70's. That's the same thing I heard from another
>> person. What exactly WAS said?
>>
>>
>> them? Who was the best of these bands live in your opinion? (I'm just
>> waiting for a Who fan to bring up the recent "Zeppelin sucks live; Who
>> own them" comments)
>
>Zep - 71? Dundee, Caird Hall; 75 Earls Court; 79 - Knebworth (1st week) then
>in 80's I saw The Firm and RP at the Edinburgh Playhouse and in 95 and 98 I
>saw Page/Plant at the SECC Glasgow.
>
>The Who - 74 or 75 Stafford Bingley Hall and 76 Swansea Football ground
>(with Little Feat etc)
>
>Pink Floyd - circa 75 Bristol Hippodrome? (btw the only gig I ever fell
>asleep at!!)
>
>Stones - 76? Knebworth
>
>It would be hard to fall asleep at a Zep gig or Stones or Who. Anyway it is
>difficult to say which was the best gig Zep were always brilliant and Pagey
>is the greatest (living) guitartist IMHO, always stunning even with the Firm
>and Page/Plant. I can't wait to see him play live again, meantime the DVD
>will do. I was a fan before the first gig. I have every album. Brilliant
>band hard to pick a best album but if pushed I would go for IV, HOH, PG and
>II. III has some of their very best - Tangerine and SIBLY.
>
>The Who were great more madcap than Zep but PT is not quite JP. I became a
>fan at the first gig but still didn't buy every album. I am glad I saw KM
>live - a really crazy guy!! Favourite albums - Who's next and live at Leeds
>
>The Stones were a great live band when I saw them and MJ really strutted his
>stuff as only he can but they have made too many mediocre albums recently.
>Fav albums EOMS, BB, SF. Gram Parsons (a true star) did far more for the
>Stones than the Stones did for him IMO. Also I don't think RW has done much
>for the Stones or at least I can't see it, Pagey is in a different league. I
>preferred Mick Taylor era or earlier Stones.
>
>Floyd are quite a different type of band musically than the other three and
>are at times soporific (whereas the other three never were) but have made
>some great music. I haven't heard many of their albums or not enough to make
>a list.
>
>>
>> Some of the NG's are a little slow, hopefully this will drum up some
>> talks.
>
>
The Who were the first real British R'nR rebels. Their music was
subversive and it created a youth movement. The Beatles and The Stones
were both milking things, I feel, not that they weren't both excellent
at times. I bought a greatest hits tape of the Who when I was about 14
from what was probably Britannia records. The songs were deceptively
simple. Without The Who we wouldn't have had either Bowie or the New
Wave.
Pink Floyd, on the other hand, were and remain a law unto themselves.
I can't say I ever really got into Led Zep. Too much posturing.
--
Bill Jillians (posing as Sam Sherrit to get an account).
JS: Why do I get the ominous feeling I'm about to be asked to lead
this bloody operation I'm starting to wish I'd never even heard of.
Authority: Because there's only 3 people alive with your level of
experience in extra-natural matters and you're the only one who's
listed in the phone book.
Jenny Sparks: The Secret History of The Authority.
Download http://users.pgen.net/sam.sherret0/track1.mp3 while you can.
NICOS
Nico
"Bill Jillians" <Bill.J...@pgen.BITEMESPAM.net> wrote in message
news:WPl7IoAm...@pgen.net...
Neil Coward
1 Which band has aged worst
, well its not the stones cos they are still playing, still touring, still
raking in millions. I never got into Led Zeppelin (although i respect them
and their fans). I find that you tend to grow out of Pink Floyd - all that
soul searching and anquish really hits the spot when you are a teen but you
grow up and now some of Pink Floyd tracks sound cringingly self indulgent
2 Best 3 Its gotta be 3 stones albums but which ones changes from "week to
week, day to day, hour to hour" for me. (where that quote is from is gonna
bug you now isn't it?)
3 best to worst Stones - Floyd - Zepellin
4 Which we most musically talented? skilled? impossible to judge, its like
saying which is the 'fruitiest' fruit - an apple, and orange or a pear? They
are all excellent at what they are trying to do, Pink floyd dabbled more in
technology and got a more controlled and polished sound, the stones are
often like a thunderstorm, strong and wild and out of control
so which is 'best'? dunno mate. If push came to shove I would say the Stones
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore
>
> -#1 - What band has aged the worst of the four?
>
are nonexistent, except for Satisfaction, a song unlike any other. LZ
created a masterpiece, Stairway to Heaven, not only a song but in
essence and scope a symphonic work. Pink Floyd marked an era with The
Wall. I still hear these three songs on the open radio regularly,
particularly The Wall, and they sound current. But Pink Floyd produced
great music, diverse, deep (drugs aside) and original. LZ made rock
songs, PF created a category. On the long run, 150-200 years from now,
when the collective memory of this moment had been purged from noise,
the Stones will be remembered for their iconic value, but PF will be
remembered for its musical importance; I'm afraid LZ will be quite
forgotten but for scholars, like Buxtehude is when talking the
Barroque period. Of course, the Stones are still producing and can be
mixed in any modern selection without standing out. I would say LZ
sounds dated by now; I like Black Dog a lot but mostly I play them for
their remembrance value than for anything else (great times,
those!!!). On the contrary, I hear PF when I want to hear _music_, the
same way I play Beethoven or Bruckner or Sibelius.
