The Who > Led Zeppelin

The Who > Led Zeppelin

Prove me wrong

i can't because that's true

Not enough >s

Well, yeah.

But you're right. Zeppelin are awful.

Why try to disprove the truth

Objectively correct.

Why does Sup Forums hate Led Zeppelin so much?

Never heard of the who

The who?

Literally who

the who is my fav band so I'm bias

Who is the bigger nonce?

have you guys ever listened to The Who? It's ass dad rock compared to Led Zeppelin

Because being a contrarian dipshit makes you a Patrician on this board.

You can't because The Who are patrician and on the level of The Velvet Underground in terms of how much they impacted rock, except they have more than 2 good albums.

Nah, the Who are Art Rock disguised as Dad Rock while Led Zep is full-blown buttrock half the time

>implying

even a retard will tell you otherwise holy fuck

I really like Zeppelin, but the Who are a lot better.

The Who is Art Rock and set the blueprint for a shitton of styles (power pop, noise rock, synthesizers as a main instrument, arena rock...), as well as influencing loads of stuff - particularly prog rock.

The issue is that since they set up the blueprint for arena rock, Sup Forums thinks they are arena rock.

Yeah, because only a retard would think Zep are better than the Who

...

Zeppelin wrote catchier and stronger hooks than any other classic rock band of that era.

The level of diversity in their sound throughout their career far exceeds The Who, and Zeppelin never caved into making there sound poppy.

The production and overall tone of Zeppelin's music is of higher quality than The Who.

Zeppelin doesn't pad their albums with filler.

To say the very least if you admire The Who's music you can't deny Led Zeppelin has all of the same qualities.

>Strong musicians at every end
>Huge amount of emotion compared to other classic acts
>Kept pushing their barriers while still being the world's most popular bands

I agree.

Pete Townsend's songwriting though.
Also, the Who's pop is god-tier.

>vocals
Roger Daltrey >>>>>>>> Robert Plant
>guitar
Jimmy Page > Pete Townshend
>bass
John Entwhistle >>>> John Paul Jones
>drums
Keith Moon > John Bonham

>songwriting
Pete Townshend > any of the members of Zeppelin

>multi-instrumentalist
John Paul Jones > any of the members of The Who

Queen >>>>>>> Led Zeppelin

To be fair to Led Zeppelin, they were quite good at their style, but The Who innovated a lot more. And every time I come to one of The Who's albums I end up finding new stuff I missed on the first listen.

The Who is so middle of the road "rawk" that it isn't even funny. Any of the 6 first Zeppelin albums destroy Who's Next. The guys couldn't write killer riffs no matter how hard they tried. They are the exact definition of "dadrock" and "muh concept album".

The one with the smaller dick.

I really like Led Zeppelin, but The Who are so obviously better.

I wholeheartedly agree

Quadrophenia is better than anything Zeppelin did.

If you think The Who are bland MOR dad rock then you're not listening to them right

Only nu-males love concept albums

>MUH RIFFS


Is that your sole metric for evaluating music? They're trying to do completely different things.

Quadrophenia, Who's Next, Live at Leeds, and The Who Sell Out are better than any Zeppelin album. Physical Graffiti is their best album.

Do we all agree that the Live at Leeds version of Tommy is superior to the album version of Tommy?

Fuck off clunge

They are in the middle between those to styles, they bring the hard rocking sound with accessibility. Nothing innovative but just safe garbage.

100%

It is a my metric for hard rock you dumbass. So what do you evaluate them on? Lyrics? Are you some kind of faggot? No wonder you think The Who are better.

>Physical Graffiti
>their best
That alone pretty much defines how shit your taste is

>hard rock

Is their any worse umbrella term in all of rock music?

Please don't tell me you think that steaming pile IV is better.

Doesn't matter which, they're both best listened to from Tommy's perspective.

The who were the bland type of "hard rock" like it or not, and it's not an umbrella term, it is an actual subgenre. Do you really think The Who were art rock just because of "muh epic cheesy climaxes"?

The Who aren't a hard rock band you dumb fucking retard. That's not their playing style. That's like bitching Bob Dylan didn't have any power ballads.

How can one man be so fucking retarded. Learn the fucking genre you profess to love idiot.

Yeah we get it, you are just a contrarian normalfag who thinks that everyone who says that Physical Graffiti is bland filler must love IV by default...

Their best was and will always be their debut.

No. Hard rock encompasses everything from Rush, to the Ramones, to Paul McCartney and Wings, to Metallica. None of those bands have anything in common other than guitar, bass, and drums.

>boring blues rock

It's still better than anything by the Rolling Stones I guess. Aerosmith's debut was better though.

The Who never made an album better than Exile on Main Street.

Exile isn't even the best Stones album (Let It Bleed), and almost every Zeppelin album is better than that... (and you already know how I feel about Zeppelin)

Maybe you should learn about genres you fucking neanderthal. Like it or not The Who were first a mod band who later evolved into bland hard rock with some art rock-ish influences here and there.

If Wings is hard rock then The Who is too. And by Metallica I hope youbare referring to their Load and Reload era.

>boring blues rock
They rock harder than the literally who sorry senpai

I didnt say that the Who arent "hard rock", I was saying that hard rock is a really terribly organized "genre" because Emerson Lake and Palmer and Motorhead (both considered hard rock) are not the least bit similar.

>dadrock

harder =/= better
Ever.

Disturbed rocks harder than The Beatles.

