blur won when it came to making interesting music. oasis was just a mirage; all they EVER did was rip off the beatles and people actually fell for it. toward the end they were just name dropping beatle song titles.
I can listen to Zeppelin any time. I have to be in a certain mood to listen to The Who. I admire them both equally for their musicianship and songwriting. Pete’s a big boy… he can like or dislike whatever he wants.
You have 5:28 of some guy you don’t know telling you Pete doesn’t like Zeppelin. If he did say anything like that he was still a little young and rebellious. How does he feel now? You don’t know. It’s nonsense click bait. I fell for it in terms of being interested in how it was reasoned. Pete isn’t even in the piece. Don’t let that kind of thing educate you. Love and peace
@@IanMaclachlan-cw6cz I appreciate your comment and thoughts. I’ve heard the interview where he says “I’ve never liked a single thing that they’ve done” he was talking about Led Zeppelin. He also says that as people they are all “really great guys”.
Years ago I was friends with a guy who summed it up perfectly: There are two camps. The Zeppelin fanatic and the Who fanatic. Most liked both, but each would be more one sided, same for Beatles and Stones. He was big on The Who, knowing every song, while I loved the Who, I still can’t say I know even every album, though I now do own all but may the first 2, but own multiple copies of every Zeppelin album know every song, the sequence on each album, years, as well as every release by the members. I own me Townsend solo album and I might hate it, perhaps even the good songs. Lol. Townsend is a jealous person who rarely speaks well about anyone, though I do know he praised Jimi, and even praises Page’s skills. I think Pete’s a great (musicians) musician, but I think he’s more likely a total dick, as well as a gay pedo. Somehow that factor has swept conveniently from the minds of people, and I’d think someone with that blemish would try to not be voicing their negative views about their contemporaries for fear of someone dredging that shit back to the foreground. Especially in todays cancel culture that wants to make yesterdays norms todays concerns.
I'm a Who fan, but also listened to Zep over the years. Being a kinda misfit nerd kid in the early 80's, the Who spoke to the way I felt. They weren't sexualized like Zeppelin. There were no "You and me baby" kinda songs. They were more anger and dissatisfaction. I never understood why Zeppelin was always aligned with Heavy Metal. It was the Who that carried the anger and aggression that would become Heavy Metal.
Dude man bro what a well said POV. To my clique, they were equally renowned… I mean like Tommy and Quadraphenia, The Who were really incredibly accomplished.
Actually, Daltrey was a lot more complimentary of Zeppelin. Pete just had a problem with ax men who had better chops than he did. Hendrix drove him nuts, and Zeppelin's success did likewise. It's too bad, because he was a phenomenal musician, and didn't need to crap on Zeppelin to raise himself up. He was already up.
@@vinceventresca6763 I've heard a few clips from Pete that suggest otherwise. Or at least that he was pissed off that Hendrix was so much better than he was. Page was also seriously impressed with the guy, but he wasn't resentful.
@@Duck_DodgersTownshend didn't say anything about Hendrix in the Hendrix documentary. As a matter of fact, he said they were close until he left England.
Are they tho..? COMPLETELY different...? Really...? Come on now. They appeal to the same demographic because they're the same. Bet that triggered you lol
@@natmanprime4295 well…yes. Fair enough, BUT Zeppelin was a RIFF band for the most part right? Totally blues based The Who was more Proto punk in the beginning (smashing their instruments) and then more power pop as the 7O’s wore on. I did indeed have poster from BOTH bands! 🙂👍
@@danielevans9379 these distinctions and categorizations...lol do you realise how hilarious you are. every band has its own distinct sound. are you going to give them all their own category? do you realise how academic and un-artistic you're being?? its rock. leave it at that
You could compare Daultry and Plant, Entwistle and Jones s well as Moon and Bonham. But Page was leaps and bounds ahead of Townsend in guitar and production.
With Townsend, Lyrics and melody are most important. With Zeppelin both of those are afterthoughts, especially in their early period. That said I love both bands.
Many Zepplin songs seem to sound like other people, just louder and heavier. The Who are a more original band with an original sound. I'm not saying better, but they don't play that same blues-based rock, which has become a cliche.
I was fortunate to see both bands live and I thoroughly enjoyed both. But there was no higher energy that was experienced than at a Who concert. The Who back in their prime were the band to see when they came to town. They would sell out five nights in a row and I managed to go three of them. This all happened through the 70's when rock and roll concerts were a weekly thing.
When Page was looking to form "The New Yardbirds" he initially wanted Keith Moon and John Entwistle to join him. Moonie reacted by saying "That would go over like a lead balloon" John Entwistle, to emphasize the point further said: "More like a Lead Zeppelin"
That discussion happened much earlier , in May 1966 around the time of "Beck's Bolero", not when Page was starting The New Yardbirds/Led Zeppelin in 1968. It came out of a general discussion about a possible future 'supergroup' formed from those involved at the time. The discussion had nothing to do with Zeppelin, Page just utilised the memory of the name from 1966 when he was partly forced into a new name for the "New Yardbirds" because an ex-Yardbird Chris Dreja held the legal right to the Yardbirds name and obtained a 'cease and desist' order for the Yardbirds name in late 1968, after Page's new band (with Plant, Bonham and Jones) had already started performing..
Hate to say it but Peter Townsend was a miserable young man and a miserable old man because he suppressed his homosexual tendencies. He said that in a interview in time magazine or Newsweek it was a long time ago. I believe he wrote rough boys about it.
Yeah they are. Two completely different bands but I think equally as talented. Just depends upon your tastes. I have room in my collection for every album by both bands. I never had to choose between the two. 😎😎
yes, me as well. by his reasoning that the more popular band is the better band then i suppose McDonald's makes the best burgers since they have sold more than any one else.
Well said, Pete is entitled to his opinion and if LZ’s music wasn’t his cup of tea, well that’s his choice. I work with violins, but can’t stand to listen Irish fiddle. People are aghast when I tell them that. Just because I work with the instrument doesn’t mean I have to like all the ways people play it.
Exactly. It's very hard for Zep fans - who are some of the dopiest fans in all of rockdom - to accept that. I'm not talking REAL Zep fans, first generation fans. I'm talking the second generation fans on down. They're the most clueless imbeciles for the most part, with a very uncomplicated, low-information relationship with their favorite band. Half the time these idiots don't even the albums the songs are from, they just know them from dopey "classic rock" radio.
I don't make comparisons, each one has their own style, both have their own value and shine. Led Zeppelin will always be my favorite band and Jimmy is my most beloved guitarist. Townshend’s problem is a sore elbow, aka envy
@anthc5477 bingo. They were far more unique in their writing and sound. Seen both play live and I thought the Who was a better show. Poor Jimmy P was a genius in the studio, but could not play his stuff live - especially the solos....which was supposed to be the difference
@@brianshockledge3241 A handful of old blues and folk tunes that are reworked and unlike the originals. You sound like you've never actually heard Zeppelin and are regurgitating someone else's ill-informed opinion.
@@Reno_Slim No it`s a fact they built their reputation on music they initially claimed as their own. They actually ended up with more court claims than albums.
@@brianshockledge3241Blah, blah, blah…find a new argument, this one is more rehashed than the songs they “borrowed”. Both bands were incredible and both broke new ground. Pete has always been pretentious and a little too precious for his own good. The Who’s motto was literally “Maximum R&B”, they also adopted and co-opted black American music.
Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, and Deep Purple ushered in Hard Rock bands that rely on albums and tours, not pop hits; however, the Who kind of invented the concept of the Rock band, as opposed to Rock & Roll, along with the Yardbirds and Rolling Stones. One thing leads to another. It would have been something to see what Jimi Hendrix would have evolved into in the 70s - would he have mellowed like Clapton, or kept evolving his lead guitar and blown away the arena rock newcomers.? I remember him saying he was tired of loud rock, but that was likely in reaction to all of the Singer Songwriter artists
I think Jimi would have evolved into a jazz-blues player. He was already well on the way. At the time he died, there was already talk of a collaboration between Hendrix and Miles Davis, who had just gone electric. Can you imagine what that would have been like? (Miles also called Jimi the John Coltrane of electric guitar.)
When Paul McCartney was asked who the best guitarist was, he said Jimi Hendrix. To be honest, I don't understand why everyone calls him the greatest guitarist. I mean, Hendrix's strength was his deep black voice, his melodies and his blues feeling. Every of the top guitarists like Stevie Ray, Clapton, Beck etc. can play Jimi's tunes but they can't sing like Jimi, embody the blues feeling and compose Jimi's groovy music.
Zep was blues derivitive to the point of just stealing from black blues artists. The Who is way more original and give more at live shows that zep ever will. Im a Whoey
you're leaving off that in the formative days of LZ, Page experimented with Moon and Entwistle as the rhythm section (the LZ name even suggested by Moon)... this seems an important fact.
That discussion happened much earlier , in May 1966 around the time of "Beck's Bolero", not when Page was starting The New Yardbirds/Led Zeppelin in 1968. It came out of a general discussion about a possible future 'supergroup' formed from those involved at the time. The discussion had nothing to do with Zeppelin, Page just utilised the memory of the name from 1966 when he was partly forced into a new name for the "New Yardbirds" because an ex-Yardbird Chris Dreja held the legal right to the Yardbirds name and obtained a 'cease and desist' order for the Yardbirds name in late 1968, after Page's new band (with Plant, Bonham and Jones) had already started performing..
I won’t weigh in on which I like better, but I’ve been familiar with the Who since I was a kid because my dad was a fan. Live, the Who is incomparable.
I am a WHO fan 'til the end, but both bands (saw them both twice, and were louder than hell ,and exciting!) are superior in the studio. ZEPPELIN made great records, and as far as TheWHO goes, QUADROPHENIA is, when all is said and done, their masterpiece. and they both had some live footage that is underwhelming, as well as overwhelming. I absolutely prefer 'the KIDS are ALRIGHT' to 'THE SONG REMAINS THE SAME'. so, the ''Oo are my fave, but I believe the BEATLES are the best Rock band ever .and I happen to believe that LED ZEPPELIN ,for a bunch of Brit white boys, played blues excellently, on such tunes as 'I can't quit you, babe', 'since I've been lovin' you', and 'When the levee breaks', to name a few. separating the legal stuff over songwriting credits from the actual music, I can't see Willie Dixon being unhappy w/ that stuff. he eventually got paid, I think, so that only leaves the music. never heard him comment on it, but I'd like to read something regarding his opinion, strictly musically. I think LZ wrote 'since I've been lovin' you', and Jimmy's guitar playing on that is among the best picking I ever heard. he can play it softly, like BB and Stevie Ray, but he can also come on like a thunderclap. at his best, he is a great musician. and Pete? I've heard his own critics say that when he did less leaping about, and more playing, he was better. I know a very Picky(high standards)guitarist who never spoke highly of him until he heard 'LIVE AT LEEDS' and 'Eminence Front'. I give it up to Page for not being obsessed over Pete's comments. I never got the impression that he's full of himself. the way he was treated by THE BLACK CROWES, and refrained from speaking in public about it (but he ran into their former drummer, and explained for the first time ,in private, what a dick Rich Robinson was ).
yeah. they transcended Rock and wrote beautiful pop/love songs, but always came back to 'Rock & Roll'. the White album, 'LET IT BE', 'ABBEY ROAD' all had R&R to end their career as a band.
@@Thataintnothing I’ve seen both on film. The Who is better. Neither is perfect and Jones/Bonham is a great rhythm section, but Entwhistle is a bass virtuoso and Keith Moon is a force of nature. Plant’s voice is grating many times and Page isn’t the best guitarist, live.
@@Trenchant463 I read one of my old Led Zeppelin books from the 1980s when I used to really be into them what Pete said about them as far back as 1970 and he wasn’t really crazy about their music. So what he said is pretty consistent.
One were story tellers. The other, adulterers. One was clean with low distortion. The other, raucous with major sawtooth. One appealed more to the intellect. The other, our base passions.
I lived through the era and saw both the Who and Led Zep around the same time '69-70. They both toured the university circuit and that's when I saw them in Leeds. I was front of stage during the "Live at Leeds" show and likewise saw Zep up close on the small stage. Up until Zep there was always a cool relaxed vibe in the crowd, but with them it was serious with a feeling of tension in the air. I agree with Pete in that I never liked their music much. There was never any comparison in my mind. The groups were of different eras . It would be fairer to compare the Beatles, Stones, Kinks or Small Faces with the Who. 5 years is a long time in the world of teen music, and Zep were part of the next wave.
