Posted by Mr. Ventilator on June 21, 2000 at 08:39:28:
In Reply to: Who, Stones, Beatles and Zep posted by Mr. D. on June 20, 2000 at 16:17:34:
Great post.
My $.02: The Beatles are not comparable to the other three groups. Unlike the other three, their essence was never a live band. They never played a live show after '66 (don't count the rooftop thing). I can't consider them a true rock band in the way the Stones, Who and LZ were/are. They were something unique. Maybe the band most comparable to the Beatles would be the Beach Boys.
I think the Stones musicianship at their peak (Taylor era) was comparable to Who and LZ. The Stones musicianship level dropped off big time after Taylor left.
The Who and LZ's sound was bigger because they had stronger rhythm sections. (In LZ'case, jut a louder drummer).
I never saw LZ live, so I can't speak to Robert Plant's strengths/weaknesses live, but I can say this: Roger Daltrey is not even close to Mick Jagger as a performer, and that's the reason the Who could never equal the Stones appeal as a live act, despite the overwhelming power of Entwistle/Moon/Townshend.
Townshend the best songwriter? It's a tossup between him and Keith. But the Stones have Jagger too. It's hard to argue that there are more great Townshend songs than Jagger/Richard songs.
I know what you mean about the Who and LZ not aging well. But Who's Next and Quadrophenia are great guilty pleasures..CDs to put on in the car for private rocking out, even if they're too "high school" to put on when you want to impress people.
The Who are probably my #2 favorite all time band. I never liked LZ much - the sound is too staccato, and Bonham's drumming to punishing on the ears.