>
> # 3 - Which band was the most musically talented/skilled?
>
As players, LZ is wonderful. As musicians, PF wins.
stephen
news:768f7623.03061...@posting.google.com:
> Musically speaking (the sense of the question, I guess), the Stones
> are nonexistent, except for Satisfaction, a song unlike any other. LZ
That's about when I stopped reading..
JP
> question that the 60's and 70's were dominated by these 4 bands more
> than anyone. Sure, Deep Purple was good, Rainbow had their moments
> w/Dio, and Black Sabbath had theirs, but from that incredible 64-79 15
> year span, (narrow it further to the 68-73 years for the elite of the
> elite), these were THE years that the best rock music the world ever
> saw came out.
I'd say '67-'74... but you're right, that era was the best in rock music...
> -#1 - What band has aged the worst of the four?
I'd put those who are retired pretty much equal.
> #2 - Between these 4 bands, what are your top 3 album picks?
Overall?
1. Dark Side of The Moon
2.Who's Next
3.Sargent Pepper
4.Led Zep II
5.Abbey Road
> # 3 - Which band was the most musically talented/skilled?
The best musicians were not necessarily in the same band...
First in each category:
Signing: Roger and Robert equal
Bass: The Ox and Jones equal
Guitar: Roger followed by Jimmy
Drums: Keith and John B. equal
OK OK, Led Zep wins then... ;-)
> #4 - Rank the bands, best to worst in your opinion if you are willing.
I don't bite... ;-)
SNIP-A-ROO
> #4 - Has ANYONE here seen all four of these bands live? Or even 3 of
> them? Who was the best of these bands live in your opinion? (I'm just
> waiting for a Who fan to bring up the recent "Zeppelin sucks live; Who
> own them" comments)
Only saw Floyd
Lastly, Deep Purple, Cream and Moody Blues should get recognition... What
about Santana and Fleetwood Mac, a very prolific band.
Neil Coward
"stephen" <deadf...@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9397B985877EEde...@216.166.71.230...
BigScience
covered.
i've seen the who twice - daltry is NOT impressive live.
i've seen pink floyd 3 times (dark side tour, wish you were here, and
animals)- BLEW ME AWAY each time
saw paige once - benefit for MS (the british are coming tour) sets by beck
and clapton both better than paige.
saw the stones at least 5 times (first in 1966) - tours after steel wheels
have gone down hill. hard to beat them at MSG in the late 60's.
stones and floyd were most impressive LIVE
John
"2 - Between these 4 bands, what are your top 3 album picks?"
Led Zeppelin-Physical Graffiti, HotH, 1
The Who-Tommy, Who's Next, Quadrophenia
" 3 - Which band was the most musically talented/skilled?"
"4 - Rank the bands, best to worst in your opinion if you are willing."
bands I had questions about
Daultry, or vice versa?"
"2 - True or False - Mick Jagger once said he was a much better
singerthan Roger was. I had yet another Stones fan tell me this at the
1st Stones show this tour, and that Mick said this back in a UK
magazine in the early 70's. That's the same thing I heard from another
person. What exactly WAS said?"
"3 - Which band has the most arrogant/worst fans?"
"4 - Has ANYONE here seen all four of these bands live? Or even 3 of
them? Who was the best of these bands live in your opinion? (I'm just
waiting for a Who fan to bring up the recent "Zeppelin sucks live; Who
own them" comments)"
Some of the NG's are a little slow, hopefully this will drum up some
talks.
From 68-74 I think King Crimson was tuff to beat.
Mr Fongul
The Who aged the worse
top 3 albums 1. Darkside of the moon (it gets a little old after repeated
playing but just a complete perfect album..
2. Phy Graf LZ - plants vocals are different due to surgery. new material
blended with already written songs. this one has it all. highlights for me
include the rover and down by the seaside (the tempo changes are great.
3. PF Animals - Floyd at a different more time. Some of the best guitar ,
never gets old. Written at a time when punk was here. Recorded in a place
which gives unique sound
most talent - Without a doubt Led Zep
John Paul Jones great talent
bonzo -- the best period
JPage - in my opinion there is no best
but he is damn near perfect
best to worst
1 Rolling Stones
2. Led Zep
3. Pink Floyd
4. Who
The Who Dead last on my top 4 Ranking.
Saw them live last year. Not to impressed.
3.Pink Floyd Saw in 94 and 2001
Creative, No one else like them, Song construction is sometimes better than all
the other Bands. Gilmour distinct style of playing. Admits to being a bit slow
and playing off beat.
2. LED Zep- Saw page and plant 98
Has any one ever heard a bad led zep song? I haven't.
1. Rolling Stones- Since Floyd was a long time no 1 in my book and having seen
every band in the list When I saw the Stones live this year they went from not
being on my list of fav's straight to Number One.
C-YA
Nil
news:20030611225052...@mb-m07.aol.com:
> 2. Phy Graf LZ - plants vocals are different due to surgery.