@@marguskiis7711 Don't you think @julianb1474 made a good point though? You both seem to have a love and reverence for The Who, as do I. In fact, @julianb1474 is saying that The Who deserves credit for being pioneers during the first wave of British Rock and you are saying The Who deserve credit for remaining relevant in the second wave. And let's face it, The Rolling Stones deserve credit for never stopping!
Exactly: that's what these idiots don't get, and your last line was spot on although i would change it to this :not teen music. SIXTIES music. Five years in the sixties was like twenty-five years compared to now. Moreso, actually. The Who are a SIXTIES band. That's when the pioneering work went on, not the 70s. The 700s was enjoying the new freedoms afforded by the 60s. Jimmy Page was a session musician playing guitar on Petula Clark's dinky DOWNTOWN, while The Beatles were bashing in doors, innovating studio techniques and building a new rock and roll audience, while the Who were smashing up their instruments in small clu bs and Dylan was going electric and stuff that had NEVER been seen or heard before was going down. Not the 10,000th heavy English blues band. named Led Zeppelin, headed up by everyone's least favorite Yardbird. Zeppelin ended up being the best of all those English blues bands (most of whom were lousy) so they get A plus for execution......but a B minus for originality. Definitely when you compare them to The Who.
No, he's just expressing his honest opinion and some people get butthurt about it. To compare The Who and Zeppelin is idiotic, always was. One is a pioneering sixties band, the other is one that reaped the benefits of that pioneering work. Zeppelin is a little brother band to The Beatles, The Stones, The Who, Clapton (who REALLY created the Zep template, first with Yardbirds, then Cream), they came WAY after the fact, and they were seen as a ripoff of Jeff Beck Group....which they were! None of those bands were impressed with Zeppelin because they're coming from the perspective of having actually invented shit, rather than just stealing from Moby Grape and Spirit and Bert Jansch and Willie Dixon and a bunch of artists YOU don't know, but THEY know .
When I try to compare each member as “who’s better”….i just end up saying to myself “what am I doing here?”….I’m a WHO fan but all eight of these guys are just phenomenal musicians and the world is better for it.
You could play any Beatles, Stones, Who, or Zep album and they were good, most were great with a couple of average albums. The amount of great songs by these guys is amazing.
I'm not sure how to explain this. I'm a huge Zeppelin fan, I have all their albums and I'm a big Who fan, I have at least most of their albums, overall I'd say I'm a bigger Zeppelin fan. Okay all that being said, I've seen both bands live (mid 70s) and The Who was absolutely head and shoulders the better live band.
Me too. I agree. Except the thing about owning the albums. Back in the late 60's/early 70's when I shared flats with various other guys, we tended to 'specialise' with different bands in our LP collections. So I had no Zep or Who but was the Johhny Winter/Hendrix/Jazz guy. But The Who live were the mutt's nuts.
He said something similar about the Beatles too. So... The Who were fantastic playing live. Always annoying was the habit of smashing guitars whyle I was struggling to save money for my first Statocaster 😊
Townshend has NEVER said he "hated" The Beatles in fact he's said playing with The Beatles was one of the great moments of his entire life. He's talked about how much he loved "Day Tripper". He's talked about how he wouldn't even be writing if it wasn't for The Beatles. ALL of those guys took pot shots at The Beatles at different times in their career (including the Stones, including Zeppelin, including Zappa, etc), usually in the early 70s, because The Beatles were way up in the stratosphere beyond every other band, they loom above everybody, especially English groups.
Then Pete obviously is not paying attention to the Billboard charts or his royalties because the who had many more songs that hit the top 40 charts especially in America. I think Pete was drunk and talkin some crap. 😁
I grew up on these two bands in real time and have always loved them both. So sad, the bitter things Pete Townshend has said of Zep through the years, and that bitterness is becoming his legacy.
@julianhignell8452 The Who was done in the late 70s. When they got their new drummer and started doing pop stuff like Eminence Front they weren't the same. I saw them in the late 90s and they mailed it in. I'm not so sure how great a guitarist Townsend was either
@@williamgullett5911 rock music is not about album sales, or polished hit songs, or popularity. Rock n roll is about great lyrics expressing the times and deep thought, but mostly live performances. Live performances and lyrics is why The Mighty Who is the greatest live band.
@@williamgullett5911 Townshend is a great guitarist. For the last 60 yrs., every yr. Pete has ranked in the top 50, the top 25, or the top 10. Very well respected as s guitar player and singer at the same time, as well as a performer. Jimmy Page can't sing. Nuff said.
@@williamgullett5911 Townshend is one of only 2 legends that can play any instrument at the profrssional level, has a great voice, can play and sing at the same time, can write meaningful hit songs on his own. He has longevity. The other is Paul McCartney. Page can't sing or write like Pete or Paul.
It comes down to taste... not just bands but that also includes instrumental and lyrical style. I'm 56... bought a lot more Who then Led...found Led too dark...just like Pink Floyd....oh this will start a riot lol...I will take Who Are You, Can't Explain and Baba O'Reilly any day over anything else....doesn't mean I don't appreciate those other two awesome groups...
Oh yes, 2 absolute classic double albums.....wouldn't want to have to choose between them. The whole band comparison (especially Beatles vs Stones) is pretty pointless when you can love them both! That said.....if I was a chick I'd probably have fancied Plant over Daltrey (but nobody could quite swing a mike like him though😂)
@@dalex8126Daltrey acts like a man on stage. Plant prances around in little girls shirts, lol. Just compare Song Remains The Same, with The Who at the Pontiac Silverdome. Daltrey all over the stage, Plant stomping his feet, humping the mic stand, snapping his fingers every 2 seconds with his palms up and twirling his hair with his index finger screaming, oooo baaaby, oooo baaaby. Just making an observation..
FOR ME ITS THE BIG THREE, THE BEATLES, THE STONES AND THE WHO. THOSE ARE THE ROCK PIONEERS FOR ME GROWNING UP IN THE 60'S. LED Z IS DIFFERENT. HOWEVER IF I HAD TO ONLY PICK BETWEEN THE WHO AND LED Z, I WOULD GO WITH THE WHO. WHEN I HEARD THE WHO AS A KID, MY PARENTS THOUGHT I WAS HAVING AN EPILEPTIC FIT. THEY MADE ME GO NUTS. THEY WERE JUST TOO KOOL
Zeppelin was the 70s not the 60s. It's nice that Who fans are here defending Pete's envy but no one I knew (in the 70s) EVER thought the Who were more important than Zeppelin.
It's actually a complete myth that Page played on "I Can't Explain." Shel Talmy had wanted that, and Townshend adamantly, positively refused. Page DID end up playing on a much more minor Who track, however: He ended up doing the guitar solo on an obscure 1967 B-side, "Bald-Headed Woman." The reason? Page owned the only Fuzzbox distortion unit available in England at the time. So he got the job. As for the KInks' "You Really Got Me," I personally interviewed Ray Davies in 1995 and he absolutely 100% denied that Jimmy Page was there at that session and/or had anything to do with it. Take that as you will.
Thank you for stating these facts. I ‘ve seen The Who 5 times and The Kinks 6 times. (Ray solo once, Dave twice). What kind of an ego does one have, to allow the I “played on” You Really Got Me and I Can’t Explain myth to even develop.
@reallyluckyoaklawn8306 In fareness to Jimmy Page never heard him state that he played on those songs but other people have claimed that he played on them. Jimmy Page, Richie Blackmore and Big Jim Sullivan played on many studio sessions in the sixties under contract they probably don't know which ones got released or rejected 🤔.
in my humble opinion, if we are going to compare- Page is a better guitar player than Townshend, but Townshend is a better song writer than Page/Plant/Jones & Bonham combined. Daltrey sings better than Plant but Plant has such a powerful & distinctive voice, it was revolutionary. Bonham is probably the most influential drummer of all time & rightfully so, but my fcking god Keith Moon... nobody could ever duplicate how he played. The speed, timing, rhythm & theatrics. ADHD at its absolute finest. Moon was & forever will be one of a kind. As far as those two bass players called John hiding from the limelight (who both were also INCREDIBLE song writers) John Paul Jones is an absolute legend, but he doesn't hold a candle to Entwistle's bass playing & I'll die on that hill.
I don't think there is any question the Zeppelin had more commercial success than The Who but I think at the height of their powers, The Who were a better live band. I like "The Song Remains the Same", but it's an uneven showcase of cherry picked performances over the course of three evenings. "Live at Leeds" on the other hand is a warts and all live performance that The Who just rip through with minimal editing. We can all agree that LZ was the heavier of the two groups but Live at Leeds showed that Townshend and company could out heavy anyone when they wanted to. Both band legacies are secure at this point in history, it just comes down to who(no pin intended) you like better. As a side note, and I know this will not be in line with other opinions, I think "Who's Next" and "Quadropenia" are the top two albums in both band's discographies.
As a teenager in the '60s it never occurred to me that Led Zeppelin and The Who had a rivalry going. Probably because I just didn't like Zeppelin, who I regarded as a white-blues band that lacked any subtlety and were far too loud. I thought The Who were too loud as well but they did, like the Kinks, crank out some great original songs. Frankly, that stuff we too easily impressed teenagers regarded as "progressive rock" started and ended with Jimmy Hendrix. Mind you, Cream had their moments.
I've been a fan of The Who since 1970 and I think that sometimes Pete Townshend, whom I admire greatly, really wears his heart on his sleeve. Not always a great idea but he seems to do it anyway.
Exactly! And to me there’s nothing wrong with that. Pete has always spoke his mind. The only times where I’ve gotten a little upset at something he said was when he spoke disparagingly about Keith and John soon after each died. But as far as Pete not being a fan of Led Zep, big deal! I like Zep, I’m a far bigger Who fan, but I have been a Zeppelin fan for a long time now and I don’t care. At least he is an honest man. I’d rather hear honesty than people being fake like today
@@Oran_Lee_Bass - I'm pretty sure you got that wrong. Can you be more specific about what he said? He was upset that their use of drugs took them from him, but that's not disparaging them, as humans, artists, or anything else.
missing from this account: that time Robert Plant asked to join the Who (to replace Daltrey) and when Jimmy Page tried to poach Moon & Entwhistle outta the Who to form "The New Yardbirds." Keith Moon even came up w LZ's name! might've fed into Townshend's attitude
Let's make it clear once and for all: the Who were originators, the Zep built their career on purification of other's musicians' ideas and perfection of style, production and volume.
I've said many times that the path to a great LZ song is for someone else to write it, and LZ to cover it while _pretending_ to have written it. Dazed and Confused and Whole Lotta Love come to mind, but there are many more.
@@Slo-ryde so did muddy Waters and howlin Wolf and Willie Dixon. Don't kid yourself. Zeppelin didn't invent plagerism . Muddy Waters was doing it back in the fifties when he was borrowing lyrics from old Robert Johnson songs and putting his own name on them. You do your homework. You'll find this to be true. 😁
@@chriskroll4166 I never said LZ invented plagiarism, all I am saying is that they were among the biggest perpetrators in their heyday, while making it seem like they were innovative!
There is more to it than that - Back in 66/7 is when Page first tried to get 'zeppelin' together and he had Keith Moon on drums and John Entwistle on bass along with Jeff Beck on guitar... It could have been amazing, but then Pete found out and gave Moon/Entwistle and ultimatum and they chose to stay with The Who, shortly after that Page joined the Yardbirds until they fell apart in 68 then of course the Zeppelin we know came to be...
I love them both. To me their equally great. Zep's got their style & Who's got theirs. Zep is basically a hard rock/blues band but the Who with Petes genius style of blending hard rock with melody beats them in songwriting any day. And I'm a sucker for melody, the heart & soul of music. Anyways rock on guys!!!!
Yeah, I mean, all those "melody-less" songs like - 'Babe, I'm gonna leave you' 'Thank You' 'Tangerine' 'Stairway to Heaven' 'The Rain Song' 'Ten Years Gone' 'Fool in the Rain' 'All My Love'.
I like both bands but Zeppelin makes The Who sound generic and quite ordinary. Frankly it's not even a fair comparison, The Who is simply outclassed musically here. I love Townshend's candid and honest remarks though. There's nothing wrong with what he said.
