Who or Zep for fav live act
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
Forum Description: Discuss bands and albums classified as Proto-Prog and Prog-Related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=64831
Printed Date: December 29 2024 at 01:21
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Who or Zep for fav live act
Posted By: Dr. Occulator
Subject: Who or Zep for fav live act
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 17:29
|
In their heyday who do you think was the most dynamic live band, The Who or Led Zeppelin? In my book they both exuded great power, charisma and musicianship along with great songwriting. ------------- My Doc Told Me I Have Doggie Head. |
Replies:
Posted By: Hercules
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 17:48
|
I didn't think Led Zep were that good live - they were a bit messy and rather disappointing. And I've never been a fan of The Who. So I can't vote for either of them. ------------- A TVR is not a car. It's a way of life. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 18:01
|
Zep were messy and often disappointing, 'tis true, and though I only saw the Who much later in their career (early 80s), I suspect they were more consistent and professional on stage. However, as a former Zep bootleg collector, even on a 'bad' night - say when Plant's voice was not cooperating or Page could barely stand - I think they gave more in their performances. The band loved to play together and the chemistry was so incredible and explosive, the creative electricity made possible by that particular combo so undeniable, and the range of things they could do with Page and Jones' studio background and experience so large. Zep was ambitious if sometimes overwhelmed by their own music, and it was quite a thing to witness. And when it all worked, whether a 25 minute 'No Quarter' with Jonsey taking an extended grand piano break or an extraordinary version of D&C, their performances and spontaneous inventions out did most other acts, even cats as Floyd and Yes. |
Posted By: J-Man
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 18:11
|
I've never seen either of them live, so I can't vote. From live albums alone, I think Zeppelin is a better live act because they improvise and have great chemistry, but I can't really vote. -Jeff ------------- 
Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime |
Posted By: progmatic
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 19:48
|
I saw Zeppelin in the late 70s and they were already past their prime; I saw Heart in concert the same year and they sounded more like Zep in their prime than Led Zeppelin themselves. Plant couldn't hit the high notes anymore, Page was sloppy, but Bonham and Jones were still great. Then saw the Who in mid-80s and they too were on the downside of their career, but were still good. In their prime, though, Zep was the best (based on live recordings I've heard). ------------- PROGMATIC |
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 19:59
|
Never seen them live, but as far as live albums, I think Zep pulled off a heavier and more diverse performance than what they're used to do in studio, while The Who were also far more heavy and powerful than in the studio. However, that's as far as their 70's performances, when I listened to The Live at the Royal Albert Hall by The Who, I couldn't believe that at a such late stage they still could pull off such an amazing live performance even without Keith.
The Who gets my vote.
|
Posted By: Kashmir75
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 23:44
Too young to have seen Led Zep live (I'm 27, they broke up two years before I was born). But I've heard many of their live recordings. They sounded phenomenal live, in my opinion. Wish I was there to see it. 
I have actually seen the Who!