Is this true? I didn't know that, although I noticed at the time that
his voice was hoarser and less rangy. What's the story? Was it throat
surgery?
Kwami Fabu
Don't criticize what you can't understand. "Search and Destroy" is as pure
a rock-n-roll tune as there is. "Lust for Life" has one of the more incredible
kinky sex references to ever make it to the airwaves (something about ears).
Listen and learn before you judge.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
KFabu
"No matter where you go, there you are."
Sameer Barua
> question that the 60's and 70's were dominated by these 4 bands more
> than anyone. Sure, Deep Purple was good, Rainbow had their moments
> w/Dio, and Black Sabbath had theirs, but from that incredible 64-79 15
> year span, (narrow it further to the 68-73 years for the elite of the
> elite), these were THE years that the best rock music the world ever
> saw came out.
>
> here like all these bands (ok, not everyone, certain Pink Floyd fans
> [ksmith] here think LZ eat shit and Page was lame, but whatever)
>
> I'm curious to see, with this question posted in all 4 NG's, how the
> following questions would be answered.
>
If you mean as in current work, then Led Zeppelin since they've DIED.
But if you mean "timeless-ness" then I would have to say The Rolling
Stones. Much of their best material still sounds/feels like "60s
rock". All the bands have their share of this but the Stones suffered
from this more than any of the others I feel.
> #2 - Between these 4 bands, what are your top 3 album picks?
Led Zeppelin:
II
IV
Houses of the Holy
Pink Floyd:
DSOTM
Wish You Were Here
The Wall
The Who:
Quadrophenia
Who's Next
By Numbers
The Rolling Stones:
Beggar's Banquet
Let It Bleed
Some Girls
Overall:
Quadrophenia
Led Zeppelin II
Beggar's Banquet
> # 3 - Which band was the most musically talented/skilled?
Have to split it up...
Guitar - Jimmy Page
Bass - John Entwistle
Drums - John Bonham
Vocals - Each was best at their respective style so I can't pick one
over another...
> #4 - Rank the bands, best to worst in your opinion if you are willing.
I am unwilling. They all had their own niche... The Stones were best
with straight up r&b, Led Zeppelin excelled in the heavy bombast, Pink
Floyd was the progressive with their ambient experiments, and The Who
kinda played chameleon and did everything in between. I don't think
any of them are *better*, but I prefer The Who the most because I feel
that they had the most diverse smorgasboard of styles and emotions.
> Now, here's some of the slightly mopre interesting stuff between the
> bands I had questions about
>
> #1 - Did Robert Plant ripoff the longer curly hair look from Roger
> Daultry, or vice versa?
It's Daltrey, and no I didn't think it was a blatant ripoff. As far
as I know, both were growing their hair out around the same time
anyway (end of 68).
> #2 - True or False - Mick Jagger once said he was a much better
> singerthan Roger was. I had yet another Stones fan tell me this at the
> 1st Stones show this tour, and that Mick said this back in a UK
> magazine in the early 70's. That's the same thing I heard from another
> person. What exactly WAS said?
I've never heard this before. I wouldn't say Mick's a better singer
than Roger. Maybe a little more dynamic, but Roger in his prime could
outroar all the others.
> #3 - Which band has the most arrogant/worst fans?
That's a subjective question. Nevertheless, I haven't engaged with
many outside of alt.music.who or Pete Townshend's short-lived
discussion forum. Both have had their share of troll plagues but I'm
sure all online forums do.
> #4 - Has ANYONE here seen all four of these bands live? Or even 3 of
> them? Who was the best of these bands live in your opinion? (I'm just
> waiting for a Who fan to bring up the recent "Zeppelin sucks live; Who
> own them" comments)
I'm afraid being as young as I am, I haven't. I saw The Who perform
last August (after Entwistle had died though I saw him solo the year
before). Robert Plant opened that show with an hour-long set so
that's the closest I'll get to seing Zeppelin live. However, I have
seen a lot of live footage of all four bands. I will say this... Pink
Floyd and The Stones couldn't shake a stick at Led Zeppelin or The Who
in terms of energy and ferocity onstage. Musicianship, maybe. Also,
judging by all the footage I've seen, when Led Zeppelin was having an
on night, they were *really* good but when they had an off night, they
were *really* bad. The Who, on the other hand; on an off night, they
were still decent (though I can't stand to watch most of their footage
from 1979-1997). During the Keith Moon era (1964-1978) and from
1999-present with Zak Starkey, I believe The Who have kicked ass not
necessarily *more*, but most consistently.
The Rooster
Stan,
www.thesequencers.us/DarkSide
'Us and Them'
Iggles
"Hadji Derabertis" <stephen...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3EE7721D...@sympatico.ca...
> Obviously your a die-hard Beatles fan. Plant has a greater vocal range
then any
> of the Beatles. To pick Entwistle and Mccartney over J.P.Jones on the
bass is
> hilarious. Lennon second only to Page on the guitar????.......Do you have
any of
was an
> adequate rhythm guitarist at best. Your entitled to your opinion,, but
your way
> off bass. Pound for pound Lez Zep had the best musicians ever to be in one
band.