You say you like both bands, but if you say Zeppelin make The Who sound generic and quite ordinary, you’ve never actually listened to The Who. They each have their own distinct sound, whichever one you prefer is a matter of taste. No need to denigrate The Who like that. It sounds childish.
@@robbielux8353 I agree. I think it's because they just winged it a lot of times, like a jazz band. They had their moments though. The '73 Madison Square Garden performance "their live album" is astonishing.
@@robbielux8353 Not so much sloppy as just plainly self-indulgent. You would not catch the Who EVER doing something like a half-hour of "Dazed and Confused" with a screeching violin bow across one's guitar or Keith Moon doing a 15-to-20 minute drum solo like "Moby Dick". The Who were much more self-disciplined live and gave their fans a tighter performance, even though the band could definitely jam when they wanted to.
Both The Who and Led Zeppelin were excellent bands. It is irrelevant what Townshend thinks about Zeppelin. He can be a bit of a weirdo, but yeah... He choose the right profession for sure.
What he hits on in the end is the crux of it I think. Page was a session man who was able to get a better record deal and achieve a higher level of success a lot quicker than The Who did.
I love both bands, but I will admit I really didn't start appreciating the Who's music until I was an old man. Its funny, I have both bands CDs in my car & I alternate between listening to them depending on my mood...lol
Absolutely. A total no brainer. To sit through twenty minutes of those horrible Jimmy Page solos during "Dazed And Confused" would be hell on Earth, lol.
I think Townshend's dislike of LZ is more down to Page trying to poach Moon and Entwistle for him and Jeff Beck's supergroup. Around 1966 The Who were looking like splitting up, Moon & Entwistle were supposed to go to a recording session incognito, Moon turned up disguised as a cossack, Entwistle didn't show. They ended up recording 'Beck's Bolero' with John Paul Jones on bass. Townshend got wind of this and apparently was less than pleased to say the least.
Sal Talmy has repeatedly said in interview after interview (as did everyone involved in the recording sessions) that Jimmy Page did not play the main riff or the guitar solo on "YOU REALLY GOT ME". Jimmy Page did not play anything on the song "YOU REALLY GOT ME". Jimmy Page did play rhythm guitar and tambourine on the Kinks cover song "LONG TALL SHORTY" and rhythm guitar on the Kinks instrumental "REVENGE", which Jimmy Page later covered & released as a single. These are the facts documented in the recording sessions.
Townshend and Ray Davies should of teamed up and formed a supergroup. Imagine that ! A mash up of The Kinks and The Who. Led Zeppelin all met each other after years of slogging away in other bands.
Thats not quite right They were called the who and then changed to the high numbers and then went back to being the who.. There are numerous videos here on you tube about it
I'm not a great fan of either but I like some songs of each and appreciate that they were each very good at what they did. I just never thought of them as doing especially similar things.
Jimmy Page wouldn't have had a Marshall to plug into without Pete. Jimi copied Pete's rig exactly. Entwistle is why you have roundwound bass strings and fingerstyle tock playing. Blonde singer up front, drummer and his kit falling down a flight of stairs round back? It could only be The Who, until it was everyone.
You forget about the film and musical theatre version of "Tommy," a significant moneymaker that Zep has nothing like. Also the fact that "Baba O'Riley" has been used in hundreds of TV shows and commercials - again, Zep has nothing equivalent.
Well since you went down that plagiarism rabbit hole. First of all. We don't know the origins of most styles of music . Ya, they ALL copied and stole from each other. That's the music industry. Get over it. Second of all. I have listened to a lot of recorded music produced in the 30's, - the 70's. And the early recordings were not that good. Yes Page did take pieces and made changes. But they were 10 times better than the original recording. And sometimes Zeppelin's final product doesn't even sound the same as the original. In addition, bands like the Stones and Zeppelin. Introduced America to a form of music that was part of it's own sub culture. In other words, without these bands, that style of music would have NEVER seen the light of day. Ya it would have remained buried.
@@jamesnash6101 "Yes [sic] Page did take pieces and made changes." Yeah, he changed the name of the songwriter from theirs to his. On the song Killing Floor he didn't even bother to change the title.
@@jamesnash6101 LZ got straight busted in court, it can't be argued. Great music no doubt, but you wouldn't want to do business or let your daughters date any rock stars. As for "that style of music would never have seen the light of day". That statement is ignorant. ALL of the Gen1 "British Invasion" band members were born around the end of WW2. Many British people had fallen in love with American Southern music traditions. The British loved American G.I.s, the American Army was still segregated. Black G.I.s were welcomed in pubs, pretty soon music would break out, music that Brits had maybe never heard before. The late great Staxx records had deals with British record distributors. British families had access to records that didn't get sold in "White" record stores. Some of the kids loved that music, there's James Brown (and other) covers all over a lot of those bands early records. In fact, "Pink Floyd" took their name from two blues musicians Pink Anderson and Floyd Council. He owned their records. So, music American kids didn't even hear on the radio was being filtered back to them through the UK. British kids loved music American kids didn't know about, LZ stole a lot of homework and changed the name on it. Doesn't change the fact that LZ made some landmark albums, they just need to own up and pay up, like anyone. Thievery is thievery.
I've heard Townshend say this in at least a few different interviews, so it wasn't just something he spewed out once in a grumpy mood. And that's fine that he disliked them but if he was not going out of his way to be a jerk should have just kept it to himself. Music fans, just like any other kind of passionate interest, tends to create elitists and camps and a lot of division. You grow out of that eventually but when you're just learning about something and you're young you like to make everything a competition. But for Townshend to say this means he's a real dick. This isn't honesty as apologists would say, it's just being a dick. Pete needs to take some Paul McCartney lessons.
It's not like Townshend volunteered it for the sake of saying it. People ask about it, what it was like, how he feels about comparisons, how he feels about them. So he answers. BECAUSE HE'S ASKED THE QUESTION. And never did he say they weren't good or great, just that they didn't push his buttons. Nothing dickish about that.
One thing that I think probably hindered the Who’s chances of taking The Beatles’ throne in the 70’s is the fact that they developed two different, diametrically opposed sonic personalities: one as a studio act, and another as a live act. From Tommy through to Who Are You, their studio sound became more refined and sophisticated alongside the increasing quality of Townshend’s writing and artistic vision, though these improvements came at the cost of losing the sonic edge that had so defined their early records and made them stand out. As a live act, they managed to keep and increase that same sonic edge, but it would remain essentially lost from their studio albums until 2019. Zeppelin by contrast always kept a sonic edge both in their studio sound and on the stage. Even their acoustic recordings have it. Having that common thread is essential for any act.
How about Lennon, Dylan, Waters, Waits, Kantner, Slick, Hunter, Jagger, Hendrix, Morrison, and Capaldi? All of whom wrote better, more resonant lyrics than Townshend. And that's just off the top of my head . . .
well said, in this WHO fan's opinion. but why is it that Plant gets none of the credit for all the lyrics he wrote? that's essentially half the song. a ZEPPELIN fanatic friend of mine says it's too derivative of.. that British fairy tale...all I know is, he gets zero credit for outstanding lyrics .like, he's a vocalist and that's that.
@@tonym994 I didn't realize Plant didn't get credit for his lyrics. So the songwriting assignation on the Zep albums concerns only the musical composition? That would be a first, as far as I know. I prefer Zep to the Who, by a longshot, but I will say that Pete's lyrics generally sound better than Robert's. Plant has written some very good lines and passages, but all too often he follows a good line with a clunker.
@@chicklets4ever51 he's not on Pete's level at all. and you know that the listings of all band members really tells us nothing about the music or the words, except that Page doesn't write lyrics. I read in 'CIRCUS' (before it was metal, just a general rock mag), Page was asked about a lyric, he replied, you'd have to ask Robert, he writes the lyrics. when I got a DVD copy of 'the making of PARANOID', I realized that Geezer, not Ozzie, wrote the classics on it. great live, early footage of BLACK SABBATH.
The argument has always been about focus , About what you focus on Led Zeppelin were recording artists meaning they focused on the Recording performance and replicating that Live Which the Wolves love and promote and broadcast and praise , due to its easy commercial capabilities Pete loved performing live And would get on stage with other bands and just play Pete was fascinated by the Dead and the Live experience focus
I'm first and foremost a Zeppelin fan, but I love The Who as well. If Pete doesn't like a thing Zep has done, who cares? I'm a huge Zappa fan and he's not too fond of Zep either. So what? I'm not anyone's keeper. These simpy fans who can't have their idols attacked and protect them like they're the best friend they've ever had is ridiculous. Grow up
Funny thing that's ommited it when The Who were flagging in '68, pre-Tommy, that Moonie & Entwistle were on the cusp of jumping to the new band formation, w/ Moonie even, allegedly helping forming the name, saying it was bound to go over like a lead zeppelin..
I used to listen to both, but it surprised me when I heard Jake Holmes Dazed and Confused. I thought the LZ version was a direct rip off and I was shocked anyone would have the balls to steal a song that was already down in vinyl. I still listen to the Who though.
Both bands had great albums but live, The Who dominated the stage from 1967 to 1975. For 60 years The Who is considered to be the greatest live band. That's what rock is all about. Live At Leeds, nuff said.
@@TTM9691 Live At Leeds was recorded in one night, at one show, one take, and no mixing or overdubbing in the studio. What is on Live At Leeds is the concert. Zep's SRS was recorded 3 nights, 3 shows, best songs and cuts taken to the studio by Page for 1.5 years to clean up and produce. This is why The Mighty Who is the greatest live band. They set the bar.
@@trajan6927 HAHAHAHAHA! High five! Hahahahaha. I love Plant, sorry Robert, but Trajan summed you up pretty sweet! LOL. Dude, you cracked me up with that one. :D
@@TTM9691 if somebody is amazed that plant snapped his fingers with his palms up 5,000 times in SRS and twirled his hair with his index finger, wore stolen little girls shirts, stomped his feet like a little sissy, humped the mic stand while sceaming oo baaby oooo baaaby then they are under suspicion. 😲
As a fan of both bands I found the vid disappointing. No interesting musical comparisons either as players or song writers, just commercial success with a smug bit of sotto voce. What's next? Olivia Newton John was better than John Lennon because she got an OBE and John only an MBE?
I have listened to top 40 all the time in the 60s as a kid. In the mid 70s as a teen I was a total Zep Head. Never once did I see the group in the same vein as the Who. Nothing alike or to compare to. I owned the Zeppelins Albums and listened to them all the time. I never owned a Who album.
Zep is a chicks band, The Mighty Who is a man's band. Look at the sissy Plant wearing little girls shirts vs the manly man acting with prowess on stage Roger Daltrey.
@@thomasmay69 Zep was a chicks band who sold 200 million albums (which is impressive). Zep did not sell 300 million albums. Chicks loved Zep because Plant acted like a woman. I was born in 1955. Nice try youngster. Anybody rememba lafta! 😁
The "Tommy" album was a bigger deal at the time than "Who's Next" or Quadraphenia." Zepplin was huge at time too. Apples and Oranges. Why pick a favorite? Orémus Y'all.
There's more to the story in general, supposedly John and Keith were supposed join the band before Bonham and JPJ. Both are great bands but the live power of the who is unmatched. Not to knock the quality of their recording efforts. I can listen to every track on every who album. I cannot say the same for LZ. I guess it all comes down to taste.
Keith Moon named them. In the bar with Peter Grant (zep manager)who was telling Moon of the new supergroup Page was forming, to which Moon said of the idea "That'll go down like a Led Zeppelin".
No. That discussion with Moon and Entwistle and Beck happened much earlier , in May 1966 around the time of "Beck's Bolero", not when Page was starting The New Yardbirds/Led Zeppelin in 1968. It came out of a general discussion about a possible future 'supergroup' formed from those involved at the time. The discussion had nothing to do with Led Zeppelin being formed, Page just utilised the memory of the name from 1966 when he was partly forced into a new name for the "New Yardbirds" because an ex-Yardbird Chris Dreja held the legal right to the Yardbirds name and obtained a 'cease and desist' order for the Yardbirds name in late 1968, after Page's new band (with Plant, Bonham and Jones) had already started performing..
I agree with every comment I've read here EXCEPT one HUGE AND DECIDING difference between the two bands people forget: The Who wrote their own music - Zeppelin "appropriated" theirs! In other words, comparing these bands is like comparing apples with ... a photograph of apples!
