Zeppelin vs' The Who:1969-1975

The Who are my favorite band, but I've always liked Led Zeppelin too. Couldn't wait to see them live. When I finally did in 1975, they were absolutely awful.
Maybe I got them on a bad night (it was the last night of the tour), but I was so disappointed. Played three hours but half of it was covered by three songs (three songs in an hour and a half stretch), including Moby Dick. To quote Keith Moon, "drum solos are boring."

 

Definitely wouldn't want to. And if it mattered, it was never about diversity alone in the first place... Grab a hold of some Mississippi John Hurt, Robert Johnson, Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry, John Lee Hooker... to name but a few. What about the masters of Jazz, Country, Folk or Soul? Did they ever need to be 'diverse' and explore/blend more than '4 styles'? What a joke. The Who, like all other bands, had a very recognizable formula too, it's silly to pretend otherwise.

Besides, Led Zeppelin was by natural fact one of the most diverse bands ever.

Oh, and by the way, Sabbath and AC/DC are/were f***ing brilliant!!!

 

Maybe this thread should have been Zeppelin vs Jethro Tull. They were even more contemporary to each other.

 

Great drum solos are NEVER boring!

 

Maybe that was the problem.

 

this topic is pretty amazing, mostly because 1975 is the only instance where I can come up with a clear winner specficially because I think Physical Graffiti is a few light years beyond The Who By Numbers. But in every other case, I can make arguments back and forth - for example, I probably prefer Who's Next over LZ IV but there are some absolutely mammoth tracks on the latter; Tommy is Tommy but I'm not sure that album boasts anything as good as the best moments on LZ I and II, and so on. It's quite remarkable to realize the level at which these two bands were operating, arguably both at their peak, concurrent to one another. just something to marvel and not really judge, imo.

 

Just can't take Zep 1 seriously, a poor man's Truth to my ears.

The Who each year other than 75.

 

File under 'myth'... and only a few months apart by two guitarists who'd played together for a good chunk of the previous years and were obviously influenced by the 1968 scene. One had left a band before and put a new band together, the other kept a-rolling until his other band mates got off and had to start anew. Simple.

Led Zeppelin's debut album crushes Truth in ALL aspects, by the way.

 

An old statement of yours, but one I wholly agree with in every way.

 

I don't really like most of The Who's 60s music. "I Can't Explain" is a strong early power pop classic, and "Pinball Wizard" is fun, but the rest . . . "My Generation" just bores me.

 

Zeppelin vs. Yes.

 

Can this be a serious opinion? Dazed and Confused being rewritten with The Rain Song?
Dazed is about a depressed, miserable guy who is screaming, Rain is about about a happy guy singing softly. Dazed is driven by bass and electric guitar, Rain is strings and piano.
This is like saying The Beatles A Day in the Life is a rewrite of She Said, She Said

 

to me, it's kind of an odd debate. Zeppelin were sort of a half-generation behind The Who.

The Who had Quad in '73. Zeppelin had PG in '75. both crowning achievements.

The Who had By Numbers in '75. Zeppelin had Presence in '76. both cracks in the facade.

 

I like Numbers because it's not The Who attempting to create a concept album. Although, their sound for me always feels like that, they had been a concept band for years. The Who Sell Out, Tommy, Who's Next were tracks from the Life House concept that never was, along with tracks from odds and Sods being from some of their concepts, then Quadrophenia.

 

i forget what critic said it, but they described By Numbers as "Townshend disguising his best concept album as a mere ten-track throwaway."

Townshend really used to pour himself into his songs. there were points where Plant tried, but he had to obscure it under heavy guitars or by writing in code. Zeppelin didn't do "deep" at all like The Who did.

 

Lot of people saying this should have been a Poll, and because I seemed to be curious about it as well, here are the results compiled from those who "voted" in this thread over the past three years. I made sure to only count one from each member, nobody was counted twice (even though some definitely posted their opinions numerous times....it is the Hoffman Forum after all)

Anyway, as of today's date, if this were a Poll, the results would be:
Led Zeppelin - 65
The Who - 54
Tie - 14

What's funny is that back in 2012, someone posted on Page 6 of this thread that The Who was winning "by a landslide" (although by that point, in reading all the comments up to that post, I was thinking that it seemed pretty close).

Anyway, that's what made me want to waste my evening tonight going through this entire thread and tallying it all up. Interestingly enough, when that person (protecting the guilty) said it was a Who Landslide, the actual results were The Who (35) and Zeppelin (34).

After that, I just decided to keep going and Zep made quite a massive move since then (although neither will ever get a Landslide, and rightly so)

Continue the debate, but if you've already posted your "vote" in the previous three years, don't do it again

 

The Who--especially Moon--were a top live band in 1975-76, before Moon took several months off from drumming inwhich he lost
a lot of his form as publicized with the Who Are You sessions, (much like Nick Mason and Danny Seraphine when they stepped away
from drumming for a period of time requiring them to be retrained along with extensive practicing--yet these latter two never get
the press Moon has and always will get for his holiday away from his kit), while Zep live in '76/'77 were known for what?--sounding
just as unspectacular as the Stones live? The Who, Stones, and Zep mighta been tight live (altho Zep sounded like the band brought
to us by extensive Qualude usage...) yet it was The Who whose sound was alive and lively while the other two's live sound continues
to disappoint/infuriate me to this day.