> Page, Bonham, and J.P Jones are all masters of their craft.
> Jason~~
Dem's fightin' words when you say that JPJ is better than Entwistle. :-) JPJ
never had the nuance of Entwistle. He played his bass with ease. The notes
were fluid not punchy. JPJ was the best of blues rock style of playing bass
(over Bruce, and Redding). But compared to Entwistle? The Moon vs. Bonham
argument is all about style. Bonham was the better drummer, but Moon was
more important to the Who's sound.
The Man From Mars
> >
> > Stones
> >
> > 1. Some Girls
> > 2. Hot Rocks
> > 3. Undercover
> >
>
> Ok that's IT! end of responding. Your tastes are way out of whack. To
> not list either Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, or Exile on
> Main St. has their musical tastes really skewed. Hot Rocks is not an
album,
> it's a compilation. For that, I'd say your rankings of bands should be
> disqualified. :-)
I understand your feelings I really do. I have liked the Stones since my
brother first played me "Paint it Black" in 1969 at age 4. But I tryed to
answer these questions honestly and honestly the three Sones LPs I chose are
the ones that I really like not the ones that are on all the critics lists.
I have Exile and Sticky Fingers and they are really good. I h ad Beggars on
LP years ago and I have heard Let it Bleed. They are great but Compilation
or not Hot Rocks IS an album and a dang good one at that. Sometimes honesty
hits a nerve.
JMO.
The Man From Mars
> Obviously your a die-hard Beatles fan.
Actually I am but I am just as much a Led Zeppelin fan.
> Plant has a greater vocal range then any of the Beatles.
So does Pee Wee Herman but it doesn't mean anything. I was talking about
singing.
> To pick Entwistle and Mccartney over J.P.Jones on the bass is hilarious.
Maybe, but its the truth.
> Lennon second only to Page on the guitar????.......Do you have any of
> the stuff your smoking for sale? Lennon wasnt even a lead guitarist, he
was an
> adequate rhythm guitarist at best.
As far as lead guitar there is nobody better than James Patrick Page.
Nobody! But there is more than doing solos to being a guitar player. John
Lennon wrote great songs and was a visionary musician beyond almost anyone
who has ever lived.
> Your entitled to your opinion,, but your way
> off bass. Pound for pound Lez Zep had the best musicians ever to be in one
band.
> Page, Bonham, and J.P Jones are all masters of their craft.
I felt the same way you do now when I was in the 8th grade. My answers were
an attempt to be honest. My answers were the truth not all what my choices
would have been if the questions had been "Favorites" instead of "Best".
JMO
<><
Iggles
"The Man From Mars" <dead...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:veg4m19...@corp.supernews.com...
You're a Beatles fan, end of story.
Iggles
"ksmith1016" <ksmit...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:hHLFa.19947$1e.3426@fed1read04...
> I see that you worship at the British Altar of music and fully accept the
> myth/lie that all great Rock came from there.
>
> Jimi Hendrix
> Creedence Clearwater Revival
> The Byrds
> Love
> 13th Floor Elevators
> The Velvet Underground
> Dylan
> The Band
>
> was FAR more influential than all those Ennnnnnnnnnnglish bands put
> together. This spawned Punk & Alternative and continues to influence
today.
> America was where it was at as far as Rock was concerned. Always has been
> and always will be.
>
I'd put Neil Young at the top of the list. Afterall, Crazy Horse is
american. VU would be #2.
> The only group of that four that was any kind of original was Pink Floyd
> when Syd Barrett was with them. All the others? They were great
> popularizers. Jimmy Page stole every lick he ever had off somebody else.
Ask
> Eddie Phillips from the Creation or Willie Dixon.
>
The Who created their own style. Pink Floyd did as well, but the Who
seemed to get lumped with the other blues rock bands. 'Tommy' was an album
that broke the mold. Played live the Who made this into a monster. On
the record it's a great album but not emotional. Yet it made the Who
famous for their live shows.
Hadji Derabertis
Jumbo wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 04:26:28 GMT, Maneatingcow
> <acdc18...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >-#1 - What band has aged the worst of the four?
>
> The Stones. They look and sound dead. At least Pink Floyd retired with
> dignity.
>
> >
> >#2 - Between these 4 bands, what are your top 3 album picks?
>
> DSOTM, Tommy and Animals
>
> >
> ># 3 - Which band was the most musically talented/skilled?
>
> Pink Floyd.
> >
> >#4 - Rank the bands, best to worst in your opinion if you are willing.
>
> Oh Pink Floyd by far, then Zeppelin, then the Who. The other band
> doesn't even make the cut, and their own fans wouldn't even arue
> otherwise.
>
> >
> >#1 - Did Robert Plant ripoff the longer curly hair look from Roger
> >Daultry, or vice versa?
>
> I think roger stole it from Robert. Plant used it in 68 and Roger then
> used it at Woodstock.
>
> >
> >#2 - True or False - Mick Jagger once said he was a much better
> >singerthan Roger was. I had yet another Stones fan tell me this at the
> >1st Stones show this tour, and that Mick said this back in a UK
> >magazine in the early 70's. That's the same thing I heard from another
> >person. What exactly WAS said?