Wrong. That discussion with Moon and Entwistle and Beck happened much earlier , in May 1966 around the time of "Beck's Bolero", not when Page was starting The New Yardbirds/Led Zeppelin in 1968. It came out of a general discussion about a possible future 'supergroup' formed from those involved at the time. The discussion had nothing to do with Led Zeppelin being formed, Page just utilised the memory of the name from 1966 when he was partly forced into a new name for the "New Yardbirds" because an ex-Yardbird Chris Dreja held the legal right to the Yardbirds name and obtained a 'cease and desist' order for the Yardbirds name in late 1968, after Page's new band (with Plant, Bonham and Jones) had already started performing.. Reply
@@philweight3480 Okay. You began with the word “wrong” and then you didn’t contradict a word I said. What part of my statement was supposed to be wrong?
@@robbob5302 They didn't come up with the name Led Zeppelin. In 1966, over 2 years before the Yardbirds split, they suggested that a supergroup (potentially Page, Moon, Entwistle and Beck) would "go down like a lead balloon, in fact a Zeppelin" - the band Led Zeppelin was not even conceived of until 1968 and only named by Page very late that year. The original comment bore no relation to naming Led Zeppelin. Page merely dug up the memory of that comment when choosing a name.
Tbh I love the Who, but for some reason Led Zeppelin just dont move me in anyway shape or form. I've been listening to rock music for 30 years and in that time not a single note of Led Zep has reverberated with me.
...go on to overshadow The Who, by some margin....???!!! Bite your tongue! LZ didn't write the 1st rock opera, ( and third + Quadraphenia) Not blues, real songs. Teenage Wasteland, etc. The Who wins.
the argument over who has the better band will continue forever. It doesn't matter if they are both from the same era or even similar styles. People (some) will have a preference for one over another. Stuff like this constantly goes through my mind when I think back to one band opening for another and wondering why / how they got chosen. The Monkeeys opening for Hendrix, Beach Boys opening for Chicago or Moody Blues... the list goes on. I feel a little contrast is good, but sometimes I wonder if too much is good or bad.
They're NOT from the same era, nor do they have similar styles. One is a pioneering band, the other enjoys the freedoms afforded by that pioneering work, plain and simple. I mean, Zeppelin was NAMED by one of the members of The Who, for chrissake.
@@TTM9691.... Not from the same era? They were playing on the same stage in the 60s and 70s. Well, not The Who and Zep, which is the point of the video.
@@thomasmay69 I stand corrected. Must have been the brown acid, eh? BTW, I was at shows where The Beach Boys opened for Chicago and another for the Moody Blues. Sometimes I think they just look to see who is on town and throw a dart to pick one. SMH
One word: jealous. And that's fine! Who wouldn't be? Led Zeppelin is the pinnacle of guitar and drum-based music. It does not go up from there. The sheer nerve someone must have to possess to watch, for example, Dazed and Confused @ MSG 1973 from start to finish, look me in the eye and tell me there is a superior iteration of a rock band. The Who are fine, decent. A very respectable outfit and an asset to the British sixties scene. But come on, Zeppelin were once in a millennia lightning in a bottle. If you know anything about musical theory, exploring the full potential of instruments, songwriting, performing music, performing music _ensemble_, this isn't even a debate.
@ollie5399 No, it isn't a debate because Zeppelin couldn't write lyrics to save their souls. All they did was reiterate sexual blues and medieval sorcery cliches in their lyrics, and "Dazed and Confused" @MSG 1973 is the epitome of '70's self-indulgence rock. A half-hour long, with Plant screeching like his groin is being tightened in a vice? Not to mention Page sawing away on his guitar with a violin bow, rendering it completely unlistenable. And then there's Bonham pounding away like a caveman assaulting his drums as though he had clubs in his hands. I'll admit it - I just can't understand the fascination with Zeppelin. And I've tried over and over again to get it, but I just can't. I want good lyrics, melody, memorable verses that will stay with me and get me through certain moods I may be in...things like that. And I get none of that with Zeppelin. With the Beatles, the Stones, the Who and the Kinks, I can listen to their music and feel both joy and sadness, and I can laugh or cry. With Zeppelin, I just feel numb and emotionless. Zeppelin's music is not music to reach one's inner soul. At least it isn't to me.
@@robertbykowski1398 So what I take from that is that you prefer pop music (or, guitar based pop music of that era), for its texture and structure, as well as more relatable lyrical subject matters. Fair enough, many people do! I guess Beatles/Stones/Kinks vs the more experimental/blues/jam-based LZ material is chalk and cheese really. I do like the Beatles and Kinks (less so the Stones), but without wishing to sound arrogant and snobbish, I just find the musicality of it all really humdrum. With just an intermediate level of musical training, you can easily understand everything going on in a Beatles song; every predictable chord sequence and drum pattern. The Who were a little bit more abstract and further towards the Zeppelin end of the spectrum, I think, which is maybe why Townsend took a particular interest enough to get a bee in his bonnet about what they were capable of. The key thing about Zeppelin regardless of if it's one's cup of tea was that they really were four absolute master musicians, to an unprecedented level. Absolutely nobody has been able to play together and create anything like it before or since. In some parts of their material they took what the instruments were capable of to a level people today are still unable to wrap their brains around, and that does the job at reaching my inner soul.
@ollie5399 Yes, it does go up from there. Not only the Who, but the Jimi Hendrix Experience and Cream were both superior to Zeppelin. Again, listenability is a key factor.
Beatles most successful and influential, greatest songwriting team and band of the 60's. Stones probably deserve title, "greatest rock band" although I prefer The Who. Zep band of the 70's most popular. The Who greatest live band, Isle Of Wight, nuff said. Townshend and McCartney are two of the most talented, over all greatest singer songwriters, performers, and can play any instrument at the professional level. 😊
This isn't news. So many of Zepp's contemporaries couldn't bring themselves to say that they liked them because of the fact that Zepp totally dominated the 70s. I really wished that Hendrix was around during this time because he was fawning over other musicians like Chicago's Terry Kath and even the Beatles. It was not uncommon for Hendrix to cover Sgt. Peppers during his live set. He loved collaborating with other musicians and recording those sessions. It would have been interesting to have Hendrix work with Page.
I’ve always thought that had Hendrix lived his full quota he might have gravitated more towards jazz and fusion, t least for a while, which was where many of the more accomplished musicians found themselves in the 70s. Can you imagine a more mature Hendrix with Weather Report, especially when Jaco Pastorius was their bass player? And what about the Jimi Hendrix/Stanley Clarke album that never happened. We can only speculate but I wouldn’t have been surprised had his virtuosity taken him down that road.
@@francispower1418 Yes, I agree. At the time Hendrix died, there was already discussion between Jimi and Miles Davis, who had just "gone electric," about collaborating. Can you imagine? Miles once called Jimi "the John Coltrane of electric guitar."
@@francispower1418 Jimi was definitely all about experimenting with new sounds. To be able to hear him play with Jaco would have been nuts. So much virtuosity in the same band! I know that Jaco was incorporating lots of different types of world music into his bass playing. Like Jimi, Jaco was a genius who was gone too soon.
Hendrix would have never worked with Page. He started to hate the life and wanted to get into experimental music not rehash old blues. From what I've read Hendrix wanted to get into fusion and jam with jazz greats. He liked the way the Beatles stopped touring and pushed the boundaries in the studio. He grew tired of people screaming "Purple Haze" all the time.
I was just introduced to your channel! You are extremely likable my friend… very entertaining and educational so I shall do all I can to inform the masses of this hidden gym! Not for long will is be hidden…🤔….😳….😁keep up the good work!👌🏻
Speaking of band rivalries... Who REALLY won the Battle of Britpop? Blur, you say? I don't think so...
👉ua-cam.com/video/vy2jq4sos_M/v-deo.html
Blur won the battle of the bands, i never liked Oasis or the spin off bands
I think Supergrass won when no one was looking 🤔
@@cloudboy7750 Supergrass were the last live band that i saw Ally Palace march 2020
@@whufciironworkes Well, firstly I'm jealous, and secondly, if the decider is the last band still standing, then they certainly won the Britpop wars!
blur won when it came to making interesting music. oasis was just a mirage; all they EVER did was rip off the beatles and people actually fell for it. toward the end they were just name dropping beatle song titles.
I can listen to Zeppelin any time. I have to be in a certain mood to listen to The Who. I admire them both equally for their musicianship and songwriting. Pete’s a big boy… he can like or dislike whatever he wants.
Both bands have stuff that's great and some that sucks, especially the early stuff.
I hear you
You have 5:28 of some guy you don’t know telling you Pete doesn’t like Zeppelin. If he did say anything like that he was still a little young and rebellious. How does he feel now? You don’t know. It’s nonsense click bait. I fell for it in terms of being interested in how it was reasoned. Pete isn’t even in the piece. Don’t let that kind of thing educate you. Love and peace
@@IanMaclachlan-cw6cz I appreciate your comment and thoughts. I’ve heard the interview where he says “I’ve never liked a single thing that they’ve done” he was talking about Led Zeppelin. He also says that as people they are all “really great guys”.
I’m the opposite. I can listen to The Who anytime and have to be in a certain mood for Led Zeppelin.
This is like arguing which is better, vanilla or chocolate. Whatever floats your boat. Zeppelin floats my boat!!!
Mine too
I love The ‘ Orrible ‘OO! but we’re lucky to have both.
both great Rock bands. just finished off some Breyers Choc/Vanilla.
Years ago I was friends with a guy who summed it up perfectly:
There are two camps. The Zeppelin fanatic and the Who fanatic.
Most liked both, but each would be more one sided, same for Beatles and Stones.
He was big on The Who, knowing every song, while I loved the Who, I still can’t say I know even every album, though I now do own all but may the first 2, but own multiple copies of every Zeppelin album know every song, the sequence on each album, years, as well as every release by the members.
I own me Townsend solo album and I might hate it, perhaps even the good songs. Lol.
Townsend is a jealous person who rarely speaks well about anyone, though I do know he praised Jimi, and even praises Page’s skills.
I think Pete’s a great (musicians) musician, but I think he’s more likely a total dick, as well as a gay pedo. Somehow that factor has swept conveniently from the minds of people, and I’d think someone with that blemish would try to not be voicing their negative views about their contemporaries for fear of someone dredging that shit back to the foreground. Especially in todays cancel culture that wants to make yesterdays norms todays concerns.
Chocolate ~ The Who live at anywhere. Grand funk Mr Grant?
I'm a Who fan, but also listened to Zep over the years. Being a kinda misfit nerd kid in the early 80's, the Who spoke to the way I felt. They weren't sexualized like Zeppelin. There were no "You and me baby" kinda songs. They were more anger and dissatisfaction. I never understood why Zeppelin was always aligned with Heavy Metal. It was the Who that carried the anger and aggression that would become Heavy Metal.
Exactly!
Amen…I would also add Punk to that too. Who music just aged better
Dude man bro what a well said POV. To my clique, they were equally renowned… I mean like Tommy and Quadraphenia, The Who were really incredibly accomplished.
I was an angry kid, thus I related to The Who
Rebellion and rage, at high decibels: that’s The Who. Zeppelin was a stoner band.
Actually, Daltrey was a lot more complimentary of Zeppelin. Pete just had a problem with ax men who had better chops than he did. Hendrix drove him nuts, and Zeppelin's success did likewise. It's too bad, because he was a phenomenal musician, and didn't need to crap on Zeppelin to raise himself up. He was already up.
Hendrix never drove Pete nuts, simply because he felt that Jimi was much better than he could ever be, so he never truly felt threatened by him.
@@vinceventresca6763 I've heard a few clips from Pete that suggest otherwise. Or at least that he was pissed off that Hendrix was so much better than he was. Page was also seriously impressed with the guy, but he wasn't resentful.
Townsend I think in that documentary this is taken from said his bit about hendrix it wasn't flattering
@@Duck_DodgersTownshend didn't say anything about Hendrix in the Hendrix documentary. As a matter of fact, he said they were close until he left England.
Chops in what way? Pete has some great chops
You can’t compare The Who and Led Zeppelin. They are two COMPLETELY different kinds of bands. BOTH are brilliant and absolute legends.
