Rolling Stones

One thing I have to say about the Stones is that no band, at least in my opinion, has a more astounding collection of deep cuts than they do. Maybe Dylan, if we're just talking artists? But songs like "Stray Cat Blues," "All Down the Line" (anything on Exile really), all of the country stuff from "Dear Doctor" to "Faraway Eyes," "Sway" ... hell, "Can't You Hear Me Knocking" got a second life on "Guitar Hero" and in "Blow." The deepest bench in rock history, for certain.

 

Sticky Fingers is a great album as well. I have it in my car right now. I have never owned BB but it is a classic as well.

 

The Beatles were never asked to work as the backing band for a blues legend like Howling Wolf.

 

Maybe. I have two Zeppelin box sets (6 CDs total) that I could listen all the way through without feeling the need to skip a single track.

I know it's a Ruth vs. Gehrig comparison with no losers...

 

See, to me Exile is the one Stones album where the whole, from start to finish, is greater than the sum of its parts. From the little opening riff of "Rocks Off," right to the Nicky Hopkins/Keith Richards fade out on "Soul Survivor," it is just a consistently excellent collection of songs. That's especially true on CD, where you can hear it as a whole and you don't have to worry about flipping the record over to play the other side.

 

The knock on Led Zeppelin is simple: Their early music was derivative at best and stolen at worst. It's amazing stuff, but if you start reaching into the harder blues of the 1960s, mostly underground tracks by bands you've never heard of, you start to realize that Zeppelin wasn't very original. Zeppelin's stature raises questions that have lorded over art for years. If it's new to you, is that good enough? Should we reward originality or quality?

 

That seems like a knock that lacks credibility.
English blues-based music of the 1960s was derivative. That's not unique to Led Z.
If you're talking about the specific poaching of material such as 'Dazed and Confused' and 'The Lemon Song,' that's well known, and it hasn't hurt the band's stature over time.
The poaching of riffs, licks, songs and more has a long history in blues and folk music.
Originality is not the lone measure of creative value. Working within an established form can still result in creative merit. The quality of the work has to be considered.

 

Those criticisms of Led Zeppelin are rather common. From AllMusic.com:

And ...

I love Zeppelin, but these criticisms are real.

 

I'm not disputing the poaching; I'm disputing you're presentation of the issue. As I mentioned, these are all well known yet they haven't taken away from the band's status over time. That was part of my point.

It's not breaking news that Led Z poached material. In the long run, it has not significantly sullied the band's status.

 

Again, I'm a Led Zeppelin fan and not a Rolling Stones fan. But the basis for the comparison between the two bands' statures in music history isn't really one to be made about the quality of the music. The Stones generally are regarded as the greater, if not better, band, and Zeppelin's material poaching is part of that.

 

I suppose, but the Stones were "poachers" too to some degree, although they didn't end up in court over it. I mean, what is/was Keith Richards other than the world's greatest Chuck Berry-style guitar player?

The Stones and guys like Page and Rod Stewart learned at the feet of guys like Long John Baldry, John Mayall, Cyrill Davies and Alexis Korner who were the Godfathers of the British blues and R&B movement. The Stones, Zeppelin, Stewart, The Who (who were playing Motown covers) and many others were able to take what they learned and make it their own. They weren't always ripping off their influences like a guy like Brian Fallon in Gaslight Anthem.

 

At this stage of the game - if I had to choose between tickets to watching Meatloaf sing covers of Bangles songs or watch the Rolling Stones - I might seriously consider the Meatloaf concert.