>
> Mick isn't. Roger is far better, and Stones fans know it. Th Rolling
> Stones never did anything for rock, and Pink Floyd still to this day
> had sold more Cd's than them.
>
> >
> >#3 - Which band has the most arrogant/worst fans?
> >
> Probably the Stones, then Led Zeppelin.
>
> >#4 - Has ANYONE here seen all four of these bands live? Or even 3 of
> >them? Who was the best of these bands live in your opinion? (I'm just
> >waiting for a Who fan to bring up the recent "Zeppelin sucks live; Who
> >own them" comments)
>
> Zeppelin did suck live. So did the Stones. The Who and Pink Floyd
> always threw better shows, and that's really just the honest truth.
> Zeppelin was always off key, and the Stones never had as much good
> music.
Obviously your not a Stones fan bud. "The honest truth:"........to you
maybe, but not everybody else.
Jason~~
Hadji Derabertis
Iggles wrote:
O.K i'll say its a coin toss between Ent and JPJ,,,,but Mccartney in
there.....come on!
Jason~~
Hadji Derabertis
Gil Ulrik wrote:
> Hadji Derabertis come on down:
>
> >Obviously your a die-hard Beatles fan. Plant has a greater vocal range then any
> >of the Beatles. To pick Entwistle and Mccartney over J.P.Jones on the bass is
> >hilarious. Lennon second only to Page on the guitar????.......Do you have any of
> >the stuff your smoking for sale? Lennon wasnt even a lead guitarist, he was an
> >adequate rhythm guitarist at best. Your entitled to your opinion,, but your way
> >off bass. Pound for pound Lez Zep had the best musicians ever to be in one band.
> >Page, Bonham, and J.P Jones are all masters of their craft.
> >Jason~~
>
> Fanboy.
>
> --
> WHO STOLE MY SIG
Actually the Stones are my favorite band. But Zep had the better musicians, no
question about it.
Jason~~
Hadji Derabertis
Gil Ulrik wrote:
> John W Hooper come on down:
>
> >On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 13:17:01 -0500, Hadji Derabertis
> ><stephen...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> >>Obviously your a die-hard Beatles fan. Plant has a greater vocal range then any
> >>of the Beatles. To pick Entwistle and Mccartney over J.P.Jones on the bass is
> >>hilarious. Lennon second only to Page on the guitar????.......Do you have any of
> >>the stuff your smoking for sale?
> >
> >Preach it! Led Zeppelin emerged and drove the Beatles into retirement.
> >Led Zeppelin was so good, the Who NEVER got out from underneath their
> >shadow. The Who fans ae all jealous of Led Zeppelin's sucess IMO.
> >
> >The only band here even worthy of mention other than Led Zeppelin is
> >the Rolling Stones. Pink floyd were only good when you wre on drugs.
> >People got off the drugs after the Wall, and Floyd collapsed hard. The
> >Who fans live in the delusional world of thinking their band somehow
> >had as much talen at Led Zeppelin. I hate when Who fans try to list
> >them as superior to Zeppelin.
> >
> >Hey Who fans - who sold more albums?
>
> Fanboy.
>
> --
> WHO STOLE MY SIG
Sounds like your a Beatles fanboy.
Jason~~
Andreas Zimmermann
>
> The Stones. They look and sound dead.
They may look dead, but they are unbelievable.
Andreas
Hadji Derabertis
Truth,, Beatles couldnt sing! They hardly had a vocal range. Plant could hold a
note longer then any of those guys. Paul and John's voice would start to crack
while Robert would still be strong. Contrary to what you believe, Paul is not an
awesome bass player songwriter yes...bass player, adequate at best.
John Lennon,,good songwriter, yes! Awesome guitar player...far far from it.
George was wayyyyyyy better then John.
Whats this about singing? You dont need a vocal range to be a good singer? You
don't need to hold , carry and sustain a note for a period of time to be a good
singer??? Technically yes,, yes you do need to posess those traits in order to
be classified as a good singer. Or else we would all be classified as good
singers, the whole world would then be great singers .
Jason~~
Magic7Ball
>
> I knew this was coming :)
>
> They weren't much of a factor in the 70's was why.
The Beatles were and still are the factor. There's no point to this list
without them, so we'll take them into account.
> #1 - What band has aged the worst of the four?
I'd say The Who, because they haven't progressed at all. Now "Walking Into
Clarksdale" and "the Division Bell" aren't much, granted, but at least they
are SOMETHING. What have the Who done?
> # 3 - Which band was the most musically talented/skilled?
Songwriting: Beatles
Instruments: Led Zeppelin
> #4 - Rank the bands, best to worst in your opinion if you are willing.
1. Beatles
2. Pink Floyd
3. Led Zeppelin
4. The Who
5. Rolling Stones
The Man From Mars
> Truth,, Beatles couldnt sing! They hardly had a vocal range.
Is this a joke or are you pretending to be a Who fan? Talk about
hilarious...
JP
> I'd say The Who, because they haven't progressed at all. Now "Walking Into
> Clarksdale" and "the Division Bell" aren't much, granted, but at least
they
> are SOMETHING. What have the Who done?
