At 1:19


http://youtu.be/iUZebwk_8Jg

pffft...

Woody, in his biography, said the first time he met Dylan they were chatting away and Peter Grant was walking around being his usual boorish self telling everyone "I manage Led Zeppelin". When he got to Woody and Bob, he made this same declaration. Dylan reportedly told Grant "that's your problem, pal"

They Sure do a Good Job of Stirring the World ...(The Stones)

It's amazing how many of these miserable twats from that generation chime in with their comments about the Stones. It's all rooted in jealousy and they're all pissed off that the Stones shagged the best looking girls and made the best records while they could never write songs as good as the Stones and make records that came close to the Stones. No band is more overrated than Led Zeppelin. Because of my love for the Stones, everyone always plays the one song they tell me that will turn me on to Zeppelin, but I haven't heard a single thing I like. All of it is utter crap.

I like Zep very much, but I will say this about their music: it hasn't aged very well.  There is something intrinsically "70s" about their sound that never attached itself to the Stones catalog.  Sure, you can listen to "She's A Rainbow" and put a definite date on it, but that song would work wonderfully in the 21st century if someone were to cover it - just like at the end of SNL a couple years ago.

I've been pretty down on Zep for a while.  All Page wants to do is rehash and resell all the old Zep catalog while NEVER moving his career into the present.  It's old.  HE'S old. 

At this point I listen to the Stones far more than Zep because the Stones managed to make some real timeless music.  Zep on the other hand wants to cater to 15 year old boys and talk about the Lord Of The Rings characters.  Pretty boring to me now at 35.

Pay this stuff no mind, especially since the quote is definitely out of context here. 

rubbish.

I LOVE  Zeppelin Too

I was never as down on Zep as most here are (but I also keep in mind the majority of posters here have the Eagles as top tier band).  But to even compare them to the Rolling Stones in any sense is just Magoo.  No rational music fan of any stripe could find Rolling Stones music boring.

They are at least semi-professional at the mo, shirley, and it's all really rather lovely.

Rubbish , cause it's out of context .

Only the setlist are boring these years not the Stones !

Led Zepplin and the Stones are BOTH classic bands.  I prefer the Stones.  But, Led Zepplin is pretty good too.

I love singing along to Black Dog at the top of my lungs.

"Hey, hey, mama, said the way you move, Gonna make you sweat, gonna make you groove  . . . "

That description certainly fits at the moment...dunnit?

Zep rocks, but The Stones rule and have NEVER been boring!

Well just to play devil's advocate and saying that I don't mind bits of Zep - physical graffiti in particular - if you watch the clip in the OP it seems to say the comment was made in connection with Jones being the strings arranger on Satanic Majesties.

Based on what I have read he isn't the first to comment on the sometimes tedious and disorganized nature of the Stones' creative process.

I recall an interview with Jeff Beck who was asked about his  "audition" in '75. Among other things he said he could never work with Stones full time because he wasn't "into chaos".

Also Jimmy Miller and others have remarked that the band would play around for HOURS slightly out of time and/or tune unit at last something would come over Keith and he would look Charlie in the eye and then -bang - it would all come together. Or play tumbling dice for HOURS on end until one take , barely discernible as different from the dozens that preceded it, would be deemed acceptable by Keith.

On the other hand if you check out the Stones' scenes in 1+1 , as drawn out as it is, you can see the method in their madness.

And all those abandoned ideas, alternative versions and aimless jams have made for some excellent outtakes.

stonedinaustralia wrote on Nov 10^th, 2014 at 2:43am:

Well just to play devil's advocate and saying that I don't mind bits of Zep - physical graffiti in particular - if you watch the clip in the OP it seems to say the comment was made in connection with Jones being the strings arranger on Satanic Majesties. Based on what I have read he isn't the first to comment on the sometimes tedious and disorganized nature of the Stones' creative process. I recall an interview with Jeff Beck who was asked about his  "audition" in '75. Among other things he said he could never work with Stones full time because he wasn't "into chaos". Also Jimmy Miller and others have remarked that the band would play around for HOURS slightly out of time and/or tune unit at last something would come over Keith and he would look Charlie in the eye and then -bang - it would all come together. Or play tumbling dice for HOURS on end until one take , barely discernible as different from the dozens that preceded it, would be deemed acceptable by Keith. On the other hand if you check out the Stones' scenes in 1+1 , as drawn out as it is, you can see the method in their madness. And all those abandoned ideas, alternative versions and aimless jams have made for some excellent outtakes.

Good points, mate. And true. But the Stones' modus operandi worked, and still makes many, many acts - including Led Zeppelin - sound quite tame in comparison.

Another thing Jeff Beck said about the 'Black and Blue' sessions/auditions: "The Stones can't play funk". Oh really?
And this coming from a guy who was soon to start recording with Jan Hammer...has Beck ever sounded stiffer and more mechanical?