>memerap

You're literally comparing two different bands with two vastly different musical ambitions and saying "WHY DIDN'T X DO Y".

"The Who" were never going to put out Led Zeppilin style tracks and visa-versa. This comparison you're making is so incredibly stupid that only a shit-for-brains autist who spends all his time on a Bangkok Croquet Discussion board could think it up. Maybe try being less autistic for once so that you actually appear to know what you're talking about instead of foaming at the mouth with the incomprehensible bullshit you call an argument. Fuck off and stop posting.

they made 2

Actually the Ramones got their name from Paul McCartney's pseudonym when checking into hotels (Paulie Ramone)

:)

I only glanced at this thread to see what kinds of plebs would go out of their way defend Led Zepplin.

Needless to say, OP, you basically stated the obvious!

The Who borrowed heavily from American Jazz, while Led Zepplin did nothing than A)Rip off Cream's sound and style, (Especially Cream in concert) and B) not only stole other people's songs, but put their own name on the song writing credits. No wonder they got sued by Willie Dixon and surviving members of Spirit.

Plus The Who are grounded in reality while Led Zepplin is nothing more than escapist fantasy.

Only a retard would think Zeppelin is buttrock

Hahahah fani smart comeback cuz they play harder!!!!1

Boring is not an argument, you are juat way too beta to enjoy Led Zeppelin. Any album by The Who today is insanely outdated and cheesy compared to anything previous to Physical Graffiti.

I do enjoy Zeppelin, but there are many better 60s/70s rock bands and The Who is easily one of them.

I can't. One of my favorite bands. I guess I like dadrock because Pink Floyd is my 2nd favorite

>as if there was anything wrong with that

everybody knows my generation, behind blue eyes or teenage wasteland

led zeppelin on the other hand? stairway to heaven. outside of youtube cults nobody gives a shit, their songs are just not memorable or original. good? yes, but even the who's drummer is more charismatic and remarkable than the output of these dudes

>Being embarrassed for liking Pink Floyd

Holy shit I hate this fucking board so much.

You just think the only type of "hard rock" is the Zeppelin type of hard rock. You know you can play hard rock and have a myriad of musical influences than will end up defining your sound, right? That's why you'll find that Yes and King Crimson were both progressive rock, but they had a complete different vision and musical direction.

The only autistic idiot is you who gets terribly upset and can't bring anything worth of substance to the discussion but just "i am right and you are wrong REEEE".

they just aren't as good as yes or kc, unfortunately...

Are you fucking retarded?

>Good times, bad times
>When the Levees Breaks
>Achillies Last Stand
>Baby I'm Gonna Leave You
>Immigrant Song

>Not Memorable.

Jesus christ that is one of the dumbest fucking things I've ever read on this board. Good fucking god.

You retard theres
Black dog
Imigrant song
Kashmir
The ocean
Good times bad times
Dazed and confused
Heartbreaker
Ramble on

They are, but OK

Fun fact for all you Led Zep fans: Babe I'm Gonna Leave You is a JOAN BAEZ song!

You probably all think Judas Priest also wrote Green Menalishi and Diamonds and Rust. (Bot are Fleetwood Mac and Joan Baez, respectively)

>teenage wasteland

Holy fucking shit look at this pleb

no they aren't

Yes actually kind of sucks, and King Crimson is really good but very overrated on Sup Forums. Rush is better that both (by a lot.)

All of My Love. Easily every normie girl's fav Zep song.

You know, the funny thing is, people on this board, and elsewhere too, all shit on these older bands and whatever, and yet, they're the only ones who really inspired me to take up guitar and actually be interested in music.

Don't get me wrong, I listen to some new stuff but none of it has the talent or emotion that a lot of older rock bands have.

please explain to me how fragile and close to the edge "suck" you sick fuck

Yes is just boring man. Great musicians, but bad songwriting like Genesis.

Alan Parsons Project and Emerson Lake & Palmer is the same thing but with good songwriting.

i can give you when the levee breaks but everything else that you listed sounds the same and if you catch them on radio its impossible tell one from another

led zep fans lets be honest here, these guys didnt evolve at all most of their discography just sounds so samey and formulaic, its like face blindness on the music sense - loud snares, plant whining, riff starts playing ah every single one

how come Yes's music is so full of joy and deep feelings then?

Because that's your opinion, and I respect that.

The number of times people have dissed The Who as dadrock here is actually pretty incredible. And considering they were experimenting with deliberate feedback-based solos in 1965, that's actually pretty surprising.

I guess old things just aren't good enough. That's the only thing that makes sense. It has to obscure and new to be "good"

Only if you're delusional.

If you think all led Zeppelin songs sound the same you're a musical retard. They all sound very different

Music is fucking wasted on someone as dumb as you.

but wait, are you telling me you don't shed hot golden tears to the climactic "I GET UP, I GET DOWN"?

How do you feel about Old and Wise by the Alan Parsons Project? Thats a tear jerk experience.

>Holy fucking shit look at this p̶l̶e̶b̶ bait

Because like half of the people here just like to be contrians/have a totally shit taste in music.

i think the who reached greater heights musically but LZ is more consistent and has less total shit in their catalog

Dad > Rock

prove me wrong

Fantastic cherry picking. That's from their first album and the song is much more focused on the instrumentals. Compare the lyrics from something like the rain song.

Stairway,black dog,Kashmir,good times bad times and, communication breakdown are all pretty well known. The who have teenage wasteland and who are you the rest is somewhat irrelevant. The who are good but Led Zeppelin is infinitely more well known.