TS: Rolling Stones v. Led Zep

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Tekno vs. big beat

dave q, Saturday, 11 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I like the Stones because they remind me of Dr John and the Happy Mondays. I hate the Stones because they remind me of INXS and Bryan Adams. I love Zep because they remind me of Moby Grape and Mantronix. I hate Zep because they remind me of Jeff Buckley and Starsailor. That was a great 'game' thread btw, but it appears I was the only person who liked it.

dave q, Saturday, 11 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

explain the Tekno thing again, cuz i love it

mark s, Saturday, 11 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I love techno and big beat. As for the primary taking sides issue here, well there are about three Led Zep songs I like, whereas the Stones were the greatest rock band ever. Sorry, evah. Not a hard choice.

Martin Skidmore, Saturday, 11 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

no elvis, beatles, or the rolling stones in 2002, please.

jess, Saturday, 11 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

but i love the rolling stones. not for their music, but for their continued efforts to preserve historic buildings.

jess, Saturday, 11 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I think it's interesting the way that the Stones almost totally resisted Led Zep-style HM as a source of 'inspiration' - I mean they tried their hand at blues, country, disco, reggae, punk, even Dead- like noodling (eg 'Can't You Hear Me Knocking'), but nothing TOO heavy.

Andrew L, Saturday, 11 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

listening to the radio for the first time in months (benefit of having access to a car), the oldies station played a 4 song block of the rs. i was surprised by tight assed and trebbly it sounded. (although the drum sounds were kind of "fat".)

jess, Saturday, 11 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Both were at their most appealing at their bluesiest.

bnw, Saturday, 11 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Rolling Stones.

If only because classic rock radio inundation has made it so I can't listen to any Led Zeppelin albums all the way through. I like the Zep, but I don't ever need to listen to them again ever.

For some reason, I don't feel that way about the Stones. I can still enjoy them. Maybe because they simply have a larger body of work and classic rock radio, 'round here at least, doesn't even play their very best music (the best parts of Exile, Satanic, Between the Buttons, Sticky Fingers).

Oliver, Saturday, 11 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Dissing the Rolling Stones for sounding tight-assed and trebly is like dissing Giotto for inaccurate figure representation and unsophisticated color usage.

Clarke B., Saturday, 11 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Led Zeppelin, because Martin Millar never wrote a novel about the Rolling Stones.

thom, Saturday, 11 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

The Rolling Stones, mostly because legend had it they were originally considered to be cast as Alex and his droogs for a tentative mid- 1960s film version of "A Clockwork Orange". FUNNIEST MENTAL PICTURE EVER.

Nate Patrin, Saturday, 11 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

incidentally, Two Dollar Guitar have a song called "Stones Vs. Zep". of course, it doesn't sound much like or directly refer to either, so it doesn't really help the debate, but it's a great song.

for my money, i'll go with Stones, though. grew up on em and just been in the mood for em a lot lately.

al, Saturday, 11 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

i'd vote stones - zeppelin is better when you're stoned, though.

geeta, Saturday, 11 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

i never said it was a dis, clarke. (my favorite band is the fall for chrissakes.)

jess, Saturday, 11 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I forgot the Raggettwink, shit!

Stones, definitely, although it's a tight race.

Clarke B., Saturday, 11 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I forgot the Raggettwink, shit!

Dear god, it's a neologism now.

Ned Raggett, Saturday, 11 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

;-)

jess, Saturday, 11 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

legend had it they were originally considered to be cast as Alex and his droogs for a tentative mid- 1960s film version of "A Clockwork Orange". FUNNIEST MENTAL PICTURE EVER.

not half as funny as imagining the Beatles' version of Lord of the Rings.

Justyn Dillingham, Sunday, 12 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

You mean "Help!"?

Nate Patrin, Sunday, 12 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

You people have GOT to be kidding. There's no way that the Stones beat out Zep. Sure, the stones are great at times, but they also have about 100

clone304@hotmail.com, Sunday, 12 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

songs that sound exactly like the other 100 songs that they sell. And though Zep does have a distictive style that makes them instantly recognizeable, most of their songs don't sound like the same fscking song. Immigrant Song and Kashmir come to mind

clone304@hotmail.com, Sunday, 12 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Zeppelin, obviously. Better T-shirts.

sundar subramanian, Sunday, 12 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

"Q: Do you write any of the material that you sing?

BJ: Well yes, we write a lot of it actually. The ones that appear under the [..] are written by all of us together, and Mick and Keith write a lot. And others of us do write, but we haven't had anything recorded with this group."

"Q: I've never seen any British group described in the way that the Rolling Stones have. Now I've met the fellows and they're very clean-cut looking boys. You've got very long hair but you certainly don't look dirty... Would you make an attempt to explain this to me and for the benefit of our listeners?

BJ: it's very difficult to ex - all I can do really is sort of deny it and say that I am pers - I'm speaking for myself - I resent very much being called 'dirty' and if anyone called me dirty to my face I wouldn't take it lying down, you know? ...

"Q: They say that how to tell the difference between a boy and a girl in England, since they both wear long hair and tight pants, is that if the pants are tighter and the hair is longer, it's a boy.

BJ: There you go."

"MJ: It seems strange to say because - but if I say the violence bit, which is one part, which if you ask most young people they say they don't like the violence, or they don't like the war, or the—they themselves are violent, which doesn't seem to make sense!

Q: But it seems you are encouraging it in a way.

MJ: But it's, I suppose—I don't think you have to be violent to overcome it. But, some people do, and when they're violent against the police, it's just their w—it's the only way they have of showing it. (Pause) Because they're not organized.

Q: How would you organize them?

MJ: I don't want to organize them. I don't feel that I am a leader of men. If you're a realist and if you see the world as it—as you think it is, as it really is, you try and see as it really is, you can be just as angry and right from anger. But I don't think 'oh, I'm screwed up, I must write a song about that.' It doesn't happen like that. It's just a lack of people liking what you do, it's not a secret or anything...

[re: the future] They'll have to work like 4 hours a day and the rest of the time they've got to do something else! Well that something else isn't going to be what people think, it isn't going to be just jumping around and swimming and just reading books and going to the movies because those—you get very bored with those things very quickly.

Q: So what's it going to be?

MJ: Well we don't know, that's the problem. But I hope it's going to be something good."

Tracer Hand, Monday, 13 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.