My oldest teenager, who loves bands with singers who yell more than sing
likes Division Bell a lot and so do I... Like my wife says to the kids when
they have a problem with her cooking: " Don't say it's not good, just say
you don't like it"...
JP
Astarte
bothered me for about 7 seconds..
tyre
Neil Coward wrote:
> I can only answer a few of these questions
>
> 1 Which band has aged worst
>
> , well its not the stones cos they are still playing, still touring, still
> raking in millions. I never got into Led Zeppelin (although i respect them
> and their fans). I find that you tend to grow out of Pink Floyd - all that
> soul searching and anquish really hits the spot when you are a teen but you
> grow up and now some of Pink Floyd tracks sound cringingly self indulgent
>
> 2 Best 3 Its gotta be 3 stones albums but which ones changes from "week to
> week, day to day, hour to hour" for me. (where that quote is from is gonna
> bug you now isn't it?)
>
>
> 3 best to worst Stones - Floyd - Zepellin
>
> 4 Which we most musically talented? skilled? impossible to judge, its like
> saying which is the 'fruitiest' fruit - an apple, and orange or a pear? They
> are all excellent at what they are trying to do, Pink floyd dabbled more in
> technology and got a more controlled and polished sound, the stones are
> often like a thunderstorm, strong and wild and out of control
> so which is 'best'? dunno mate. If push came to shove I would say the Stones
>
> "Maneatingcow" <acdc18...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jqadev8v680b83jp8...@4ax.com...
>
>>When you get right down to it, I really do not think that there is any
>>question that the 60's and 70's were dominated by these 4 bands more
>>than anyone. Sure, Deep Purple was good, Rainbow had their moments
>>w/Dio, and Black Sabbath had theirs, but from that incredible 64-79 15
>>year span, (narrow it further to the 68-73 years for the elite of the
>>elite), these were THE years that the best rock music the world ever
>>saw came out.
>>
>>And the 4 bands listed here were the main reason. Granted many people
>>here like all these bands (ok, not everyone, certain Pink Floyd fans
>>[ksmith] here think LZ eat shit and Page was lame, but whatever)
>>
>>I'm curious to see, with this question posted in all 4 NG's, how the
>>following questions would be answered.
>>
>>-#1 - What band has aged the worst of the four?
>>
>>#2 - Between these 4 bands, what are your top 3 album picks?
>>
>># 3 - Which band was the most musically talented/skilled?
>>
>>#4 - Rank the bands, best to worst in your opinion if you are willing.
>>
>>Now, here's some of the slightly mopre interesting stuff between the
>>bands I had questions about
>>
>>#1 - Did Robert Plant ripoff the longer curly hair look from Roger
>>Daultry, or vice versa?
>>
>>#2 - True or False - Mick Jagger once said he was a much better
>>singerthan Roger was. I had yet another Stones fan tell me this at the
>>1st Stones show this tour, and that Mick said this back in a UK
>>magazine in the early 70's. That's the same thing I heard from another
>>person. What exactly WAS said?
>>
>>#3 - Which band has the most arrogant/worst fans?
>>
>>#4 - Has ANYONE here seen all four of these bands live? Or even 3 of
>>them? Who was the best of these bands live in your opinion? (I'm just
>>waiting for a Who fan to bring up the recent "Zeppelin sucks live; Who
>>own them" comments)
>>
Astarte
was the bassist and that David Gilmore played lead..U are a complete
Stoner..Or i am jsut not really in the know.. But either way, you are
Alt Music the Who's version of our AMLZ Stryder*** ;)
tyreah
Rufus Leaking
agree Elite, but not elitist!!!
I was elite, but no longer am.
>LZ may or may not be.
They were, they stopped being so on Sept. 25, 1980...
>You sure as the fuck are not.
agree. Elitist, but not elite mon frere`
Dave
"Hid in the reeds are eyes that peek,
voices I don't understand.
Flamingos fly endlessly,
To the silent sky"
Rufus Leaking
>dead..
I loved that thing where Mick and Keith compare how they prepare for the tour.
Mick runs 6 miles a day and works out
KR "I just show up. Being guitar player in the Stones is workout enough"
Rufus Leaking
>
I'd expand that to fans of most bands (if not all when speaking of hard-core
fans)
"I just don't understand why you don't like (name here) they're soooooo great,
etc etc etc
I don't like 'em because I don't. Period. For people to go on about how can
someone not like their favorite is just an execise in futilty, at least with
me.
>"my band is better, if you dont like my band, you suck"
>
any band with fans like that must suck, LOL
Rufus Leaking
>science.
God uses the simple things to confound the wise....
Sure it's simple rock & roll, and Jimmy Osterberg hasn't ever said it was
anything other, nor aspired to make anything more of it. Tell you what, he
sure gives an audience their money's worth, in spades!!!
Olompali4
>sure gives an audience their money's worth, in spades!!!
Yeah..frontal nudity, blood, peanut butter and glass shards! That's some good
music!
Ig's a clown.
Gil Ulrik
>I carried on to see if he said anything funnier than that, he didn't.
