I just watched this and I gotta tell ya', I'd had an interest in the who before, but I think this made me a fan, possibly even , of them. I can finally see why they're acclaimed as much as they are and no longer question why they top most lists of the greatest live acts in rock or why John Entwhistle is usually named rock's greatest bassist. And ya' know, they're one of the only groups who really had four distinct, contrasting personalities working together (maybe THE only one with four personalities as dynamic, conflicting and yet synergistic as them). Anyway, anyone else care to comment?

jacktheimprovident said:

Except for Zeppelin.

minneapolisgenius said:

You can say that again...

Zeppelin cancels out the Who on all fronts....

MrTation said:

The Who had better films.

MrTation said:

The Who had better films.

MrTation said:

The Who had better films.

Stax said:

Well, most anything's better than "The Song Remains the Same", (which was the only film they ever released, until the recent DVD) but I still love it. Robert Plant fighting off a Monty Python "Holy Grail" extra and all.

Stax said:

And a better bass player and drummer, and a less annoying frontman, and a guitar player with more stage presense, and better songwriting
[Edited 9/18/05 14:53pm]

Stax said:

And a better bass player and drummer, and a less annoying frontman, and a guitar player with more stage presense, and better songwriting
[Edited 9/18/05 14:53pm]

minneapolisgenius said:

I love it too. Especially the scenes with Peter Grant.

jacktheimprovident said:

BullSH**

Led Zep ARE THE BAND THE WHO WISHED IN THEIR WILDEST DREAMS THEY COULD BE!

How did this thread become a Zeppelin vs. Who thread

Anyway, more on the debate. I'm sorry but anyone who's gonna try to claim that John Paul Jones is a better bass player is out of their mind and John Bonham was a good drummer, no doubt, but Keith was busier and more inventive on the skins. Jimmy Page is a more technically skilled lead guitarist than Pete for sure, but Pete's jumping, windmilling, guitar-smashing, and knobb twiddling make him, yes, a player with more stage presence, and he was also a great rhythm guitarist and one of rock's best riffmakers behind, just behind keith richards in my book. And songwriting? C'mon, even diehard Zeppelin fans can acknowledge how many uncredited blues covers they made, even up to their latest albums, and how many various lyrics or riffs or guitar lines they borrowed. Pete Townshend maybe a tad overrated by Who fantatics, but he was still great: he could be a recalcitrant angry punk, or the most sensitive artist. The Who were the ancestors of punk rock, one of the first theatrical rock bands, they pioneered the rock opera, and next to hendrix, townshend expanded the sonic range of the electric guitar more than anyone (he was just about the first person to use feedback on purpose if I'm not mistaken). Hell Jimmy Page originally wanted to have Keith and John Entwhistle be a part of his band meaning Zep's rhythm section was the second choice next to the Who's. Plus it was Keith and John who said that "this will go over like a Lead Zeppelin" thus giving the band their name.
[Edited 9/18/05 15:26pm]

jacktheimprovident said:

So have you seen the DVD?

Sure Zeppelin used a lot of blues riffs, but it was the way they put it all together, to make their own distinct sound, is what makes their songs so memorable. Plus, Zeppelin are by far not the only British band to come out of the 60s that played tons of blues covers: the Stones, the Animals, the Yardbirds, the Kinks, Cream, The Jeff Beck Group, are just a few more. Zeppelin just gets ridiculed because they didn't give songwriting credit on some of them, which I admit was really stupid on their part. Their original compositions though are the ones that tend to blow me away, moreso than the blues covers. There really was some amazing songwriting going on there.

I know the history of the band's name, who thought of it first, as well as the musicians Jimmy originally wanted in his new band, but that's ultimately not who the band became of course. He didn't even know who Bonham was, until he went to check him out and realized that this was the man he wanted. It became something even better than anyone involved could have imagined. I think his original thinking, was to create a sort of Supergroup with established musicians that were already famous, but since most people he had in mind were otherwise occupied with contractual obligations and other projects, he had to search for unknowns. And thank God he did. None of the Zeppelin members thought they'd have such great chemistry.

As for Pete, yeah he's fun to watch onstage, but come on more stage presence than Jimmy? You have to take into account what he's playing, as well as stage antics. Jimmy was playing some really intricate melodies all the while dancing about, jumping, (which I will give Townshend credit for coining) and basically owning the stage all the while. Pete just didn't have the flashy, yet unbelievably subtle style that Jimmy did, which is why I think Jimmy's much more interesting to watch. Yeah, the windmill and the guitar smashing are his trademark, but even The Who's band members got pissed at him for breaking all his gear every night. They were going broke and actually losing money because of it. Entwistle wanted him to stop it all, hence causing a lot of tensions within the band, but Townshend insisted that this was their gimmick. The thing the fans expected to see. That's the reason that Moon and Entwistle kicked the idea around of joining a band with Page, because things weren't so happy in the Who camp anymore.