People don't realize that Moon was the finest musician in The Who up until Tommy, when the other three caught up to his musical
level, and that Entwhistle was the finest overall musician in The Who, just as JPJ was the best all around musician in Zep.

Just my 2 cents, and yes, I do love The Who, but do love the Stones & Zep as well...

 

Obviously kidding (maybe not so obviously?).

 

That's interesting that a critic said that about Numbers, although I don't think they are throw aways. Now I don't feel so alone in my opinion lol. Yeah agreed, Zep was never aimed at being deep in the first place from a lyrical standpoint, so much as the feel of the music. The guitar solo on Since I've Been Loving You, the music of In the Light and Ten years Gone, are examples where I think they pulled this off. Towenshend was obviously great lyricist. This is why I like so many of the Who songs he sings or sings on.

 

lol sorry, my bad. Usually I get sarcasim but the internet is so full of people who are totally confused or ignorant that I actually believed you a ha ha

 

The Who

 

Well considering some of the crazy posts made in this thread I get it!

 

1969: Tommy wins hands down. Better songs (We're Not Gonna Take It/See Me, Feel Me alone tops every single song on Led Zep 1 & II. Hell it tops every Led Zeppelin song for that matter), better musicianship, vocals, etc.
1971: Who's Next. Both are sorely overplayed but it's Who's Next's great non-overplayed tracks that wipe the floor with Led Zep IV
1973: Quadrophenia, again, better musicianship, songwriting, vocals, etc.
1975: Who by Numbers: See Quadrophenia.

No contest.

Everyone? You're cutting the 70s short. One of the most diverse and prolific decades for music and it all comes down to Led Zeppelin? Ok...

 

Never did. They do. I prefer it. Just trying to make a point how some people were going way over-the-top in proclaiming Zep near messiahs.

Again... I would dispute that in a big way. They're only "one of the most diverse bands ever" to people who only listen to one style of music.

I also think they're horribly cliched. Now, that's not fair to say, for the same reason it's not fair to say about Charlie Chaplin... Zeppelin *invented* the things that later became cliches.

Apparently, we have different definitions of the word "brilliant" unless your definition is "smoldering heap of idiocy"

 

Both bands were very popular during those years, but Led Zeppelin were commercially bigger than The Who, so you could argue that Zep have the biggest quantity of fans. Zep album sales will surpass those of The Who. Zep concert ticket sales probably also surpass The Who (but not by a very significant margin). The Who’s musical vision, song writing, lyrics etc are much more high concept than Led Zep, but slightly less accessible.

Zep were more aligned to progressing and developing a blues-derived musical vision and in some cases pushing it into a genuinely new dimension (I think “Trampled Underfoot” and “When The Levee Breaks” are terrific, for instance). Many other bands were ploughing the same furrow at the same time (Free, Ten Years After) but Led Zep definitely reigned supreme.

The Who were clearly creating a whole new blueprint for rock that occasionally referenced blues, soul, R&B and jazz but actually sought to transcend traditional genres. There are some other bands that were inspired by component bits of The Who but none really came near encapsulating the whole.

Both bands had a huge, visceral live punch and the same live instrumentation format – which is probably the nearest point of comparison. In terms of non-original repertoire, they converged only rarely (Eddie Cochran, “Going Down” etc). From the word go, Zep were in control of their business affairs and fully exploited their income generating powers – this has an ugly side (not crediting or paying royalties to those artists whose music Zep had ‘adapted’ or simply stole – and that happened more than a few times for it to be passed off as an oversight).

The Who (like many other bands from the 1960s) were recovering from years of mismanagement and inhibiting court rulings which resulted in the individual band members being much less wealthy than Zep. The Who’s philanthropic nature with profits also contrasts with Zep’s apparent greed (although this could be down to Peter Grant rather that a policy of the band members themselves).

However, in more recent years you could argue that The Who have exploited the continuing demand for their music in the live context that Zep have resisted (well, Plant has certainly resisted). I might be more comfortable with The Who’s continuing road work if they offered a bit more new music along the way – though that begs another question: have they got anything left to offer? (I’m no great fan of Robert Plant’s solo career but at least he’s moved on and keeps doing new things – Pete Townshend talks a lot about new projects and future concepts but whatever creativity goes down in one of his myriad of recording studios, his fans get to hear precious little new music these days.)

Each band has many fans, and many people are fans of both bands. The music is largely different and preferences are personal. Given that anyone can appreciate the best in both groups, I don’t think considering it in a competitive manner is useful, although that does make for entertaining forum posts.