Also, the reason one of the comparisons doesn't work completely-singers- is that the Who had 3 singers- yes, Daltrey sung on most, but Townshend sang lead on Going Mobile, Song Is Over, Long Live Rock, Eminence Front, Legal Matter, and numerous others. Entwistle sang lead on Boris The Spider, My Wife, The Quiet One, 905, etc. That's another reason the Who's music is diverse- three different singers definitely brings a different, diverse sound.
As a music fanatic, I struggle sometimes with the criteria of how I define greatness in musical artists, ultimately just residing myself to the fact that it has to be a personal thing. I mean, you have a band of virtuosos like Rush and a band of average players like The Ramones, yet I slightly favor the Ramones. The musical purists would call me crazy, but I'd rather hear I Wanna Be Sedated than Tom Sawyer (if only slightly because I'm a huge Rush fan). This was my point in another thread a long time ago, the Allman Brothers vs. Lynyrd Skynyrd debate, where the large majority favored the Allmans because they were "much better musicians." But whose songs were more memorable? Whose lyrics hit home harder? I'd venture to say Skynyrd. Maybe it's just as difficult to write a short, simple song like Anarchy in the UK as it is to write something like Kashmir.
I know I have posted this before, but I don't believe this is a question that can be answered. Music, like all forms of art, cannot be objectively measured and a determination made that one band/song/album/whatever is better than another. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, or rather the ear of the listener in this case. Therefor, I can only comment that I prefer the Who. Baba O'Reilly and Reign O'er Me are two of my favorite songs of all time by any artist.
Music exists to display several different things to several different degrees. Most all music displays talent to some degree, most all conveys some feeling or message, or simply tells a story in a sing-song fashion so that future generations will remember it. Like I said, these things are all important and necessary in varying degrees. There are several musical genres where virtuosity is one of the least important requirements and the focus is on the feeling or the story itself. Blues, folk, country, and punk all come immediately to mind. No one would ever call Johnny Cash a great guitar player. The Ramones could barely play their instruments. Yet I'd rather listen to Johnny Cash or the Ramones over Rush. And I really like Rush.
Led Zeppelin is a phenomenal rock band. The Who moves me. I voted The Who and it wasn't even close. I'd also pick The Ramones, VU, The Kinks, Queen, Daniel Johnston, David Bowie, The Pretenders and probably ten other bands before Zeppelin. I'd pick them all before the Rolling Stones too and I think they're great also. There's no meaningful measurement of the relative greatness of art, except the extent to which it moves you.
Led Zep is easy listening compared to The Who. I don't mean that as a slam, either. In general, they require less thought to appreciate. If you're really wasted, Zep is great. If your really wasted and your brain is still functioning, The Who. They're also better in concert, and I've seen both several times. I'm a huge Led Zeppelin fan, in case anyone was wondering.
I wasn't going to chime in on this because I like many bands for many reasons. To me it is The Who, hands down. I almost said this until seeing CBFC's post. So was satisfied with that reply. This thread reminds me of when my best friend in college asked me, "Who is more of a rock star, Daltrey or Jagger." I said Daltrey, reason, "Mick is more of a celebrity." Notice Plant wasn't in the discussion. I say this admitting not knowing who The Who was until arriving to Houston for college from a small town. I knew who Led Zeppelin was...they encouraged me in HS. Amazing band. But, I learned The Who did something for me more. Zeppelin was chill for me; The Who made me stretch my boundaries. For strictly English rock bands of the era, I'm now going with Queen. To end, I just did the last show at KTRU for the Mutant Hardcore Flower Hour show with Ray Shea. I was a DJ for 4 yrs there in the '80s. We weren't really allowed to play LZ or The Who. But if you forced me to choose one last song to play on my last shift at KTRU by a big British rock band in the '70s, it would be Queen, followed by The Who. And then I'd probably seque into another The Who song, followed by Bowie and Annie signing Pressure at Freddie's memorial,,, and then walk away never thinking of LZ for a second. Zeppelin is just easy listening to me. Anyone have a bong?
Struck a nerve, friend? You, of all people, calling me dense and humorless is rich, dude! I am not going to go to your level and call you names (other than a troll which is what you were trying to do in your first post, sarcasm, yea right!) but I will say that the other thread that you mentioned lasted a little over 1 to 1 and a half pages. This thread is already on its fourth page. What does that tell you?
