Poll: Led Zeppelin vs Rolling Stones vs Who

[BostonNit]

Listed alphabetically in the subject, but how would you rank them?

And yes I know the Beatles could be on here too but it's my poll and I'm leaving them off.

 

[JohnJumba]

The Beatles, bubble gum band.

 

[Sluggo52]

If you know anything about music, it's Led Zeppelin and it aint even close.

 

[jp3272]

Yes, Yes, and Yes

 

[PSU Mike]

If you know anything about music, it's Led Zeppelin and it aint even close.

Kind of like telling somebody what food they should like more. Some idiots just don’t know until somebody smart comes along and tells them.

 

[@jayhimes]

Listed alphabetically in the subject, but how would you rank them?

And yes I know the Beatles could be on here too but it's my poll and I'm leaving them off.

Good poll. I ranked them by my listening preference—Stones, Who, LZ. If you asked me to rank them by most talented, I would probably have LZ number one.

 

[Shadow99]

Ignoring aspects such as "most influence on others" and "most popular / most sales" that have absolutely ZERO effect on actual enjoyment of the music, the best "Brit" band to actually LISTEN to is Pink Floyd. The nuance, attention to detail, transitions, lyrics, intricate harmony / frequent blending of multiple instruments and vocals, accompanying production / visuals, choreography, and Gilmore's storytelling with the guitar are second to none, regardless if someone else plays the guitar "faster".

So write in vote for Pink Floyd #1. The other 3 are fine, with some songs standing out for each, but as an overall discography, Pink Floyd #1 for this listener.

 

[Bvillebaron]

Ignoring aspects such as "most influence on others" and "most popular / most sales" that have absolutely ZERO effect on actual enjoyment of the music, the best "Brit" band to actually LISTEN to is Pink Floyd. The nuance, attention to detail, transitions, lyrics, intricate harmony / frequent blending of multiple instruments and vocals, accompanying production / visuals, choreography, and Gilmore's storytelling with the guitar are second to none, regardless if someone else plays the guitar "faster".

So write in vote for Pink Floyd #1. The other 3 are fine, with some songs standing out for each, but as an overall discography, Pink Floyd #1 for this listener.

To each his own but claiming that Pink Floyd is second to none on any of the metrics you mention is laughable, especially vis a vis Zeppelin. Then again my view might be influenced by virtue of the fact I don’t like Nazis.

 

[WestSideLion]

If you know anything about music, it's Led Zeppelin and it aint even close.

Zeppelin is the most overrated band in history. They were a great jam band, but had one sound and never evolved.

The Stones have likely three of the top 10-15 albums of all time, and a bevy of rock anthems spanning the 60s through 80s.

All three of these bands are all time greats, but The Stones and The Beatles stand alone at the top of the rock Pantheon.

 

[ODShowtime]

Zeppelin is the most overrated band in history. had one sound and never evolved.

So Dazed and Confused sounds like The Song Remains the Same, The Battle of Evermore, and Kashmir? No evolution there? Ok. Interesting opinion that you have.

This part I agree with:

"All three of these bands are all time greats"

 

[WestSideLion]

So Dazed and Confused sounds like The Song Remains the Same, The Battle of Evermore, and Kashmir? No evolution there? Ok. Interesting opinion that you have.

This part I agree with:

"All three of these bands are all time greats"

Ok. Now compare that diversity to “Paint It Black,” “Gimme Shelter,” “Tumbling Dice,” “Miss You” and “Start Me Up.”

See my point?

 

[19333lion]

De gustibus non est disputandum.

 

[OaktonDave]

Listed alphabetically in the subject, but how would you rank them?

And yes I know the Beatles could be on here too but it's my poll and I'm leaving them off.

All three bands had different approaches to music and wrote songs that took on different topics. While all three were true rock bands with similar instrumentation, the similarities don't go much beyond that. The Who was never going to do songs with fantasy references; Zepplin was never going to perform songs about youthful alienation and frustration; and the Stones were not going to do long, complex songs about anything. It's somewhat like trying to compare fiction writers from different genres. My personal order is The Who, Zepplin, then the Stones, but that's entirely a reflection of my preferences for the types of music they were creating. They were all truly great in their own way.

 

[LionJim]

All three bands had different approaches to music and wrote songs that took on different topics. While all three were true rock bands with similar instrumentation, the similarities don't go much beyond that. The Who was never going to do songs with fantasy references; Zepplin was never going to perform songs about youthful alienation and frustration; and the Stones were not going to do long, complex songs about anything. t's somewhat like trying to compare fiction writers from different genres. My personal order is The Who, Zepplin, then the Stones, but that's entirely a reflection of my preferences for the types of music they were creating. They were all truly great in their own way.

Nice. Appreciated.