Are they tho..? COMPLETELY different...? Really...? Come on now. They appeal to the same demographic because they're the same. Bet that triggered you lol
@@natmanprime4295 well…yes. Fair enough, BUT Zeppelin was a RIFF band for the most part right? Totally blues based
The Who was more Proto punk in the beginning (smashing their instruments) and then more power pop as the 7O’s wore on. I did indeed have poster from BOTH bands! 🙂👍
@@danielevans9379 these distinctions and categorizations...lol do you realise how hilarious you are. every band has its own distinct sound. are you going to give them all their own category? do you realise how academic and un-artistic you're being?? its rock. leave it at that
You could compare Daultry and Plant, Entwistle and Jones s well as Moon and Bonham. But Page was leaps and bounds ahead of Townsend in guitar and production.
Yeah. The Who didn’t plagerize.
With Townsend, Lyrics and melody are most important. With Zeppelin both of those are afterthoughts, especially in their early period.
That said I love both bands.
Many Zepplin songs seem to sound like other people, just louder and heavier. The Who are a more original band with an original sound. I'm not saying better, but they don't play that same blues-based rock, which has become a cliche.
@@harrykadaras9459 If it became a cliché, it's only because so many people tried to emulate Zeppelin.
Then why was he in a band with shit lyrics and awful melody?
@@MikeYeary
bingo.
Yeah Robert Plant's lyrics are very profound. "Baby baby baby baby baby!"
I was fortunate to see both bands live and I thoroughly enjoyed both. But there was no higher energy that was experienced than at a Who concert. The Who back in their prime were the band to see when they came to town. They would sell out five nights in a row and I managed to go three of them. This all happened through the 70's when rock and roll concerts were a weekly thing.
When Page was looking to form "The New Yardbirds" he initially wanted Keith Moon and John Entwistle to join him. Moonie reacted by saying "That would go over like a lead balloon" John Entwistle, to emphasize the point further said: "More like a Lead Zeppelin"
Not true all. Jeff Beck formed the line up to rekord Bolero and there were he, Page, Ox and Moon. Moon called it The Lead Balloon or Zeppelin.
That discussion happened much earlier , in May 1966 around the time of "Beck's Bolero", not when Page was starting The New Yardbirds/Led Zeppelin in 1968. It came out of a general discussion about a possible future 'supergroup' formed from those involved at the time. The discussion had nothing to do with Zeppelin, Page just utilised the memory of the name from 1966 when he was partly forced into a new name for the "New Yardbirds" because an ex-Yardbird Chris Dreja held the legal right to the Yardbirds name and obtained a 'cease and desist' order for the Yardbirds name in late 1968, after Page's new band (with Plant, Bonham and Jones) had already started performing..
See? The Who even gave them their NAME. lol
@@TTM9691 Indirectly, yes. So what?
@@philweight3480 - so he made a joke about it.
I liked the who but loved Led Zeppelin. I think their catalog of music is superior and holds up better after all the years
Led Zeppelin is dated trash, a dry heave disaster.
Hate to say it but Peter Townsend was a miserable young man and a miserable old man because he suppressed his homosexual tendencies. He said that in a interview in time magazine or Newsweek it was a long time ago. I believe he wrote rough boys about it.
Big part of their catalog were stolen songs.
I would put the Who's live performances up against any band. Live At Leeds, nuff said.
@@trajan6927 Agnostic Front Live at CBGB's is better.
I saw both bands live.Zeppelin were really good but the Who were incredible live!
Both are amazing bands
I agree. I love both.
Yep!
✌️
Yeah they are. Two completely different bands but I think equally as talented. Just depends upon your tastes. I have room in my collection for every album by both bands. I never had to choose between the two. 😎😎
Disagree, The Who were never even close to what Zeppelin was.
While I like both bands I'm in the Who camp.
yes, me as well. by his reasoning that the more popular band is the better band then i suppose McDonald's makes the best burgers since they have sold more than any one else.
Me too
Me too...I just don't like cliches
Totally with you
Same! 😊🎸
I don't think he was jealous and I don't think Keith Richards was jealous. I think they just didn't like their music
Well said, Pete is entitled to his opinion and if LZ’s music wasn’t his cup of tea, well that’s his choice. I work with violins, but can’t stand to listen Irish fiddle. People are aghast when I tell them that. Just because I work with the instrument doesn’t mean I have to like all the ways people play it.
Exactly. It's very hard for Zep fans - who are some of the dopiest fans in all of rockdom - to accept that. I'm not talking REAL Zep fans, first generation fans. I'm talking the second generation fans on down. They're the most clueless imbeciles for the most part, with a very uncomplicated, low-information relationship with their favorite band. Half the time these idiots don't even the albums the songs are from, they just know them from dopey "classic rock" radio.
He’s lying though. Not one person I’ve ever met genuinely disliked Zeppelin’s music.
I don't make comparisons, each one has their own style, both have their own value and shine. Led Zeppelin will always be my favorite band and Jimmy is my most beloved guitarist. Townshend’s problem is a sore elbow, aka envy
How can anybody compare them? Totally different music.
Who were originators, less blues based… more plain RR, less metal.
@anthc5477 bingo. They were far more unique in their writing and sound. Seen both play live and I thought the Who was a better show. Poor Jimmy P was a genius in the studio, but could not play his stuff live - especially the solos....which was supposed to be the difference
Love both the Who and Led zeppelin .
I like how Townsend says, “in their chosen field.” 😂 Yah, the field of amazing music.
I think you`ll find that chosen field was rehashed old blues and folk songs.
@@brianshockledge3241
A handful of old blues and folk tunes that are reworked and unlike the originals. You sound like you've never actually heard Zeppelin and are regurgitating someone else's ill-informed opinion.
@@Reno_Slim No it`s a fact they built their reputation on music they initially claimed as their own. They actually ended up with more court claims than albums.
@@brianshockledge3241Blah, blah, blah…find a new argument, this one is more rehashed than the songs they “borrowed”.
Both bands were incredible and both broke new ground. Pete has always been pretentious and a little too precious for his own good. The Who’s motto was literally “Maximum R&B”, they also adopted and co-opted black American music.
@@smd2169 I like how you say "borrowed". Of course The Who cut their teeth on R&B but they didn`t claim it as their own.
Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, and Deep Purple ushered in Hard Rock bands that rely on albums and tours, not pop hits; however, the Who kind of invented the concept of the Rock band, as opposed to Rock & Roll, along with the Yardbirds and Rolling Stones. One thing leads to another. It would have been something to see what Jimi Hendrix would have evolved into in the 70s - would he have mellowed like Clapton, or kept evolving his lead guitar and blown away the arena rock newcomers.? I remember him saying he was tired of loud rock, but that was likely in reaction to all of the Singer Songwriter artists
I think Jimi would have evolved into a jazz-blues player. He was already well on the way. At the time he died, there was already talk of a collaboration between Hendrix and Miles Davis, who had just gone electric. Can you imagine what that would have been like? (Miles also called Jimi the John Coltrane of electric guitar.)
When Paul McCartney was asked who the best guitarist was, he said Jimi Hendrix. To be honest, I don't understand why everyone calls him the greatest guitarist. I mean, Hendrix's strength was his deep black voice, his melodies and his blues feeling. Every of the top guitarists like Stevie Ray, Clapton, Beck etc. can play Jimi's tunes but they can't sing like Jimi, embody the blues feeling and compose Jimi's groovy music.
Zep was blues derivitive to the point of just stealing from black blues artists. The Who is way more original and give more at live shows that zep ever will. Im a Whoey
you're leaving off that in the formative days of LZ, Page experimented with Moon and Entwistle as the rhythm section (the LZ name even suggested by Moon)... this seems an important fact.
That discussion happened much earlier , in May 1966 around the time of "Beck's Bolero", not when Page was starting The New Yardbirds/Led Zeppelin in 1968. It came out of a general discussion about a possible future 'supergroup' formed from those involved at the time. The discussion had nothing to do with Zeppelin, Page just utilised the memory of the name from 1966 when he was partly forced into a new name for the "New Yardbirds" because an ex-Yardbird Chris Dreja held the legal right to the Yardbirds name and obtained a 'cease and desist' order for the Yardbirds name in late 1968, after Page's new band (with Plant, Bonham and Jones) had already started performing..
I won’t weigh in on which I like better, but I’ve been familiar with the Who since I was a kid because my dad was a fan. Live, the Who is incomparable.
I am a WHO fan 'til the end, but both bands (saw them both twice, and were louder than hell ,and exciting!) are superior in the studio. ZEPPELIN made great records, and as far as TheWHO goes, QUADROPHENIA is, when all is said and done, their masterpiece. and they both had some live footage that is underwhelming, as well as overwhelming. I absolutely prefer 'the KIDS are ALRIGHT' to 'THE SONG REMAINS THE SAME'. so, the ''Oo are my fave, but I believe the BEATLES are the best Rock band ever .and I happen to believe that LED ZEPPELIN ,for a bunch of Brit white boys, played blues excellently, on such tunes as 'I can't quit you, babe', 'since I've been lovin' you', and 'When the levee breaks', to name a few. separating the legal stuff over songwriting credits from the actual music, I can't see Willie Dixon being unhappy w/ that stuff. he eventually got paid, I think, so that only leaves the music. never heard him comment on it, but I'd like to read something regarding his opinion, strictly musically. I think LZ wrote 'since I've been lovin' you', and Jimmy's guitar playing on that is among the best picking I ever heard. he can play it softly, like BB and Stevie Ray, but he can also come on like a thunderclap. at his best, he is a great musician. and Pete? I've heard his own critics say that when he did less leaping about, and more playing, he was better. I know a very Picky(high standards)guitarist who never spoke highly of him until he heard 'LIVE AT LEEDS' and 'Eminence Front'. I give it up to Page for not being obsessed over Pete's comments. I never got the impression that he's full of himself. the way he was treated by THE BLACK CROWES, and refrained from speaking in public about it (but he ran into their former drummer, and explained for the first time ,in private, what a dick Rich Robinson was ).
@@tonym994 The Beatles were another group my dad listened to when I was growing up. They’re my favorite British band, as far as studio recordings go.
yeah. they transcended Rock and wrote beautiful pop/love songs, but always came back to 'Rock & Roll'. the White album, 'LET IT BE', 'ABBEY ROAD' all had R&R to end their career as a band.
Then You never seen Zep live as I Did !!!!
@@Thataintnothing I’ve seen both on film. The Who is better. Neither is perfect and Jones/Bonham is a great rhythm section, but Entwhistle is a bass virtuoso and Keith Moon is a force of nature.
Plant’s voice is grating many times and Page isn’t the best guitarist, live.
Townshend is clearly joking around - even grinning a little. It was a back handed compliment.
Ok
He's not joking
Pete has always been a bitter old man, even when he was young
@@Trenchant463 I read one of my old Led Zeppelin books from the 1980s when I used to really be into them what Pete said about them as far back as 1970 and he wasn’t really crazy about their music. So what he said is pretty consistent.
*that narcissistic guitar player is clearly joking*
Sure bud.
One were story tellers. The other, adulterers. One was clean with low distortion. The other, raucous with major sawtooth. One appealed more to the intellect. The other, our base passions.
Correct
I lived through the era and saw both the Who and Led Zep around the same time '69-70. They both toured the university circuit and that's when I saw them in Leeds. I was front of stage during the "Live at Leeds" show and likewise saw Zep up close on the small stage. Up until Zep there was always a cool relaxed vibe in the crowd, but with them it was serious with a feeling of tension in the air. I agree with Pete in that I never liked their music much. There was never any comparison in my mind. The groups were of different eras . It would be fairer to compare the Beatles, Stones, Kinks or Small Faces with the Who. 5 years is a long time in the world of teen music, and Zep were part of the next wave.
well said
Bullshit. Beatles, SM remained into 60s. Kinks was on demise in 70s. The Who was a massively important band in 70s too and made its best albums.
@@marguskiis7711 Don't you think @julianb1474 made a good point though? You both seem to have a love and reverence for The Who, as do I. In fact, @julianb1474 is saying that The Who deserves credit for being pioneers during the first wave of British Rock and you are saying The Who deserve credit for remaining relevant in the second wave. And let's face it, The Rolling Stones deserve credit for never stopping!