C'mon. The bits about Stairway and the "Barroque" period were fairly comical.
Also, "Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" is a funny name.
Gil Ulrik
>> When you get right down to it, I really do not think that there is any
>> question that the 60's and 70's were dominated by these 4 bands more
>> than anyone. Sure, Deep Purple was good, Rainbow had their moments
>> w/Dio, and Black Sabbath had theirs, but from that incredible 64-79 15
>> year span, (narrow it further to the 68-73 years for the elite of the
>> elite), these were THE years that the best rock music the world ever
>> saw came out.
>
>I'd say '67-'74... but you're right, that era was the best in rock music...
Just a reminder- God still hates you, Peretti.
Gil Ulrik
>It's not a "us vs. us" situation.
No, it's an "us vs. you" situation.
Gil Ulrik
>Truth,, Beatles couldnt sing! They hardly had a vocal range.
I admit it. I live for statements like these.
Gil Ulrik
>Gil Ulrik wrote:
>
>> Fanboy.
>>
>> --
>> WHO STOLE MY SIG
>
>Sounds like your a Beatles fanboy.
It's amazing how much some people can extrapolate from one word.
Gil Ulrik
Most zombies are, yes.
London Calling
> I can only answer a few of these questions
>
> 1 Which band has aged worst
>
> , well its not the stones cos they are still playing, still touring, still
> raking in millions. I never got into Led Zeppelin (although i respect them
> and their fans). I find that you tend to grow out of Pink Floyd - all that
> soul searching and anquish really hits the spot when you are a teen but you
>
No offence, but you're talking utter shit. If we judge this on people
still playing, touring and raking in money, you may aswell include The
Krankies or Bucks Fizz.
Judge the band on looks alone, the Stones have aged the worst.
Drop that shallow bullshit and judge them on their live performances
(sonically and visually), Stones again.
Judge them on studio recordings, gotta be The Who coz they ain't
released anything for a decade or so, and when they last did, it was
incredibly lame and not even befitting of the name 'The Who'. By
default Led Zep would be placed in the same position, though above The
Who as they chose not to sully their legacy with 2 extra albums of
insipid tripe. Stones come second, patchy of late, but more 'Stonesey'
than The Who have been 'Whoy' etc. Floyd (whom I hate) have to be the
least aged in this respect, just doing their best at being 'Da Floyd'
(whom I hate).
When Page and Plant toured (let us assume for argument's sake that
this counts as Led Zeppelin for this excercise)they were truer to the
original classic Led Zep sound than any of the aforementioned bands
were to theirs, aside from Floyd (whom I hate).
I can't be bothered to reply to your other 59 paragraphs.
Rufus Leaking
>good
>music!
saw him twice and he never did anything but sing, play guitar and shake his
ass. And when he had Ivan Kral on guitar, man oh man, that was just fucking
awesome.
Rufus Leaking
>forums get the life trolled out of them.
I can see why that is...
Hadji Derabertis
Gil Ulrik wrote:
Well one word can mean so many diffrent things,,right? :)
Jason~~
MFM
> awesome bass player songwriter yes...bass player, adequate at best.
That is total bull! McCartney was one of the best there ever was! Name one
beatles song that doesn't have an excellent bass? Take the bassline of Lady
Madonna, of Drive my Car, Obladi-Oblada, Glass Union, Get Back. Brilliant.
Just a completely different style of bassplaying than that of Entwistle. To
call McCartney adequate is just plain silly!
Martijn
Jeff Richmond
> -#1 - What band has aged the worst of the four?
Musically:
Hmmm, Zeppelin (with Bonham) and Floyd (with Waters) disbanded long ago;
that disqualifies them. The Who (with or without Entwistle) haven't put
out
anything new in ages, so that disqualifies them. That leaves us with the
Stones.
Is all of the Stones new stuff bad? No. It just pales in comparison to
their past.
>
> #2 - Between these 4 bands, what are your top 3 album picks?
1. Let it Bleed, The Rolling Stones
2. Exile on Main Street, The Rolling Stones
3. Sticky Fingers, The Rolling Stones
OK, three non-Stones albums ;)
4. The Wall, Pink Floyd
5. Physical Graffiti, Led Zeppelin
6. Dark Side of the Moon, Pink Floyd
> # 3 - Which band was the most musically talented/skilled?
Gotta break it down:
Drums: Bonham, Zeppelin (with Keith Moon a close second)
Guitar: Page, Zeppelin (in the studio anyway...he could be sloppy on
stage at times)
Bass: Entwistle, The Who (no question)
Vocals: They are all very good and unique. Look at it this way, if you
take any
of them out of their respective band, you no longer have that band. (Yes,
I know
that David Gilmour and Keith Richards do a bit of singing but I am only
talking
about the main singers for each band).
> #4 - Rank the bands, best to worst in your opinion if you are willing.
First, I don't *dislike* any of them...
Oh, if you insist. Let me put on my flame retardant suit. ;)
IMO, the best musicians don't always add up to the best band.
1. The Rolling Stones
2. Led Zeppelin
3. Pink Floyd
4. The Who
Life sucks
Jagger but there's no damn way they are "better" singers, and
especially better frontmen.