 

[Catch1lion]

De gustibus non est disputandum.

Is this a @laKavosiey-st lion band ?

 

[laKavosiey-st lion]

Wut? If I fronted a band, it would be called Hate & Adrenaline

 

[laKavosiey-st lion]

I’m Stones LZ and Who. Who’s last cause i hate operas

 

[ODShowtime]

Ok. Now compare that diversity to “Paint It Black,” “Gimme Shelter,” “Tumbling Dice,” “Miss You” and “Start Me Up.”

See my point?

I thought about it after I posted. The Stones and the Who evolved... because they had to. Both started as 60's pop singles bands and evolved to 70's album rock bands, because that's what everyone did. Zeppelin skipped the 60's singles scene and came out as a full-fledged album band. The only album of theirs that sounds "evolved" is In Through the Out Door, and most people wouldn't call that a good evolution.

Then the Stones and the Who evolved again for the 80s. I don't listen to much of that because it's subpar. Zeppelin never got that chance because they broke up in 1980.

So Zeppelin missed two chances to evolve, one because it was ending when they hit the scene, the other because they ended. But saying Zeppelin is over-rated because they never evolved is an opinion that I do not agree with. They didn't go from "Satisfaction" to "She's so Cold", or "Pictures of Lily" to "Another Tricky Day", but they grew and changed as the years went on. "I Can't Quit You" to "In The Evening" is quite a change over 10 years.

 

[Steve JG]

Listed alphabetically in the subject, but how would you rank them?

And yes I know the Beatles could be on here too but it's my poll and I'm leaving them off.

seen all three live, the who post Keith Moon. Best performance in terms rock and roll musicianship was Who,. Stones at least when I saw them were more stage show than rock concert. Zep was OK, had some good moments but also some extended boring, bloated self indulgent moments.......

 

[Tgar]

seen all three live, the who post Keith Moon. Best performance in terms rock and roll musicianship was Who,. Stones at least when I saw them were more stage show than rock concert. Zep was OK, had some good moments but also some extended boring, bloated self indulgent moments.......

But, the biggest difference is Led Zeppelin hasn’t been available live for like forever. Page Plant last toured in 1995 or something like that. Great show, great band behind them but zip, zero nada for the fans to attend. The other two have been way more active and available as far as touring goes.

but alas, that too will end very soon.

 

[Sluggo52]

My criteria was sheer musical talent. LZ arrangements exceeded the other by far. Using intricate structures, layering and texturing they made complex transitions in tempo and mood. Awesome stuff.

But I enjoyed all three.

 

[Keyser Soze 16802]

I had to deduct points from the Stones for all the many years of mediocre-to-bad albums they put out after about 1990

 

[EricStratton-RushChairman]

To each his own but claiming that Pink Floyd is second to none on any of the metrics you mention is laughable, especially vis a vis Zeppelin. Then again my view might be influenced by virtue of the fact I don’t like Nazis.

 

[BostonNit]

Ignoring aspects such as "most influence on others" and "most popular / most sales" that have absolutely ZERO effect on actual enjoyment of the music, the best "Brit" band to actually LISTEN to is Pink Floyd. The nuance, attention to detail, transitions, lyrics, intricate harmony / frequent blending of multiple instruments and vocals, accompanying production / visuals, choreography, and Gilmore's storytelling with the guitar are second to none, regardless if someone else plays the guitar "faster".

So write in vote for Pink Floyd #1. The other 3 are fine, with some songs standing out for each, but as an overall discography, Pink Floyd #1 for this listener.

I agree with everything you said about PF but felt they are of a very different genre than the other 3. PF is actually my all-time favorite band.

 

[Grant Green]

Zeppelin is the most overrated band in history. They were a great jam band, but had one sound and never evolved.

I'm going to have to disagree rather strongly. Zeppelin evolved quite a bit and and I would say more than the Stones.
Both bands started as heavily blues-based. The Stones became more of a straight ahead rock band while Zep continued to change until the end.

Zep's first album is mostly a combo of blues songs and in your face hard rock and the songs were mostly "borrowed" from other bands. Second album is much the same except now they have written all of the songs themselves. By the time they get to IV, they are playing Stairway to Heaven, which we all may be sick of, but it is way, way more complex than anything they had done (and way more complex than anything the Stone ever did). They are now using maj 7 chords, min/maj7 chords, 9th chords and the whole song builds in a way that few, if any, rock songs have before.

Four Sticks - played in a mix of 5/8 and 6/8 time - this is jazz type stuff. The Stones never played any odd time signatures - hardly any even in 3/4 or 6/8.

Rain Song - again, an array of complex chords - maj7, sus4, m9, chord inversions. Heavy dynamic shifts, going from soft acoustic to intense orchestral (actually a Melotron). This song would be so out of place on their 1st album.

