Led Zeppelin. My first true music love.

I happen to love everything LZ have done, from start to finish, but i gotta vote Rush, they are the masters of the universe!

I'll go for Rush as I find Led Zeppelin too sloppy. Still Led Zeppelin got groove.

LZ certainly deserve credit for pioneering and influencing a few genres in the late 60's and early 70's, and for providing inspiration for a number of great bands (including Rush). Their musicianship is outstanding. But, I never really liked LZ - neither in the 70's, nor now. 

To my progressive rock palate, there is a little too much of the rock n' roll and blues filler noise in the LZ music. Also importantly, LZ fizzled out a generation ago, whereas Rush's "horn of plenty" has continued to churn out top quality stuff for nearly 4 decades now.  

Some may disagree, but I think the Led Zeppelin folks attracted much publicity for the wrong reasons, like drug abuse, dabbling in the occult and drinking vodka for breakfast.   

Has to be Rush

Dayvenkirq wrote: So far I haven't heard a single Rush song that actually works for me (Maybe save for 'Limelight' ... maybe).

Tom Sawyer is usually mentioned as "the other hummable one".

However, the true worshipers of Rush are said to be able to hum the 20 minutes of The Fountains of Lamneth, forwards and backwards. 

But seriously, compared side-by-side, I think the only category Zeppelin can claim victory in would be innovation, because they essentially co-fathered the whole genre of hard rock and heavy metal. At the same time Rush, while being enormously prolific and influential band, haven't really co-fathered anything I know of.  

In other categories Rush wins (in my book, anyway)

Gerinski wrote: Respecting the fact that LZ were a main influence for Rush (and so many others), I find that the alumns have greatly surpassed their teachers.   Geddy has become a better bassist than JPJ (ok not a better keyboardist), Lifeson has become a better guitarist than Page and Peart has become a better drummer than Bonzo, and they have composed many more hours of great music than LZ ever did.   So Rush without a doubt.   I'm actually baffled that the poll result is being so even.

I would even double-down on what you said: to a considerable degree, the Zeppelin's name recognition is linked, unfortunately, to what is nowadays politically-correctly called "controversies" (no such thing as bad publicity). Mention Led Zeppelin to a bunch of random people who grew up in '70s-80s and ask them what comes to their minds, and I guarantee, half of them will say either "Bonham, quaffing vodka for breakfast' or 'Sweet Satan, ever so cleverly backmasked in Stairway to Heaven' (wink, wink).  

At the same time, Rush is probably one the sanest and best-behaving bands in the world. No messy divorces. No drugs. No occult stuff. This means that 100% of Rush's fame has to have been earned by just making music, which is a great achievement. 

The Dark Elf wrote: [ I believe this is the first time anyone has ever extolled the virtues of a rock band for getting Boy Scout badges for sobriety. Unless they're selling cookies door to door, who cares? In addition, I would add that the album Led Zeppelin IV alone selling 32 million copies worldwide has relatively nothing to do with how much the band drank, backward masking or messy divorces, nor would any of that be the topic of discussion when their music is mentioned by folks such as me who listened to the albums when they were first released. Nearly every band partied their asses off in the late 60s/early 70s - it was not very shocking nor did anyone care except for Mary Whitehouse.  The Beatles, The Stones, The Who, Pink Floyd, Hendrix, Morrison, Clapton, etc., were all stoned out of their gourds, but because there was very little media at the time (in comparison to today's Internet and 24 hour cable TV), one only got this type of information in brief glimpses, like when Keith Richards got arrested for heroin, or when a rock star overdosed, or when Jim Morrison exposed himself on stage, or when John Lennon had an interview (and you knew he was stoned!).

I, actually, do care if someone is ruining their (and other people's) lives with alcohol and drug abuse. And so should you. You mention Hendrix and Morrison (and Bonham by implication) ... do you recall how they died? This is why you should care.

Now, there is this zombie apocrypha that a little "pharmaceutical assistance" may help enhance productivity, at least in some individuals. It might, or it might not.

In fact, long-term the stimulant vs. productivity formula could well work out the other way around - if someone develops let's say a caffeine habit (like many of us do), they may feel worn down and unable to concentrate for the sole reason that they haven't had their coffee for a while! And then the cup of coffee comes and miraculously fixes the problem that wouldn't exist without it in the first place. 

Did Liszt, Vivaldi or Bach had to snort or smoke funny stuff to create their body of work?

Also, for better or worse, celebrities are heroes and often role models to their fans; if you accept the worship and the $$$ from millions of admirers, you at the very least should assume responsibility for what your influence does to their lives.  

Argonaught wrote: I, actually, do care if someone is ruining their (and other people's) lives with alcohol and drug abuse. And so should you. You mention Hendrix and Morrison (and Bonham by implication) ... do you recall how they died? This is why you should care.

Yes, I am well aware how they died, and it is very tragic. But I do not laud them for their drug abuse, nor do I care that Rush are as clean as four grandmothers drinking tea while playing bridge. The point I disagreed with was when you inferred that notoriety surrounding Zeppelin's partying somehow translated into record sales while Rush was successful on their music alone. That claim is specious at best.

Argonaught wrote: Now, there is this zombie apocrypha that a little "pharmaceutical assistance" may help enhance productivity, at least in some individuals. It might, or it might not.

Some bands swore by it, like The Beatles, The Doors, The Stones and Floyd, while others like Tull and Rush eschewed drugs. I don't believe there is any empirical evidence to support the claim, but many of the greatest rock albums ever recorded were done under the influence - just as many sub-par performances were a result of it. But in regards to Zeppelin, please remember that John Bonham died of alcohol poisoning, not drugs. Which brings us to your next point:

Argonaught wrote: Did Liszt, Vivaldi or Bach had to snort or smoke funny stuff to create their body of work?

Well, Mussorgsky drank himself to death by the age of 42 (going to extremes being a shared attribute of many Russian artists during that period as well), Beethoven was a notable drunk, and it is believed that Liszt's psychological problems stemmed from alcoholism. I do not know of the availability of pot or coke in previous centuries, but I do know that many classical composers or musicians were prone to sexual escapades that would have fit right in with any rock band (Hugo Wolf, Schubert and Scriabin had syphilis, and it is believed Mozart, Beethoven and Schumann did also). Alcohol was the drug of choice in earlier times, so let's not put classical composers on any pedestal unless it is an orchestral podium.

Argonaught wrote: Also, for better or worse, celebrities are heroes and often role models to their fans; if you accept the worship and the $$$ from millions of admirers, you at the very least should assume responsibility for what your influence does to their lives.