Robert Plant is embarrassing to hear nowadays, Roger Daltrey has gone
downhill
too, Mick is better now than he was 20 years ago. Besides, his voice
is unique.
tool_...@yahoo.com (John) wrote in message news:<2c871e20.0306...@posting.google.com>...
> "#1 - What band has aged the worst of the four?"
> Rolling Stones
>
> "2 - Between these 4 bands, what are your top 3 album picks?"
> Pink Floyd-Animals, WYWH, DSotM
> Led Zeppelin-Physical Graffiti, HotH, 1
> The Who-Tommy, Who's Next, Quadrophenia
> " 3 - Which band was the most musically talented/skilled?"
> Led Zeppelin/The Who;Best Songwriters-Pink Floyd
> "4 - Rank the bands, best to worst in your opinion if you are willing."
>
> Now, here's some of the slightly mopre interesting stuff between the
> bands I had questions about
>
> "1 - Did Robert Plant ripoff the longer curly hair look from Roger
> Daultry, or vice versa?"
> Roger Daltrey had the hair style first.
> "2 - True or False - Mick Jagger once said he was a much better
> singerthan Roger was. I had yet another Stones fan tell me this at the
> 1st Stones show this tour, and that Mick said this back in a UK
> magazine in the early 70's. That's the same thing I heard from another
> person. What exactly WAS said?"
> I hope Mick was joking.
> "3 - Which band has the most arrogant/worst fans?"
> Rolling Stones
> "4 - Has ANYONE here seen all four of these bands live? Or even 3 of
> them? Who was the best of these bands live in your opinion? (I'm just
> waiting for a Who fan to bring up the recent "Zeppelin sucks live; Who
> own them" comments)"
> N/A
> Some of the NG's are a little slow, hopefully this will drum up some
> talks.
>
> From 68-74 I think King Crimson was tuff to beat.
ksmith1016
"Jeff Richmond" <jri...@glue.umd.edu> wrote:
< # 3 - Which band was the most musically talented/skilled?>
<<Gotta break it down:
Drums: Bonham, Zeppelin (with Keith Moon a close second)>>
You really are dreaming right? Not only was Keith Moon light years ahead of
JB but Bonham blew! He was the absolute "weak link" in that band. He was a
heavy handed smasher with NO technique. His drum solo ruins Moby Dick and
it's even worse on that abortion of a live album that they never should have
put out. Moon had the power (when he wanted) and the technique. You want to
know another great drummer? Mitch Mitchell. Want to know another? Bill
Bruford. These guys I mentioned are the cream of the crop. Bonham was the
worst of the worst. He sucked. BAM! BAM! BAM! BAM! He was boring.
Want to know another great drummer? John Ike Walton of the 13th Floor
Elevators. Power? They used to have to chain his drums to the stage and he
had great technique too, a really light touch when he wanted and fast.
But Bonham? He fucking sucked.
Jeff Richmond
> "Jeff Richmond" <jri...@glue.umd.edu> wrote:
> < # 3 - Which band was the most musically talented/skilled?>
>
> <<Gotta break it down:
>
> Drums: Bonham, Zeppelin (with Keith Moon a close second)>>
>
> You really are dreaming right? Not only was Keith Moon light years ahead of
> JB but Bonham blew! He was the absolute "weak link" in that band. He was a
> heavy handed smasher with NO technique. His drum solo ruins Moby Dick and
> it's even worse on that abortion of a live album that they never should have
> put out. Moon had the power (when he wanted) and the technique. You want to
> know another great drummer? Mitch Mitchell. Want to know another? Bill
> Bruford. These guys I mentioned are the cream of the crop. Bonham was the
> worst of the worst. He sucked. BAM! BAM! BAM! BAM! He was boring.
OK, admittedly I don't know about drumming *techniques*.
But when I listen to a song like When the Levee Breaks, the drums
sound pretty damn good. Maybe it's simple, maybe it's heavy handed
but for overall sound, to me it works. And that applies to pretty much
all of Zeppelin's catalog of music. It may not be difficult, but it is
distinct and part of what makes Zeppelin who they were.
As for the Moby Dick solo, I've never gotten into that, myself :-/
Tiensthirdeye
Stones
>#2 - Between these 4 bands, what are your top 3 album picks?
All Zep, any ones.
># 3 - Which band was the most musically talented/skilled?
Zeppelin
>#4 - Rank the bands, best to worst in your opinion if you are willing.
Zeppelin
Stones
Floyd
Who
>#1 - Did Robert Plant ripoff the longer curly hair look from Roger
>Daultry, or vice versa?
>
Plant was the one with the natural curls.
>#3 - Which band has the most arrogant/worst fans?
The Who
jcativera
be ok hahahaha
"Jeff Richmond" <jri...@glue.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:3EE8DAB8...@glue.umd.edu...
Astarte
Gil Ulrik
>> Contrary to what you believe, Paul is not an
>> awesome bass player songwriter yes...bass player, adequate at best.
>
>That is total bull! McCartney was one of the best there ever was! Name one
>beatles song that doesn't have an excellent bass?
The bass on "Julia" is TERRIBLE.