Kashmir, Ten Years Gone, Achilles Last Stand. They sound more like a prog rock band in the mid 70s than the blues based band they started as. Started using synth in a number of songs. Listen to In Through the Out Door - it is so very far from Zep I.

The Stones evolved quite a bit up until Beggars Banquet, when they hit their stride. To me, they don't evolve a ton after that. Not necessarily a terrible thing. They found exactly the sound they wanted and stuck it hard. Maybe better to do that than risk evolving into something that doesn't sound that good anymore.

 

[Catch1lion]

This is the story of a Johnny Rotten.......

 

[manatree]

Of the three for me, it's The Who by a huge margin. Then the Stones. Led Zeppelin, I don't hate them, they just never blew my skirt up.

 

[Grant Green]

This is the story of a Johnny Rotten.......

People often hate things that are so much better than they could ever be.

 

[Still in State Colllege]

I submit for your consideration:



Everything a rock band should be.

I won't argue that they are the most important band but live there was really no one better than The Who at their peak. Plus Roger can still sing these songs unlke Plant.

 

[Connorpozlee]

If you know anything about music, it's Led Zeppelin and it aint even close.

I don’t really know what the criteria is for voting. I assumed it to be who we liked the most. I went Who-Stones-Zep. If the Kinks were included I would have put them above all three.

 

[manatree]

I don’t really know what the criteria is for voting. I assumed it to be who we liked the most. I went Who-Stones-Zep. If the Kinks were included I would have put them above all three.

For me it would be The Who, The Kinks, The Rolling Stones, The Clash, and then The Led Zeppelin.

 

[Corner Room Breakfast]

Who, Zep, Stones.

Who's Next, Sticky Fingers, and Led Zeppelin IV and decide for yourself.

 

[laKavosiey-st lion]

Listen to Who's Next, Sticky Fingers, and Led Zeppelin IV and decide for yourself.

A fantastic idea.

 

[Midnighter]

Not a massive fan of any of the three, but I'd probably go The Who, Rolling Stones, then Led Zep. Would be LZ first but man, they ripped off a TON of stuff from others...

 

[Nitt1300]

If you know anything about music, it's Led Zeppelin and it aint even close.

er, no

 

[Nitt1300]

 

[Steve JG]

Listed alphabetically in the subject, but how would you rank them?

And yes I know the Beatles could be on here too but it's my poll and I'm leaving them off.

 

[Nitt1300]

 

[WestSideLion]

I'm going to have to disagree rather strongly. Zeppelin evolved quite a bit and and I would say more than the Stones.
Both bands started as heavily blues-based. The Stones became more of a straight ahead rock band while Zep continued to change until the end.

Zep's first album is mostly a combo of blues songs and in your face hard rock and the songs were mostly "borrowed" from other bands. Second album is much the same except now they have written all of the songs themselves. By the time they get to IV, they are playing Stairway to Heaven, which we all may be sick of, but it is way, way more complex than anything they had done (and way more complex than anything the Stone ever did). They are now using maj 7 chords, min/maj7 chords, 9th chords and the whole song builds in a way that few, if any, rock songs have before.

Four Sticks - played in a mix of 5/8 and 6/8 time - this is jazz type stuff. The Stones never played any odd time signatures - hardly any even in 3/4 or 6/8.

Rain Song - again, an array of complex chords - maj7, sus4, m9, chord inversions. Heavy dynamic shifts, going from soft acoustic to intense orchestral (actually a Melotron). This song would be so out of place on their 1st album.

Kashmir, Ten Years Gone, Achilles Last Stand. They sound more like a prog rock band in the mid 70s than the blues based band they started as. Started using synth in a number of songs. Listen to In Through the Out Door - it is so very far from Zep I.

The Stones evolved quite a bit up until Beggars Banquet, when they hit their stride. To me, they don't evolve a ton after that. Not necessarily a terrible thing. They found exactly the sound they wanted and stuck it hard. Maybe better to do that than risk evolving into something that doesn't sound that good anymore.

We definitely disagree hard on this one, Grant. That's ok. Listen to Between the Buttons then Let It Bleed then Exile then Some Girls then Tattoo You. There's quite an evolution from 60s mod-pop to politically-infused rock lyrics to southern blues jams to disco-punk to stadium rock.

I get that Zeppelin was super protective of who could license their music for moves and media, but The Stones are far more ingrained in the American pop consciousness than Zeppelin. Call it what you will, but that matters in these debates.

The Stones are the better, more impactful band for me. And it's not all that close.

 

[laKavosiey-st lion]

Whatever happened to standing in front of a band and getting blown away. Why does the technical/evolution/fan base #ers matter at all. Us 4 just listened to a strokes song and embraced its simple brilliance.