Exactly: that's what these idiots don't get, and your last line was spot on although i would change it to this :not teen music. SIXTIES music. Five years in the sixties was like twenty-five years compared to now. Moreso, actually. The Who are a SIXTIES band. That's when the pioneering work went on, not the 70s. The 700s was enjoying the new freedoms afforded by the 60s. Jimmy Page was a session musician playing guitar on Petula Clark's dinky DOWNTOWN, while The Beatles were bashing in doors, innovating studio techniques and building a new rock and roll audience, while the Who were smashing up their instruments in small clu bs and Dylan was going electric and stuff that had NEVER been seen or heard before was going down. Not the 10,000th heavy English blues band. named Led Zeppelin, headed up by everyone's least favorite Yardbird. Zeppelin ended up being the best of all those English blues bands (most of whom were lousy) so they get A plus for execution......but a B minus for originality. Definitely when you compare them to The Who.
@@TTM9691 totally agree, the who were constantly trying to break new ground and I’ve always held Quadrophenia as a zenith of rock albums
I love both bands and have all Zeppelin's and most of the Who's albums. When your at this stardom level ego's take over your emotions.
No, he's just expressing his honest opinion and some people get butthurt about it. To compare The Who and Zeppelin is idiotic, always was. One is a pioneering sixties band, the other is one that reaped the benefits of that pioneering work. Zeppelin is a little brother band to The Beatles, The Stones, The Who, Clapton (who REALLY created the Zep template, first with Yardbirds, then Cream), they came WAY after the fact, and they were seen as a ripoff of Jeff Beck Group....which they were! None of those bands were impressed with Zeppelin because they're coming from the perspective of having actually invented shit, rather than just stealing from Moby Grape and Spirit and Bert Jansch and Willie Dixon and a bunch of artists YOU don't know, but THEY know .
Both had Amazing rhythm sections, that’s for sure.
Moon/Entwistle Bonham/Jones 👍
Totally agree with that..
When I try to compare each member as “who’s better”….i just end up saying to myself “what am I doing here?”….I’m a WHO fan but all eight of these guys are just phenomenal musicians and the world is better for it.
Pete Townshend loved Pink Floyd and thought David Gilmour was the greatest musician ever. So it was a matter of taste.
Tough to even compare zep and the who. I personally prefer the who based of their live performances but zep is on Mount Rushmore too. Love them both
You could play any Beatles, Stones, Who, or Zep album and they were good, most were great with a couple of average albums. The amount of great songs by these guys is amazing.
I'm not sure how to explain this. I'm a huge Zeppelin fan, I have all their albums and I'm a big Who fan, I have at least most of their albums, overall I'd say I'm a bigger Zeppelin fan. Okay all that being said, I've seen both bands live (mid 70s) and The Who was absolutely head and shoulders the better live band.
Me too. I agree. Except the thing about owning the albums. Back in the late 60's/early 70's when I shared flats with various other guys, we tended to 'specialise' with different bands in our LP collections. So I had no Zep or Who but was the Johhny Winter/Hendrix/Jazz guy.
But The Who live were the mutt's nuts.
Nevertheless, somehow they managed to play together on Paul McCartney's Rockestra.
He said something similar about the Beatles too. So... The Who were fantastic playing live. Always annoying was the habit of smashing guitars whyle I was struggling to save money for my first Statocaster 😊
I love the who and Pete is brilliant but I will admit that guitar busting shit can still bug me a bit .
Townshend has NEVER said he "hated" The Beatles in fact he's said playing with The Beatles was one of the great moments of his entire life. He's talked about how much he loved "Day Tripper". He's talked about how he wouldn't even be writing if it wasn't for The Beatles. ALL of those guys took pot shots at The Beatles at different times in their career (including the Stones, including Zeppelin, including Zappa, etc), usually in the early 70s, because The Beatles were way up in the stratosphere beyond every other band, they loom above everybody, especially English groups.
He said himself Zeppelin became so much bigger than the Who in a lot of ways. Enough said isn’t it.
Then Pete obviously is not paying attention to the Billboard charts or his royalties because the who had many more songs that hit the top 40 charts especially in America. I think Pete was drunk and talkin some crap. 😁
@@chriskroll4166 - Simple answer. Zeppelin didn't release singles. And they still managed to sell 300 million albums.
@@bcpme8637estimated between 200-300 million
@user-otzlixr I'm drinking things that you could never afford in your lifetime. Must be tough 🙋
@@bcpme86371) Hey Hey, What can I do. Only single 45 . I use to own it . Not sure what it’s worth as a collector item😂
No comparison, artistically completely different bands. I like them both.
I grew up on these two bands in real time and have always loved them both. So sad, the bitter things Pete Townshend has said of Zep through the years, and that bitterness is becoming his legacy.
Err no it isn’t…his legacy is his music! 🙄
@julianhignell8452 The Who was done in the late 70s. When they got their new drummer and started doing pop stuff like Eminence Front they weren't the same. I saw them in the late 90s and they mailed it in. I'm not so sure how great a guitarist Townsend was either
@@williamgullett5911 rock music is not about album sales, or polished hit songs, or popularity. Rock n roll is about great lyrics expressing the times and deep thought, but mostly live performances. Live performances and lyrics is why The Mighty Who is the greatest live band.
@@williamgullett5911 Townshend is a great guitarist. For the last 60 yrs., every yr. Pete has ranked in the top 50, the top 25, or the top 10. Very well respected as s guitar player and singer at the same time, as well as a performer. Jimmy Page can't sing. Nuff said.
@@williamgullett5911 Townshend is one of only 2 legends that can play any instrument at the profrssional level, has a great voice, can play and sing at the same time, can write meaningful hit songs on his own. He has longevity. The other is Paul McCartney. Page can't sing or write like Pete or Paul.
Interesting that several of Zeps contemporaries didnt like them either, K. Richards and Clapton for instance.
It comes down to taste... not just bands but that also includes instrumental and lyrical style. I'm 56... bought a lot more Who then Led...found Led too dark...just like Pink Floyd....oh this will start a riot lol...I will take Who Are You, Can't Explain and Baba O'Reilly any day over anything else....doesn't mean I don't appreciate those other two awesome groups...
I will say this: of what (my opinion) is the big 4 of classic rock-Beatles, Stones, Zep & The Who. The Who are, by far, the best live band.
@@bobbiebaucom2023 all worthy. Sabbath, Kinks, Doors?
@@brgreg8725 Just listen to the music & share the vibe so all can enjoy! ++Peace & Rock n' Roll 4 Your Soul++
@@bobbiebaucom2023 Beach Boys?
@@brgreg8725 The Beach Boys?
The 2 greatest albums of all time. Physical Graffitti and Quadrophenia. Enough said.
Agree!
Oh yes, 2 absolute classic double albums.....wouldn't want to have to choose between them. The whole band comparison (especially Beatles vs Stones) is pretty pointless when you can love them both!
That said.....if I was a chick I'd probably have fancied Plant over Daltrey (but nobody could quite swing a mike like him though😂)
@@dalex8126Daltrey acts like a man on stage. Plant prances around in little girls shirts, lol. Just compare Song Remains The Same, with The Who at the Pontiac Silverdome. Daltrey all over the stage, Plant stomping his feet, humping the mic stand, snapping his fingers every 2 seconds with his palms up and twirling his hair with his index finger screaming, oooo baaaby, oooo baaaby. Just making an observation..
Whos next and the Song Remains the Same
Nah.
FOR ME ITS THE BIG THREE, THE BEATLES, THE STONES AND THE WHO. THOSE ARE THE ROCK PIONEERS FOR ME GROWNING UP IN THE 60'S. LED Z IS DIFFERENT. HOWEVER IF I HAD TO ONLY PICK BETWEEN THE WHO AND LED Z, I WOULD GO WITH THE WHO. WHEN I HEARD THE WHO AS A KID, MY PARENTS THOUGHT I WAS HAVING AN EPILEPTIC FIT. THEY MADE ME GO NUTS. THEY WERE JUST TOO KOOL
Zeppelin was the 70s not the 60s. It's nice that Who fans are here defending Pete's envy but no one I knew (in the 70s) EVER thought the Who were more important than Zeppelin.
@@livingreflection5 Led Zeppelin 1 came out in 1969.
It's actually a complete myth that Page played on "I Can't Explain." Shel Talmy had wanted that, and Townshend adamantly, positively refused. Page DID end up playing on a much more minor Who track, however: He ended up doing the guitar solo on an obscure 1967 B-side, "Bald-Headed Woman." The reason? Page owned the only Fuzzbox distortion unit available in England at the time. So he got the job.
As for the KInks' "You Really Got Me," I personally interviewed Ray Davies in 1995 and he absolutely 100% denied that Jimmy Page was there at that session and/or had anything to do with it. Take that as you will.
Thank you for stating these facts. I ‘ve seen The Who 5 times and The Kinks 6 times. (Ray solo once, Dave twice). What kind of an ego does one have, to allow the I “played on” You Really Got Me and I Can’t Explain myth to even develop.
@reallyluckyoaklawn8306 In fareness to Jimmy Page never heard him state that he played on those songs but other people have claimed that he played on them. Jimmy Page, Richie Blackmore and Big Jim Sullivan played on many studio sessions in the sixties under contract they probably don't know which ones got released or rejected 🤔.
First fuzzbox in UK was probably owned by Jeff Beck , right ?
I've seen the Beatles Stones and many other bands live. Who was by far the best? The Who!!!
Who ??
Yes, the English group the Who delivered the best musical performance.
Zeppelin is in a category of their own
Thievery? Lol
@@harrykadaras9459 Tell me you know nothing about music without telling me you know nothing about music
@@ollie5399 lol...that's funny...my band-mates say otherwise, but thanks for the support!
Overrated
@@harrykadaras9459are you on Spotify?
in my humble opinion, if we are going to compare- Page is a better guitar player than Townshend, but Townshend is a better song writer than Page/Plant/Jones & Bonham combined. Daltrey sings better than Plant but Plant has such a powerful & distinctive voice, it was revolutionary. Bonham is probably the most influential drummer of all time & rightfully so, but my fcking god Keith Moon... nobody could ever duplicate how he played. The speed, timing, rhythm & theatrics. ADHD at its absolute finest. Moon was & forever will be one of a kind.
As far as those two bass players called John hiding from the limelight (who both were also INCREDIBLE song writers)
John Paul Jones is an absolute legend, but he doesn't hold a candle to Entwistle's bass playing & I'll die on that hill.
Well said
R.I.P
Wrong
@@mechanicrainbow2709 Are you dense? How can an opinion be wrong?
I don't think there is any question the Zeppelin had more commercial success than The Who but I think at the height of their powers, The Who were a better live band. I like "The Song Remains the Same", but it's an uneven showcase of cherry picked performances over the course of three evenings. "Live at Leeds" on the other hand is a warts and all live performance that The Who just rip through with minimal editing. We can all agree that LZ was the heavier of the two groups but Live at Leeds showed that Townshend and company could out heavy anyone when they wanted to. Both band legacies are secure at this point in history, it just comes down to who(no pin intended) you like better. As a side note, and I know this will not be in line with other opinions, I think "Who's Next" and "Quadropenia" are the top two albums in both band's discographies.
The who is way better than Led Zeppelin imo. Record sales have nothing to do with the quality of the record
As a teenager in the '60s it never occurred to me that Led Zeppelin and The Who had a rivalry going. Probably because I just didn't like Zeppelin, who I regarded as a white-blues band that lacked any subtlety and were far too loud. I thought The Who were too loud as well but they did, like the Kinks, crank out some great original songs.
Frankly, that stuff we too easily impressed teenagers regarded as "progressive rock" started and ended with Jimmy Hendrix. Mind you, Cream had their moments.
I've been a fan of The Who since 1970 and I think that sometimes Pete Townshend, whom I admire greatly, really wears his heart on his sleeve. Not always a great idea but he seems to do it anyway.
Exactly! And to me there’s nothing wrong with that. Pete has always spoke his mind.
The only times where I’ve gotten a little upset at something he said was when he spoke disparagingly about Keith and John soon after each died.
But as far as Pete not being a fan of Led Zep, big deal! I like Zep, I’m a far bigger Who fan, but I have been a Zeppelin fan for a long time now and I don’t care.
At least he is an honest man. I’d rather hear honesty than people being fake like today
@@Oran_Lee_Bass - I'm pretty sure you got that wrong. Can you be more specific about what he said? He was upset that their use of drugs took them from him, but that's not disparaging them, as humans, artists, or anything else.
@@Oran_Lee_Basshe only paid to browse on that site for “research”. I believe he is honest too.
