Question

Zeppelin Vs. the Rolling Stones. Every weekend countless, uh, hundreds - I guess - trot this old war-horse out and (as is the case with most fictional - yet still incalculably important - arguments about completely subjective matters) argue about it until somebody says something so utterly crude and baseless that everybody involved realizes how stupid an argument it really is, and shuts the fuggup about it until twenty minutes later. Music is not sports. There’s no stats in music, no winning or loosing seasons either. The Stones / Zeppelin-as-greatest-ever argument - like all arguments regarding the relative worth of an artist or art - is an entertaining place-holder at best, a thing to ponder when nobody has anything better to do, or everybody is too intoxicated too have any kind of compelling conversation.

And yet…

What I'm about to put forth will not add anything worthwhile to silly drunken rock talk about which band is better. What it may do is give the potential champions of either band some ammunition previously unused, or at least underused as such. Be aware: my perception of the general public's handling of this debate might not be entirely accurate, me only living in - and (mostly) staying in - one state, for a very long time, and not having actually had the discussion in question in a few years. There were days, however, not so long ago, when I did battle with this particular dragon with something like weekly, or at least monthly, regularity. And it was during those discussions that I honed the opinion I'm about to share:

Led Zeppelin is the greatest rock ‘n roll band of all time, and it’s quite possible (but by no means a lock) they’ll remain so until the end of time. One reason for this is that Zeppelin didn’t sound much like anyone that came before, yet - almost immediately - other artists began trying to sound like them. There aren’t many bands that can say that, and there are no bands that can make the claim on such a grand scale and cite such distinguished progeny: Jane’s Addiction, Stone Temple Pilots, late-career Black Crows, Soundgarden…Would any of those acts even have existed at all if Zepp hadn’t bulldozed the way? The entertainment industry has a great deal of faith in the prognosticative power of the older teens and younger twenty-somethings when it comes to music, and those people love Led Zeppelin. High school kids never stop giving a fuck about Led Zeppelin.

The second reason is - I think - one most would agree with: John Henry Bonham. That’s it. That’s the whole reason. What can be said? Fuckin’ Bonham. Nasty. I made the point already about the outsized Zeppelin influence-sphere, but in addition to the acts that got paid by simply aping the LZ sound wholesale, are the acts in which only the drummer wants to sound like Led Zeppelin. Take it from a drummer: We all - at one time or another - want to sound like Led Zeppelin. Pat Hallahan, Stephen Perkins, Wally Ingram, Todd Nance, Jon Fishman, Brann Dailor, Lars Ulrich, Herb Alexander, Meg White, All of them hugely successful skinspeople who owe at least half their moves to JHB.

***

The Rolling Stones are the most important rock band in the history of the form, and nobody will replace them as such EVER. The reason is this: Keith Richards is the most important rock musician that ever came before us, and the Rolling Stones are his band.

The Stones are at their best when they blend stuff: Chicago Blues + Muscle Shoals production values as personified by Jim Dickinson = Brown Sugar…Chuck Berry chording + Oprey instrumentation + Recording in the musty basement of an ancient French mansion = Torn and Frayed.

Where Led Zeppelin influenced everybody that came after, Keef’s writing and playing are so rock, so dirty-sounding, unique, and singular that they can‘t really be copied, except in blatant imitation. The group’s become so many different things over the years that, save for the open tunings Richard’s deploys on almost all their best records, there’s really no signature “Rolling Stones sound”. Or maybe there are too many. Stones songs are too difficult to duplicate exactly, and too awesome to not at least give them a nod. What we end up with, is a situation where every rock band that is a rock band must - almost by definition - have elements in their music that the Rolling Stones had in theirs. You’d think that would be true of most bands who’ve enjoyed any type of notoriety but it’s not. There are quite a few rock acts that sound a lot like Led Zeppelin, but every band sounds a little like the Rolling Stones.

***

Still not convinced? Let’s go to the tale of the tape:

Bass: Wyman / JPJ

This first category is easy. Bill Wyman laid down some very tasty low-end in his tenure with the Stones. Paint it Black, Dead Flowers, Before they make me Run…But BW - as graceful and spare as his best work often is - just doesn’t have the imagination of the mighty Zepp bass-er. Get out yer Zepp II and check out the lines John Paul Jones plops down during “Ramble On”. In my ears, that song alone is enough to settle the argument.

Drums: Charlie Watts / John Henry Bonham

Especially difficult, because Watts is a god, one of the original framers of post-1950’s rock convention. Charlie and Kieth Moon are really the only other rock skinsmen with the skills to be mentioned in the same month with Bonham, so great is the power of JB’s bashing. So there: we mentioned them. The reason why Bonham wins here is the same reason the stones are important. Lesser players can deploy triplets, and a loose Hi-Hat to produce a reasonable facsimile of the Bonzo assault, and so a lot of them do just that. Charlie, meanwhile, is the kind of drummer other drummers always mention as an influence, even though very few actually sound like him.

Vox - Mick Vs. Plant:

A tie. Yes that’s a cop-out, but consider the gents we’re discussing. It’s fucking Plant and Jagger. Both are sort of the ideal front man, but for completely different reasons. Plant brought a very weird lyrical sense (with all the medieval imagery and what not), and combined it with a major pipes. Jagger brought a very earthy lyrical energy, hinting a revolution and drug abuse, and weird sex with questionable partners, and never really sang so much as he talked and rapped in rythym to the music. Had they been more similar - either in vocal stylings or in content - they’d be easier to compare as artists. They weren’t, and aren’t, and never were. Instead, both do a great job of being everything the other is not.

Guitars - Page Vs Richards

Yes, it’s not really fair to arbitrarily choose KR when Mick Taylor, Brian Jones, and Ron Wood all played “lead” axe for the Stones at one time or another, and only Page plays (played) leads in Led Zeppelin. On the other hand, it’s the Rolling fucking Stones. Keith Richards is the central reason for their greatness, and definitely the “lead” guitarist of the band even though he doesn’t play “lead” guitar. Page does (did) play leads, although his riffs and chord voicings are arguably more important of the Zepp sound. Both are giants, both were awesome and both still are. Another wash.

***

Led Zeppelin is great because of what they did, and what they inspired others to do. A lot of mass-market rock that came after Led Zeppelin owes them stylistic debt. The Rolling Stones are great because of the things others inspired in them. Country, Jazz, disco, latin, Reggae…The stones are a chameleon with a drinking problem, a plain-faced group with a million awesome masks.

So yeah. You can keep this. Print it up, or whatever, keep it close at hand. Someday, I almost guarantee, it will save you ten minutes of silly drunken rock-talk.