The Who was one mighty fine live performance. So was Zepplin, but who remembers the '60's/early 70's clearly?
Haha, I knew it wasn't Teenage Wasteland...just couldn't remember the real name...because I HATE it. I know I am just a bit off, though. I am like that with a few bands. Everyone will think I should like them because of other music I like but I can't stand them. My wife loves the Who so we have arguments about it but whatever. Like the Batman said, though, music and musical taste is a weird animal. I think people might be going a bit overboard with trying to make the Who great artists and poets and such. Sure their themes were different, more "now" than Zep, but they were just a kid rock band. Just like "the only band that ever mattered" tag for the Clash. Whatever, they were a punk band that went pop.
Wow, really? Yes, now, you're reaching. If The Who aren't great artists, then neither is Led Zeppelin. With a few differences, they're cut from the same cloth. I'd call Willie Nelson a great artist, too, but I don't have any of his CDs and probably never will. It's one thing to say you don't prefer _____, but a kid rock band? Now, that's just an ignorant statement (notice I didn't say dumb). You want to know why The Who are entrenched as one of the all-time "great artists," there are any number of articles on the 'Net that can explain this to you. And if you're saying they're not great, then that means you have other artists whom you categorize this way, and I'd be curious to know exactly who fits in this classification for you.
id go w/ zeppelin. i never really got into the who although i do respect them. one of the things i love about zep is that they never played a song the same way twice - it makes listening to live bootlegs of theirs very enjoyable - they just threw down live - took alot of risks when it came to improv and jamming - sometimes it was sloppy, but more often than not it was transcendent. bonham vs. moon is a wash (id take ginger baker over either though ) - id even say plant vs. daltry and jpj vs. entwistle are washes as well - but page is a better guitarist - personally, i think he is 2nd only to hendrix and manny - shame on you for not including III in your top 5! thats their best album - BOOOO!!!! i wonder how this poll would go over in the uk? it seems like zep was more popular in the u.s.a., but bands like the who and the kinks were bigger in the uk. americans like their loud bombastic düde-rock while the brits like the more introspective and poppy stuff (not that the who were a full-on pop band, but they had a foot in that door). americans definitely focus less on lyrics too, as opposed to the brits who are into the social commentary aspects of bands like the who/kinks (or blur even). i always heard that zep was slagged off by critics at the time and that their albums generally didnt get good reviews - can one of our elderly posters verify this?
Absolutely- Led Zeppelin, The Doors, Queen, Aerosmith, The Grateful Dead, and Black Sabbath were all bands that received many negative reviews- thankfully, there was a lot of revisionist history in terms of critiques that gave those bands their just recognition. Black Sabbath, in particular, was ripped by critics. That's why it amazes me to see the current perspective for these bands- you hear B.S. getting all this praise and I think, "Umm...this is one of the bands that Rolling Stone laughed at as 'bubblegum hard rock.'" I guess some of it has to do with lyrical content. I mean, I don't mean to put Zep down in this regard, because I own all 10 of their core CDs, but some of the stuff Plant wrote is just....you can't read it with a straight face without the music, whereas you can read most Who lyrics sans music and it can stand alone. But for most of us, lyrics are not the primary focus behind our musical preferences.
^ jo, One of my favorite stories that I have read on music involves Zeppelin's manager, Peter Grant and Bob Dylan. The story goes that there was a party and Grant was there (don't think anyone from the band was, though) and he sees Dylan. Excited because he had never met Dylan before in person, he walks up to him and introduces himself: "Hi, I'm Peter Grant. I manage Led Zeppelin." Dylan looks at him and says, "I don't come to you with my problems, now do I?" Nonetheless, I believe you are right in that Zeppelin was always favored by the public more than the critics. And because the results of this poll are pissing me off, I am listing my revised top 10 favorite artists of all-time: 1 - Pink Floyd 2 - THE WHO 3 - Led Zeppelin 4 - Genesis 5 - The Band 6 - Roxy Music 7 - Queen 8 - The Byrds 9 - Cream 10 - Radiohead
You say singing about the Lord of the Rings like its a bad thing. Zep is about good v. evil. Calling them a jam band is silly. Plus they sound better.
