Rolling Stones

I'll concede No. 1 to the Beatles unless someone wants to make the Elvis argument (I don't...).

Zeppelin would be my No. 2. I think the best Zeppelin stuff holds up better than the Stones and while Zep's last album or two weren't the best, it doesn't fall into the pure shit category that everything new the Stones have put out in the last 20 years.

Obviously the Stones get a crazy amount of credit for staying together and staying relevant all this time and the importance of that should not be taken for granted.

 

It depends on what you like. If you like pop music, then you have The Beatles #1. If you like harder rock, you have Zep #1. If you like "hot licks" and darker lyrics, the The Stones are #1.

 

Zeppelin is my favorite band and has been since I was 12. Two of the local radio stations had "Led Zeppelin hour" and "Get the Led out" on Tuesday and Wednesday nights and I recorded each every week on a cassette.

I agree those are the top three bands ever. The order you put them in is up to your individual taste.

 

Floyd and The Who could squeeze in, but I would not bump any of the big three for anyone.

 

To grade the Stones and Zep comparatively, you have to start at 1968 and stop at 1982, when Zep released Coda, its last album. Any comparison that takes into account post-82 Stones is null and void because Zep never had a chance to have the huge decline period like the Stones did. (And based on the extremely uneven solo careers of the Zep survivors, they would have had one)

The Stones also can't use their 1963-67 period because Zep hadn't formed yet.

I have every album of both bands in that period. Obviously I love them both, but the Stones are better.

Both bands had gobs of filler, but Zep's filler was often boring or just not good. From Physical Graffiti on, Zep started to fade into filler more than greatness. Physical Graffiti's first two sides (or first disc) are epic. The last two sides? Very uneven. Some greatness, some crap.

Presence is just a shit album, I mean, it's awful. I like In Through The Out Door, but it's not on the level with Zep's peak. Most Zep fans don't care for it. Coda is an outtakes album with some decent songs, but plenty of stuff that could have stayed in the can too. (Why Zeppelin didn't put Traveling Riverside Blues and Hey, Hey What Can I Do on Coda is still a mystery to me.)

Bottom line is that aside from In Through The Out Door, Zep never really strayed far from their heavy blues template, which is fine, but it makes them sound samey after a while.

The Stones' filler could also be boring or not good -- it's not good moments were often embarrassingly bad -- but at least they tried some new shit once in a while, which is a credit and a debit to Mick Jagger, who always wanted to move the band forward, sometimes at cross-purposes with his bandmates.

The Stones' filler era begins with Goats' Head Soup, but that album isn't as bad as its rep suggests, in fact, there's some pretty damn good songs on it.

It's Only Rock 'n Roll (the album) and Black And Blue are average with some high points. Some Girls is excellent, though not really my Stones' cup of tea. Emotional Rescue (the album) is the Stones' Presence -- it is shit. But the Stones finish the era with Tattoo You, which is a pretty damn good outtakes album, perhaps one of the best compiled. Certainly far better than Coda.

From 1968-72, both bands were at their peak. In effect, it plays out like this ...

Led Zeppelin I vs. Beggars' Banquet
Led Zeppelin II vs. Let It Bleed
Led Zeppelin III vs. Sticky Fingers
Led Zeppelin IV vs. Exile On Main Street

You could extend to 1973 and get this match-up ...

Houses Of The Holy vs. Goats Head Soup

The first two matchups are super close ... like ... photo-finish close. Sticky Fingers is far better than Led Zeppelin III. If you include '73, Houses Of The Holy is much better than Goats Head Soup.

Which leaves Led Zeppelin IV vs. Exile On Main Street, an Ali-Frazier album war if there ever was one. At that point, it becomes a matter of personal taste. There's really not a wrong answer.

I much prefer Exile, but your mileage may vary.

 

'Emotional Rescue' is a great record.
It's got two bad songs on it.

 

Got to disagree. Stones were uninspired, barely sober and put out a lot of by-the-numbers junk.

Besides Emotional Rescue and She's So Cold, the only other song I can recall being halfway decent was Summer Romance. Or was it Where The Boys Go? They're so samey, I can't tell them apart.

It has Dance, Part 1, one of their worst experiments. I don't mind Stones disco, and I actually kind of like Hot Stuff despite teasing Frank Ridgeway about it, but Dance, Part 1 blows.

 

"Shattered" in the same way was an homage to the post-punk wave sweeping NYC at the time. Some Girls was all over the place stylistically but that was what made it great. It was their White Album.

 

Bub, I love you like a goth Filipina Catholic school girl, but we have to agree to disagree on this one.
Good record, and the title track is a great song.

 

Re: Emotional Rescue album.

Oh, come on. Were truer lyrics ever written than these?

She could be Romanian, Could be Bubarian, Could be Albanian, Might be Hungarian, Could be Australian, Could be the Alien, Send her to me.

 

So, you think I'm giving you the brush off?
Well, I'm just telling you to shove off.
Hey, let me go.