 They came down here to Australia for the entertainment at the Melbourne Grand Prix last year! I know they're not in their prime anymore, and John and Keith are dead, but it was a great show. Enjoyed it a lot. Roger can still scream with the best of them, and Pete can still play a mean guitar. They sound a lot more heavy and powerful live than on the records. It was a great honour seeing them, as I didn't think I'd ever get a chance to. I have also heard their older live material, like Live at Leeds and the Isle of Wight performance in '70. They really were quite a live force to be reckoned with back in the day.It's hard to make a choice. Both were great in the studio, both were great live (from what I can tell from the recorded live material) ------------- Hello, mirror. So glad to see you, my friend. It's been a while... |
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: February 04 2010 at 13:33
|
I saw Zeppelin at Knebworth at their final UK gig. In spite of being young and very excited, I thought they were absolutely awful, and no amoubt of listening to live albums or clips has changed my mind since. The Who, on the other hand, are quite probably the most dynamic and exhilarating live band of all time - seen them three times, and I hope to see them many more even yet. ------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time! |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: February 04 2010 at 14:10
The problem is surely with you not with them, as the same material can make people - like me, but not only - stand in awe  The footage included in the DVD may be better than the rest of the concert, but still, that version of Achilles Last Stand is to these humble ears not only their best ever performance, but the best ever rock performance of any band  |
lazland wrote:Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: February 05 2010 at 17:56
|
^ I think you're both correct-- by 1979 there is little doubt the band had past a point where playing together was the magic it was even just two years earlier ('77 was one of their greatest tours along with '75, '71 and '68/69), and it's unclear what led to that point but we can assume a combination of unfortunate realities; Bonham and Page's various addictions, the tragic death of Plant's son during the final leg of the North American '77 tour, and a lot of bad blood in the music biz surrounding the band. It must've taken a toll. On the other hand they indeed had some great moments and were actually quite tight in '79 if sounding a bit anemic. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: February 06 2010 at 09:01
|
of course I've never seen either in their prime in the flesh... but general consensus is among those that have... and the history books tend to back it up that no one... not even Zeppelin touched the Who for a greatest live band. Again... simply watch the Stones 'Rock and Roll Circus' That is everything a live performance should be... the Who completely embarrassed one of the greatest rock bands of all time to the point where they hid the complete performance for years. what is interesting.. if off topic... is among people I've talked to who saw live shows during the era. ELP is mentioned as one of the best concerts and live acts they EVER saw. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: The Runaway
Date Posted: February 06 2010 at 10:54
|
As one who's seen Zep live and once grinded The Who live videos, I can easily say Zep. Maybe it's because I saw them in real life, but their performance was so great and unique, it's one i'll never forget. ------------- http://www.formspring.me/Aragorn224" rel="nofollow - Trendsetter win! The search for nonexistent perfection. |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: February 06 2010 at 14:30
 |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: February 06 2010 at 14:57
Thought about it for quite a while, but it's just impossible. They both have formidable strengths. When you match each member up to their counter in the other group, it gets NO easier
------------- ...that moment you realize "Mob Rules" is better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Posted By: himtroy
Date Posted: February 06 2010 at 14:59
|
Really don't like Zep live. They had some good live stuff early on, but most of the time it was just sloppy jamming that seemed to go nowhere (I love jam bands, they just weren't good at it). Them "jamming" is everyone repeat everything while Page solos for twenty minutes. Never been a big Who fan, so no vote. However, their performance on Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus is pretty amazing.
|
Posted By: himtroy
Date Posted: February 06 2010 at 15:02
Couldn't disagree more. Achilles Last Stand from that period just shows me how much smack Jimmy was shooting. He never goes more than 15 seconds without making horridly obvious mistakes.
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: February 06 2010 at 15:08
Obviously your opinion is biased by this
|
Posted By: himtroy
Date Posted: February 06 2010 at 15:12
Biased? Biased is a term used when irrelevant points are brought up. I think the fact that he constantly ****s up is a very legitimate factor in their quality live. I'll admit that Zeppelins early concerts were fine, but my god were those 78-on concerts painful to watch.
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: February 06 2010 at 15:33
Yeah I don't know, I'm not a native English speaker and I didn't even knew this word before finding this forum a few years ago. The idea was that you may find that concert bad because you don't like them. |
Posted By: himtroy
Date Posted: February 06 2010 at 16:10
| But I do like them, I think they're overrated, but I used to listen to Zeppelin a lot and still enjoy their studio albums. I love the song Achilles Last Stand, I've just never been able to find a good version of it live. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: February 06 2010 at 16:39
well can you imagine recreating that song for 12 minutes night after night.. it's not possible to perform it to the standards on the album where it was probably broken down and recorded in parts-- that they had the guts to do it is what is impressive The Who were surely more consistent and it could be said they were "better" live - certainly more professional and perhaps dynamic - but Zeppelin taught us that doesn't have to be what rock is all about |
Posted By: himtroy
Date Posted: February 06 2010 at 17:31
| Yeah, but my problem is Jimmy can do it. He got less technically inclined when he started doing too many drugs. In the live versions he fails at doing things in his solos that he could've done five years earlier. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: February 06 2010 at 17:47
|
yes his skills and ear for tone did seem to diminish by '79-- for the record though, as a musician I know first hand that Achilles is one the hardest things to play ever, makes Rush songs seem easy |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: February 06 2010 at 18:08
|
I would love to hear Rush do Achilles. (back when they were younger). It would be fun to hear Neil channel Bonzo on that track.