That said, I don't doubt the Who's place in rock history. They are a legendary band, that's for sure. Their music is nothing alike IMO, but I always find it interesting that there's always sort of a debate about who's the better band between fans. Most diehard Zeppelin fans are also huge fans of The Who as well, and there are ALWAYS threads about it on the Zeppelin boards. Some pretty eerie ones too, because people will do some funny side-by-side photo threads, comparing all the band members to each other. In a way, it's uncanny how similar the two bands were, at least on the surface.

Anyway, this thread became sort of a Who vs. Zeppelin thread because you said that they were the only band to have 4 personalities that were so dynamic, conflicting, etc. and I happen to disagree. That's why I brought Zeppelin up. This is all coming from probably one of the biggest Zeppelin fans around, (and certainly the most diehard on this site I'm sure) so no one will ever get me to budge on my opinion regarding The Who and Zeppelin anyway. The Who's music just isn't as interesting to me, and doesn't move me the way Zeppelin's does, that's all.

Having said that, I'm listening to "Tommy" right now.

Keith Moon filling in for Bonzo in '77....

[Edited 9/19/05 8:36am]

minneapolisgenius said:

I never intended to diss your favorite band , in part I was just being defensive of how this thread suddenly seemed to be "attacking" the who from the perspective of the zeppelin fans. I have not seen the DVD btw nor have I seen much footage of Zeppelin live, but I have all of their albums excepting presence and have listened to them all a few times. I do like them as a band, but I prefer the who and I think the who were a better band in at least a few respects. You're right though, they really are quite different and the rivalry between them in the eyes of fans is strange. the only reason I pointed out the blues thing is because I think zeppelin was, as you said, not very graceful about crediting the origins of their music. I'm sure all the greats of 60s rock borrowed some riffs and whatnot, on top of the outright covers (hell the rolling stones were filling half their albums with blues and early rock covers until 1966), but I think Zeppelin did it a tad excessively and carelessly. The Who on the other hand didn't seem to be as indebted the bluesier/rootsier side of rock n roll and as a songwriter and riffmaker, I'd say Townshend was more original. They're both great bands of course

jacktheimprovident said:

That's cool. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the subject of songwriting and riffs.

As for the DVD, you really should check it out if you get a chance. If you know someone who has it, borrow it from them (because I doubt you'll be buying it ). You won't be disappointed. In fact, I swear Zeppelin should pay me for my efforts to make that DVD seen. I'm constantly turning people on to it. I actually physically brought it over to RipHer2Shreds' house this summer and made him watch it, even though he didn't know anything about the band.

minneapolisgenius said:

It's true...all the way from Dutcherland!

There is no comparison to Zeppelin and The Who anyways, except for the fact that their both British bands, a four piece and that they both worship black American music. I dig both bands, but I have always leaned more towards Zeppelin. They have influenced me more as a musician, that's for sure. I got hip to both bands around the same time, when I was 10 years old. But, the flash and musical flamboyance of Zeppelin caught my attention first. Pete is an EXCELLENT songwriter. Better in song structure, i.e., placement of hooks, song craftmanship, etc, than anybody in Zeppelin. Pete came from the period of writing hit songs for the 45 single. Hell, Pagey even played some studio axe for The Who before even starting Zeppelin. Zeppelin came from basically not giving a fuck about the 45 single and flexing their musical muscle. The Who ended up going that way a little in the 70's, but, their bread and butter is in the song, whereas Zepp's power lies beneath the whispering wind.

blackguitaristz said:

Thanx.

Well said.

blackguitaristz said:

Well said.

The Who and Zeppelin are very different, but they're very comparable. Both led by their guitarists, who favored riff-making over pyrotechnic solos, legendary drummers who died too young, curly haired blond screaming singers, and they are the two leaders in anthemic arena rock.

I was recently commenting on Who's Next and how almost every song was legendary and got radio play. Even more than Sgt. Pepper! Zeppelin IV was the only other record I could compare it to (which came out the same year?)

I used to be a huge Who fan, and I think they did some great stuff. But Zeppelin seems much more consistent with their material. The Who suffers from overambition, IMO, which makes them cheesy at times. They were great live. And John Entwistle is one of the great bass players of all time.

I'd love to see The Song Remains the Same. I've heard its awful. I wonder why they released that and held onto How The West Was Won?!