Ok /mu/ time to put all memes said and be completely honest. The Who or Led Zeppelin?
For me it has to be The Who. Pete Townshend has to be the greatest rock composer of all time with Tommy, Lifehouse, and Quadrophenia. I also think his albums and songs are more mature, covering a wide variety of subjects. While most of Zeppelin's songs are about getting laid or Lord of the Rings. Also Pete Townshend didn't plagiarize anything. Another thing that sells me for the Who is that they were really the first rock gods, smashing instruments, being absolutely crazy on stage and Roger Daltrey's stage persona( which Robert Plant sort of copied). So which bandits it for you guys?
Is "neither" an appropriate response?
The Who. They were the godfathers of punk, noise rock, power pop, and could even do new wave pretty well (Eminence Front). They even did Blues Rock better than Zeppelin (Young Man Blues, Magic Bus, etc).
>>60576303
>blues rock better
k bud
>>60576303
>They even did Blues Rock better than Zeppelin
The Who, only for the early mod stuff. I can't stand the blues rock and faux prog both bands made later
>>60576303
>They even did Blues Rock better than Zeppelin
>>60576391
>>60576441
>>60576579
Yes. The Who were louder, grittier, and Daltrey could deeper than Plant in the lower register, which works better for the Blues.
"I'm way too cool for either of these dadrock acts"
- /mu/
I feel like Zeppelin's best songs are better than the Who's best songs, but their mediocre ones are more mediocre than the Who's and their worst ones are worse than the Who's worst.
Here's the deal: The Who had the better compositions by far. But they were _so fucking repetitive._ Almost every song after their third album could stand to be cut a minute or so, because they just repeat the same section over and over. It gets tiring. I remember when I was getting into the who, and I stared scared as fuck at those 4:30 tracks because I knew it was actually a 2:50 track horrifically overextended.
That's what kills the who for me.
>le heaviest song ever
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb5mRBMZbYo
>>60576875
All music pretty much does that, even "free improv" will many times extend a riff, melody, beat for minutes if the artists are feeling it.
If you don't like the who in that regard, you probably didn't like their musical style in the first place. Baba O'Riley, for instance, would actually be a much worse song if it was less repetitive. The terry Riley drone influences is the main strength of that song.
I hear what you're saying, though, since the who's mod era material was more energetic and to the point, so when you move from Sings my Generation to Who's Next, the latter can seem boring.
>>60577156
No, it's not the repetition itself. It's that I don't think The Who wrote the type of music that stands too well to repetition. They wrote closed cadences that resolve themselves fairly well, so going over them time and time again is just tiring.
>>60576303
>>60576009
>hasn't got the led out
>>60575939
What are we comparing? I think technically speaking it's hard to top Led Zeppelin, everyone in the band was incredible at what they did, if not the best at the time.
If we're comparing influence, it gets hard to say either way, they were both incredibly influential, the sheer amount of bands influenced by both means it would be pretty much impossible to say over all.
No accounting for taste though, really.