He needs "a heart to hang on to," of course.
missing from this account: that time Robert Plant asked to join the Who (to replace Daltrey) and when Jimmy Page tried to poach Moon & Entwhistle outta the Who to form "The New Yardbirds." Keith Moon even came up w LZ's name! might've fed into Townshend's attitude
Let's make it clear once and for all: the Who were originators, the Zep built their career on purification of other's musicians' ideas and perfection of style, production and volume.
LZ took many riffs directly from the old blues masters and never gave due credit
I've said many times that the path to a great LZ song is for someone else to write it, and LZ to cover it while _pretending_ to have written it. Dazed and Confused and Whole Lotta Love come to mind, but there are many more.
@@Slo-ryde so did muddy Waters and howlin Wolf and Willie Dixon. Don't kid yourself. Zeppelin didn't invent plagerism . Muddy Waters was doing it back in the fifties when he was borrowing lyrics from old Robert Johnson songs and putting his own name on them. You do your homework. You'll find this to be true. 😁
@@chriskroll4166 I never said LZ invented plagiarism, all I am saying is that they were among the biggest perpetrators in their heyday, while making it seem like they were innovative!
@@Slo-ryde so what's your point then
There is more to it than that - Back in 66/7 is when Page first tried to get 'zeppelin' together and he had Keith Moon on drums and John Entwistle on bass along with Jeff Beck on guitar... It could have been amazing, but then Pete found out and gave Moon/Entwistle and ultimatum and they chose to stay with The Who, shortly after that Page joined the Yardbirds until they fell apart in 68 then of course the Zeppelin we know came to be...
This narrator has a superb voice for documentaries and voice over vids
Thanks 🙂
I love them both. To me their equally great. Zep's got their style & Who's got theirs. Zep is basically a hard rock/blues band but the Who with Petes genius style of blending hard rock with melody beats them in songwriting any day. And I'm a sucker for melody, the heart & soul of music. Anyways rock on guys!!!!
Yeah, I mean, all those "melody-less" songs like -
'Babe, I'm gonna leave you'
'Thank You'
'Tangerine'
'Stairway to Heaven'
'The Rain Song'
'Ten Years Gone'
'Fool in the Rain'
'All My Love'.
I like both bands but Zeppelin makes The Who sound generic and quite ordinary. Frankly it's not even a fair comparison, The Who is simply outclassed musically here. I love Townshend's candid and honest remarks though. There's nothing wrong with what he said.
You say you like both bands, but if you say Zeppelin make The Who sound generic and quite ordinary, you’ve never actually listened to The Who.
They each have their own distinct sound, whichever one you prefer is a matter of taste.
No need to denigrate The Who like that. It sounds childish.
Zeppelin were a sloppy band live
@@robbielux8353 I agree. I think it's because they just winged it a lot of times, like a jazz band. They had their moments though. The '73 Madison Square Garden performance "their live album" is astonishing.
@@robbielux8353 Not so much sloppy as just plainly self-indulgent. You would not catch the Who EVER doing something like a half-hour of "Dazed and Confused" with a screeching violin bow across one's guitar or Keith Moon doing a 15-to-20 minute drum solo like "Moby Dick". The Who were much more self-disciplined live and gave their fans a tighter performance, even though the band could definitely jam when they wanted to.
Both The Who and Led Zeppelin were excellent bands. It is irrelevant what Townshend thinks about Zeppelin. He can be a bit of a weirdo, but yeah... He choose the right profession for sure.
Led Zeppelin also leads the Who on the number of copyright infringement lawsuits... Just saying.
I like LZ but they lifted a lot, and not just some guitar licks or opening chords. They should have been honest about it.
What he hits on in the end is the crux of it I think. Page was a session man who was able to get a better record deal and achieve a higher level of success a lot quicker than The Who did.
No one has ever said that Pete townshend solos is the the greatest of all time 😂
Thats because his guitar playing sticks rigidly to whatever song he is playing, he just cant play solo,s that,s a fact.
Another stupid guy in the world that rock music is only about guitar solos. Go to study music. ..
I love both bands, but I will admit I really didn't start appreciating the Who's music until I was an old man. Its funny, I have both bands CDs in my car & I alternate between listening to them depending on my mood...lol
Well, if I were going to buy a concert ticket for either Led Zep or The Who, it would most definitely be for The Who.
Absolutely. A total no brainer. To sit through twenty minutes of those horrible Jimmy Page solos during "Dazed And Confused" would be hell on Earth, lol.
I think Townshend's dislike of LZ is more down to Page trying to poach Moon and Entwistle for him and Jeff Beck's supergroup. Around 1966 The Who were looking like splitting up, Moon & Entwistle were supposed to go to a recording session incognito, Moon turned up disguised as a cossack, Entwistle didn't show. They ended up recording 'Beck's Bolero' with John Paul Jones on bass. Townshend got wind of this and apparently was less than pleased to say the least.
Sal Talmy has repeatedly said in interview after interview (as did everyone involved in the recording sessions) that Jimmy Page did not play the main riff or the guitar solo on "YOU REALLY GOT ME". Jimmy Page did not play anything on the song "YOU REALLY GOT ME". Jimmy Page did play rhythm guitar and tambourine on the Kinks cover song "LONG TALL SHORTY" and rhythm guitar on the Kinks instrumental "REVENGE", which Jimmy Page later covered & released as a single. These are the facts documented in the recording sessions.
Townshend and Ray Davies should of teamed up and formed a supergroup. Imagine that ! A mash up of The Kinks and The Who.
Led Zeppelin all met each other after years of slogging away in other bands.
Thats not quite right They were called the who and then changed to the high numbers and then went back to being the who.. There are numerous videos here on you tube about it
I think they were the Detours for a hot minute.
I'm not a great fan of either but I like some songs of each and appreciate that they were each very good at what they did. I just never thought of them as doing especially similar things.
Jimmy Page wouldn't have had a Marshall to plug into without Pete.
Jimi copied Pete's rig exactly.
Entwistle is why you have roundwound bass strings and fingerstyle tock playing.
Blonde singer up front, drummer and his kit falling down a flight of stairs round back?
It could only be The Who, until it was everyone.
You forget about the film and musical theatre version of "Tommy," a significant moneymaker that Zep has nothing like. Also the fact that "Baba O'Riley" has been used in hundreds of TV shows and commercials - again, Zep has nothing equivalent.
I am with you 100% Pete! Zepplin ripped Muddy Waters off BIG time.
Well since you went down that plagiarism rabbit hole. First of all. We don't know the origins of most styles of music . Ya, they ALL copied and stole from each other. That's the music industry. Get over it.
Second of all. I have listened to a lot of recorded music produced in the 30's, - the 70's. And the early recordings were not that good. Yes Page did take pieces and made changes. But they were 10 times better than the original recording. And sometimes Zeppelin's final product doesn't even sound the same as the original.
In addition, bands like the Stones and Zeppelin. Introduced America to a form of music that was part of it's own sub culture. In other words, without these bands, that style of music would have NEVER seen the light of day. Ya it would have remained buried.
@@jamesnash6101 "Yes [sic] Page did take pieces and made changes." Yeah, he changed the name of the songwriter from theirs to his. On the song Killing Floor he didn't even bother to change the title.
@@jamesnash6101 LZ got straight busted in court, it can't be argued. Great music no doubt, but you wouldn't want to do business or let your daughters date any rock stars. As for "that style of music would never have seen the light of day". That statement is ignorant. ALL of the Gen1 "British Invasion" band members were born around the end of WW2.
Many British people had fallen in love with American Southern music traditions. The British loved American G.I.s, the American Army was still segregated. Black G.I.s were welcomed in pubs, pretty soon music would break out, music that Brits had maybe never heard before. The late great Staxx records had deals with British record distributors. British families had access to records that didn't get sold in "White" record stores. Some of the kids loved that music, there's James Brown (and other) covers all over a lot of those bands early records. In fact, "Pink Floyd" took their name from two blues musicians Pink Anderson and Floyd Council. He owned their records.
So, music American kids didn't even hear on the radio was being filtered back to them through the UK. British kids loved music American kids didn't know about, LZ stole a lot of homework and changed the name on it. Doesn't change the fact that LZ made some landmark albums, they just need to own up and pay up, like anyone. Thievery is thievery.
What’s your band’s name?
The High Numbers.
The who??
OK, The Who.
Two outstanding pop groups..no need for any comparisons to be made.
Pop LOL
Led Zep is pop? You don't know what you are saying or you know nothing about music.
@@ruelitocayamanda8162 That's true.
In my opinion Page/Pete PAGE, Plant/Roger PLANT, Bonam/ Moon MOON
I've heard Townshend say this in at least a few different interviews, so it wasn't just something he spewed out once in a grumpy mood. And that's fine that he disliked them but if he was not going out of his way to be a jerk should have just kept it to himself. Music fans, just like any other kind of passionate interest, tends to create elitists and camps and a lot of division. You grow out of that eventually but when you're just learning about something and you're young you like to make everything a competition. But for Townshend to say this means he's a real dick. This isn't honesty as apologists would say, it's just being a dick. Pete needs to take some Paul McCartney lessons.
It's not like Townshend volunteered it for the sake of saying it. People ask about it, what it was like, how he feels about comparisons, how he feels about them. So he answers. BECAUSE HE'S ASKED THE QUESTION. And never did he say they weren't good or great, just that they didn't push his buttons.
Nothing dickish about that.
I really like the Who but there's no need in comparison with Led Zeppelin there both all time great rock bands
One thing that I think probably hindered the Who’s chances of taking The Beatles’ throne in the 70’s is the fact that they developed two different, diametrically opposed sonic personalities: one as a studio act, and another as a live act.
From Tommy through to Who Are You, their studio sound became more refined and sophisticated alongside the increasing quality of Townshend’s writing and artistic vision, though these improvements came at the cost of losing the sonic edge that had so defined their early records and made them stand out. As a live act, they managed to keep and increase that same sonic edge, but it would remain essentially lost from their studio albums until 2019.
Zeppelin by contrast always kept a sonic edge both in their studio sound and on the stage. Even their acoustic recordings have it.
Having that common thread is essential for any act.
No one writes lyrics like Townshend
How about Lennon, Dylan, Waters, Waits, Kantner, Slick, Hunter, Jagger, Hendrix, Morrison, and Capaldi? All of whom wrote better, more resonant lyrics than Townshend. And that's just off the top of my head . . .
well said, in this WHO fan's opinion. but why is it that Plant gets none of the credit for all the lyrics he wrote? that's essentially half the song. a ZEPPELIN fanatic friend of mine says it's too derivative of.. that British fairy tale...all I know is, he gets zero credit for outstanding lyrics .like, he's a vocalist and that's that.
@@tonym994 I didn't realize Plant didn't get credit for his lyrics. So the songwriting assignation on the Zep albums concerns only the musical composition? That would be a first, as far as I know. I prefer Zep to the Who, by a longshot, but I will say that Pete's lyrics generally sound better than Robert's. Plant has written some very good lines and passages, but all too often he follows a good line with a clunker.
@@chicklets4ever51 he's not on Pete's level at all. and you know that the listings of all band members really tells us nothing about the music or the words, except that Page doesn't write lyrics. I read in 'CIRCUS' (before it was metal, just a general rock mag), Page was asked about a lyric, he replied, you'd have to ask Robert, he writes the lyrics. when I got a DVD copy of 'the making of PARANOID', I realized that Geezer, not Ozzie, wrote the classics on it. great live, early footage of BLACK SABBATH.
@@tonym994 Maybe Robert is just being modest. He has, on occasion, admitted that he realizes his lyrics are not always up to snuff.
I prefer the Who, both with their records and live appearances.
Me too...seen em both
The argument has always been about focus ,
About what you focus on
Led Zeppelin were recording artists meaning they focused on the Recording performance and replicating that Live
Which the Wolves love and promote and broadcast and praise , due to its easy commercial capabilities
Pete loved performing live
And would get on stage with other bands and just play
Pete was fascinated by the Dead and the Live experience focus
I'm first and foremost a Zeppelin fan, but I love The Who as well. If Pete doesn't like a thing Zep has done, who cares? I'm a huge Zappa fan and he's not too fond of Zep either. So what? I'm not anyone's keeper. These simpy fans who can't have their idols attacked and protect them like they're the best friend they've ever had is ridiculous. Grow up
Funny thing that's ommited it when The Who were flagging in '68, pre-Tommy, that Moonie & Entwistle were on the cusp of jumping to the new band formation, w/ Moonie even, allegedly helping forming the name, saying it was bound to go over like a lead zeppelin..
