Jethro Tull vs Led Zeppelin

DiamondDog wrote: Atavachron wrote: tary wrote: of course, Jethro Tull!!!!!!!!! Thick as a Brick , a Passion Play, Aqualung, Songs from the Wood, Heavy Horses and so many other genius albums! Jethro Tull would beat OVERRATED Led Zeppelin with just Thick As A Brick! Tull never stole music unlike Zeppelin, whose best songs are just stolen from earlier blues bands! no need to post twice--  Tull stole plenty of music, they were a blues/folk/rock band and as most bands based in those mediums, like say Zeppelin, they derive not just inspiration but a good deal of material;  they lift, poach, borrow, and flat-out steal sometimes.   So did the Stones, Hendrix, Cream.   Oh and the countless bands since that take from Zeppelin itself. According to Tull's manager, the title and idea for "Living in the Past" came from a Clouds song in the Scrapbook album. Then again, I wouldn't say Jethro was particularly guilty of robbing Peter, Paul, and Mary, the band seems very generally very original to me.

You mean as opposed to Zep, one of the most unique groups of the late 60s ?

It's most definitely a recorder.

That's a tough call,while both bands had their respective roots in folk,blues and rock. Tull was much more of a prog' band.Zep' as latter albums can attest to were more interested in playing music in a rock context.I don't think you can compare the two really,they both are outstanding bands in their own right

Edited by Lifeofprog - October 19 2012 at 13:09

Jethro by far. Come on. Thick as a Brick and Aqualung. Zep can't compete with that kind of musicianship

progbethyname wrote: Jethro by far. Come on. Thick as a Brick and Aqualung. Zep can't compete with that kind of musicianship

I don't neccesarily disagree with that but then, JT also had the luxury of at least more musician (and my Madison square garden DVD has a line up of six musicians) which does make a difference.  Anyhow, as between Plant and Anderson, I know who I prefer and I can't say I prefer Page over Barre, for all that the former is such an influential figure in rock.  Cannot call Barlow v/s Bonham, both amazing.  

I find both a bit excessive in different ways.   There's a bit too much of showmanship and not enough composition for my liking, but that's just me and I always say that over the top bands have a place in rock and are quite an important part of the package.  I think the fact that Anderson is so versatile gives Tull more options vis-a-vis LZ and their sound is also more British than LZ, which I like. 

Zeppelin I crave often.  Tull bores me now, though I enjoyed them when I was a kid. 

Zep for me. I like Tull, but they're not quite as important to me. Zep were one of the first rock'n'roll bands i started idolizing (as I'm sure they were for many)

Jethro Tull. Led Zeppelin have made a number of songs I love dearly ("The Battle of Evermore", "Stairway to Heaven", "No Quarter", "Achilles' Last Stand", to name a few), but Jethro Tull have made more and they're more consistent on an album basis. There's no Led Zeppelin album that comes close to Aqualung and Thick as a Brick and probably only one (Houses of the Holy) that surpasses Songs from the Wood and Heavy Horses.

I find Tull a lot more interesting. Most of their 70's stuff is fantastic. Brick, Aqualung, Heavy Horses, Passion Play, SFTW, Stormwatch. All great albums, though APP can get a bit dull in certain moments.

Tull a definite for me