------------- ...that moment you realize "Mob Rules" is better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: February 06 2010 at 18:15
| it's an incredible drum track, you can hear Heart's drummer try to mimic it on 'Barracuda' but not nearly as good |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: February 06 2010 at 18:29
|
Oh and how he hits those things....so GD hard and yet fantastic. No matter how many super flashy killer drummers I hear, Bonham will always be my favorite....so much feeling and power in his playing.
------------- ...that moment you realize "Mob Rules" is better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Posted By: The Truth
Date Posted: February 06 2010 at 22:10
Who?  ------------- http://blindpoetrecords.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow">  
|
Posted By: Malve87
Date Posted: February 08 2010 at 09:31
|
Simple question simple answer : THE WHO... To me they're the best live band ever....there's no doubt about it. ------------- ] 
|
Posted By: halabalushindigus
Date Posted: February 09 2010 at 01:30
|
After watching the Super Bowl featuring The Who at halftime, my vote goes for The Who ------------- assume the power 1586/14.3 |
Posted By: himtroy
Date Posted: February 09 2010 at 01:55
| Really? If anything that would have swayed me otherwise....that was painful to watch IMO. Granted I didn't see even a second of tv that day, just heard the halftime show recently. His voice was so bad, and the music sounded so cover bandy.... |
Posted By: halabalushindigus
Date Posted: February 09 2010 at 02:15
|
True that, but did everyone know that was Ringo's kid Zak, on the Drums ------------- assume the power 1586/14.3 |
Posted By: Dr. Occulator
Date Posted: February 09 2010 at 13:49
|
Superbowl halftime is any band's worst nightmare...all their songs were chopped to pieces into a horrible medley because of time restraints. I thought The Who were pretty good considering the quick setup and being under the gun to go whether the band thought the probably non-existent sound check was good enough. Pete & Roger still have the goods even in their sixties! ------------- My Doc Told Me I Have Doggie Head. |
Posted By: Zargus
Date Posted: February 21 2010 at 04:06
|
The Who! judging by thire live albums, and live videos i seen of both bands, the who winns for me. ------------- 
|
Posted By: ko
Date Posted: February 22 2010 at 12:58
|
Love Reign O'er Me Paris 1974 |
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: February 22 2010 at 13:42
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/feb/22/the-who-pete-townshend-tinnitus Eek  ------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time! |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: February 26 2010 at 18:41
|
Hi,
Led Zeppelin hands down ... and there was a major reason why they were huge on bootleg sales ... the concerts were magnificent ... and then some ... the energy was enough to take you away ...
The Who, I think stopped doing good shows after Woodstock ... I think that was probably their last really good show ... but I never heard a bootleg of their shows that sounded good ... and I don't mean the sound quality on the bootleg, but on the show itself ... almost like ... something was missing ... although some of their albums have shown a couple of shows here and there that were very good.
I think The Who tempered to an audience that was more upscale than Led Zepellin's ... and this might have been because of the lyrics and the content of the work. But I can tell you that my girlfriend used to say, that she was not sure what it was but Zeppelin felt "sexy" ... and The Who didn't! ... and while some of us guys might not care for that "sexyness" ... the music made sure that you also found it ... yeah ... baby ... more ... how many more times ... and you can break into black dog and moby dick any day buddy ... any day ... ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: Pilkenton
Date Posted: March 30 2010 at 22:46
|
Never saw either of them (I did see Robert Plant solo and Jimmy Page with The Firm). I love Led Zep Studio albums, but hate the live stuff. Just the opposite with The Who. Pete Townsend shines in concert. Has anyone ever seen The Who when they were on the old Smother's Brothers show. Unforgettable.
|
Posted By: Xanthous
Date Posted: April 03 2010 at 18:02
| Zeppelin. For some reason I find it impossible to enjoy any of the Who's sounds. I've gone in and listened to their music with an open mind, and have stilled never liked it. I find Zeppelin to be enjoyable though. |