You do a video comparing the Who and Led Zep but fail to mention that Moon and Entwistle of the Who came up with the name.
I used to listen to both, but it surprised me when I heard Jake Holmes Dazed and Confused. I thought the LZ version was a direct rip off and I was shocked anyone would have the balls to steal a song that was already down in vinyl. I still listen to the Who though.
I love both bands equally. They are my two favorite classic rock bands of all time.
Led for me, but The Who's "Pinball Wizard", I love!
Both bands had great albums but live, The Who dominated the stage from 1967 to 1975. For 60 years The Who is considered to be the greatest live band. That's what rock is all about. Live At Leeds, nuff said.
Live At Leeds kicks Song Remains The Same's ass any day of the week. Plant even used to dress like Daltrey, lol.
@@TTM9691 Live At Leeds was recorded in one night, at one show, one take, and no mixing or overdubbing in the studio. What is on Live At Leeds is the concert.
Zep's SRS was recorded 3 nights, 3 shows, best songs and cuts taken to the studio by Page for 1.5 years to clean up and produce. This is why The Mighty Who is the greatest live band. They set the bar.
@@TTM9691 no, Plant dressed like a little girl. Daltrey acted and dressed like a man.
@@trajan6927 HAHAHAHAHA! High five! Hahahahaha. I love Plant, sorry Robert, but Trajan summed you up pretty sweet! LOL. Dude, you cracked me up with that one. :D
@@TTM9691 if somebody is amazed that plant snapped his fingers with his palms up 5,000 times in SRS and twirled his hair with his index finger, wore stolen little girls shirts, stomped his feet like a little sissy, humped the mic stand while sceaming oo baaby oooo baaaby then they are under suspicion. 😲
As a fan of both bands I found the vid disappointing. No interesting musical comparisons either as players or song writers, just commercial success with a smug bit of sotto voce. What's next? Olivia Newton John was better than John Lennon because she got an OBE and John only an MBE?
I have listened to top 40 all the time in the 60s as a kid. In the mid 70s as a teen I was a total Zep Head. Never once did I see the group in the same vein as the Who. Nothing alike or to compare to.
I owned the Zeppelins Albums and listened to them all the time. I never owned a Who album.
Zep is a chicks band, The Mighty Who is a man's band. Look at the sissy Plant wearing little girls shirts vs the manly man acting with prowess on stage Roger Daltrey.
@@trajan6927 Right, a chicks band that sold 300 million albums. I'll bet that you were not even born when these bands started. You are just wrong
@@thomasmay69 Zep was a chicks band who sold 200 million albums (which is impressive). Zep did not sell 300 million albums. Chicks loved Zep because Plant acted like a woman. I was born in 1955. Nice try youngster. Anybody rememba lafta! 😁
@@thomasmay69 Boys To Men And Back Street Boys were chick bands to that sold a ton of records. Cheers mate.
The "Tommy" album was a bigger deal at the time than "Who's Next" or Quadraphenia." Zepplin was huge at time too.
Apples and Oranges.
Why pick a favorite?
Orémus Y'all.
There's more to the story in general, supposedly John and Keith were supposed join the band before Bonham and JPJ. Both are great bands but the live power of the who is unmatched. Not to knock the quality of their recording efforts. I can listen to every track on every who album. I cannot say the same for LZ. I guess it all comes down to taste.
Keith Moon named them. In the bar with Peter Grant (zep manager)who was telling Moon of the new supergroup Page was forming, to which Moon said of the idea "That'll go down like a Led Zeppelin".
No. That discussion with Moon and Entwistle and Beck happened much earlier , in May 1966 around the time of "Beck's Bolero", not when Page was starting The New Yardbirds/Led Zeppelin in 1968. It came out of a general discussion about a possible future 'supergroup' formed from those involved at the time. The discussion had nothing to do with Led Zeppelin being formed, Page just utilised the memory of the name from 1966 when he was partly forced into a new name for the "New Yardbirds" because an ex-Yardbird Chris Dreja held the legal right to the Yardbirds name and obtained a 'cease and desist' order for the Yardbirds name in late 1968, after Page's new band (with Plant, Bonham and Jones) had already started performing..
Quadrophenia is the best rock album ever done. Period.
having said that, I enjoy both bands, but The Who had a higher artistic level, for me.
I agree with every comment I've read here EXCEPT one HUGE AND DECIDING difference between the two bands people forget: The Who wrote their own music - Zeppelin "appropriated" theirs! In other words, comparing these bands is like comparing apples with ... a photograph of apples!
Keith Moon and John Entwhistle came up with the name Led Zeppelin
KM also came up with the term Third Leg Exercise. The book Full Moon had a whole glossary section of KM isms.
Wrong. That discussion with Moon and Entwistle and Beck happened much earlier , in May 1966 around the time of "Beck's Bolero", not when Page was starting The New Yardbirds/Led Zeppelin in 1968. It came out of a general discussion about a possible future 'supergroup' formed from those involved at the time. The discussion had nothing to do with Led Zeppelin being formed, Page just utilised the memory of the name from 1966 when he was partly forced into a new name for the "New Yardbirds" because an ex-Yardbird Chris Dreja held the legal right to the Yardbirds name and obtained a 'cease and desist' order for the Yardbirds name in late 1968, after Page's new band (with Plant, Bonham and Jones) had already started performing..
Reply
@@philweight3480
Okay. You began with the word “wrong” and then you didn’t contradict a word I said. What part of my statement was supposed to be wrong?
@@robbob5302 They didn't come up with the name Led Zeppelin. In 1966, over 2 years before the Yardbirds split, they suggested that a supergroup (potentially Page, Moon, Entwistle and Beck) would "go down like a lead balloon, in fact a Zeppelin" - the band Led Zeppelin was not even conceived of until 1968 and only named by Page very late that year. The original comment bore no relation to naming Led Zeppelin. Page merely dug up the memory of that comment when choosing a name.
Led Zep where never heavy metal. They where heavy rock, could a heavy metal band write songs like The Battle of Evermore, Tangerine or Kashmir.???
Tbh I love the Who, but for some reason Led Zeppelin just dont move me in anyway shape or form. I've been listening to rock music for 30 years and in that time not a single note of Led Zep has reverberated with me.
...go on to overshadow The Who, by some margin....???!!! Bite your tongue! LZ didn't write the 1st rock opera, ( and third + Quadraphenia) Not blues, real songs. Teenage Wasteland, etc. The Who wins.
the argument over who has the better band will continue forever. It doesn't matter if they are both from the same era or even similar styles. People (some) will have a preference for one over another. Stuff like this constantly goes through my mind when I think back to one band opening for another and wondering why / how they got chosen. The Monkeeys opening for Hendrix, Beach Boys opening for Chicago or Moody Blues... the list goes on. I feel a little contrast is good, but sometimes I wonder if too much is good or bad.
They're NOT from the same era, nor do they have similar styles. One is a pioneering band, the other enjoys the freedoms afforded by that pioneering work, plain and simple. I mean, Zeppelin was NAMED by one of the members of The Who, for chrissake.
@@TTM9691.... Not from the same era? They were playing on the same stage in the 60s and 70s. Well, not The Who and Zep, which is the point of the video.
It was Hendrix opening for the Monkees. I'm old enough that I remember. Pretty funny
@@thomasmay69 I stand corrected. Must have been the brown acid, eh? BTW, I was at shows where The Beach Boys opened for Chicago and another for the Moody Blues. Sometimes I think they just look to see who is on town and throw a dart to pick one. SMH
One word: jealous. And that's fine! Who wouldn't be? Led Zeppelin is the pinnacle of guitar and drum-based music. It does not go up from there. The sheer nerve someone must have to possess to watch, for example, Dazed and Confused @ MSG 1973 from start to finish, look me in the eye and tell me there is a superior iteration of a rock band. The Who are fine, decent. A very respectable outfit and an asset to the British sixties scene. But come on, Zeppelin were once in a millennia lightning in a bottle. If you know anything about musical theory, exploring the full potential of instruments, songwriting, performing music, performing music _ensemble_, this isn't even a debate.
@ollie5399 No, it isn't a debate because Zeppelin couldn't write lyrics to save their souls. All they did was reiterate sexual blues and medieval sorcery cliches in their lyrics, and "Dazed and Confused" @MSG 1973 is the epitome of '70's self-indulgence rock. A half-hour long, with Plant screeching like his groin is being tightened in a vice? Not to mention Page sawing away on his guitar with a violin bow, rendering it completely unlistenable. And then there's Bonham pounding away like a caveman assaulting his drums as though he had clubs in his hands. I'll admit it - I just can't understand the fascination with Zeppelin. And I've tried over and over again to get it, but I just can't. I want good lyrics, melody, memorable verses that will stay with me and get me through certain moods I may be in...things like that. And I get none of that with Zeppelin. With the Beatles, the Stones, the Who and the Kinks, I can listen to their music and feel both joy and sadness, and I can laugh or cry. With Zeppelin, I just feel numb and emotionless. Zeppelin's music is not music to reach one's inner soul. At least it isn't to me.
@@robertbykowski1398 So what I take from that is that you prefer pop music (or, guitar based pop music of that era), for its texture and structure, as well as more relatable lyrical subject matters. Fair enough, many people do! I guess Beatles/Stones/Kinks vs the more experimental/blues/jam-based LZ material is chalk and cheese really. I do like the Beatles and Kinks (less so the Stones), but without wishing to sound arrogant and snobbish, I just find the musicality of it all really humdrum. With just an intermediate level of musical training, you can easily understand everything going on in a Beatles song; every predictable chord sequence and drum pattern. The Who were a little bit more abstract and further towards the Zeppelin end of the spectrum, I think, which is maybe why Townsend took a particular interest enough to get a bee in his bonnet about what they were capable of. The key thing about Zeppelin regardless of if it's one's cup of tea was that they really were four absolute master musicians, to an unprecedented level. Absolutely nobody has been able to play together and create anything like it before or since. In some parts of their material they took what the instruments were capable of to a level people today are still unable to wrap their brains around, and that does the job at reaching my inner soul.
@ollie5399 Yes, it does go up from there. Not only the Who, but the Jimi Hendrix Experience and Cream were both superior to Zeppelin. Again, listenability is a key factor.
Beatles most successful and influential, greatest songwriting team and band of the 60's. Stones probably deserve title, "greatest rock band" although I prefer The Who. Zep band of the 70's most popular. The Who greatest live band, Isle Of Wight, nuff said. Townshend and McCartney are two of the most talented, over all greatest singer songwriters, performers, and can play any instrument at the professional level. 😊
This isn't news. So many of Zepp's contemporaries couldn't bring themselves to say that they liked them because of the fact that Zepp totally dominated the 70s. I really wished that Hendrix was around during this time because he was fawning over other musicians like Chicago's Terry Kath and even the Beatles. It was not uncommon for Hendrix to cover Sgt. Peppers during his live set. He loved collaborating with other musicians and recording those sessions. It would have been interesting to have Hendrix work with Page.
Jimi was a noble soul.
I’ve always thought that had Hendrix lived his full quota he might have gravitated more towards jazz and fusion, t least for a while, which was where many of the more accomplished musicians found themselves in the 70s. Can you imagine a more mature Hendrix with Weather Report, especially when Jaco Pastorius was their bass player? And what about the Jimi Hendrix/Stanley Clarke album that never happened. We can only speculate but I wouldn’t have been surprised had his virtuosity taken him down that road.
@@francispower1418 Yes, I agree. At the time Hendrix died, there was already discussion between Jimi and Miles Davis, who had just "gone electric," about collaborating. Can you imagine? Miles once called Jimi "the John Coltrane of electric guitar."
@@francispower1418 Jimi was definitely all about experimenting with new sounds. To be able to hear him play with Jaco would have been nuts. So much virtuosity in the same band! I know that Jaco was incorporating lots of different types of world music into his bass playing. Like Jimi, Jaco was a genius who was gone too soon.
Hendrix would have never worked with Page. He started to hate the life and wanted to get into experimental music not rehash old blues. From what I've read Hendrix wanted to get into fusion and jam with jazz greats.
He liked the way the Beatles stopped touring and pushed the boundaries in the studio. He grew tired of people screaming "Purple Haze" all the time.
I was just introduced to your channel! You are extremely likable my friend… very entertaining and educational so I shall do all I can to inform the masses of this hidden gym! Not for long will is be hidden…🤔….😳….😁keep up the good work!👌🏻