zep vs. the who

[David Aron Reaboi <dreaboi@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu>]

being both a big zep and who fan, i can bring some more light into the
debate. it IS true that early zep gigs featured who covers. zep was formed
in late summer 1968 (rumour has it, both bonham and page attended the
stones R&R circus) when jimmy page was already a quite famous session
man-cum-producer. bonham and plant were nobodies; john paul jones was
almost as famous as page as an arranger and session pianist ('she's a
rainbow,' rolling stones). the first album appeared in october 68 when the
who were working on tommy and evolving into a really tight live band.

they were two different bands, it's true. zep was nothing but hardcore
blues (he hated the yardbirds' psychedellia in 'little games'). he wanted
a heavy blues, like jeff beck did. (all who fans: go out and get the beck
album TRUTH, released the same day as zep 1. IMHO, it's probably the
best hard rock record.) anyway, pete loved mose allison (who i've seen
live once, and will again this weekend), who is a JAZZ artist with blues
roots. 

when i first heard the who, i laughed at zep. i thought, "these guys were
doing nastier shit in 70 than zep could ever dream of." live, the who
compromised no quality for improv, which zep did (post-73). i still think
there was nothing like the who in 1970. 

the songwriting differences were great, as well. pete could write an
intelligent song, like anything on SELL OUT or TOMMY esp. jimmy wrote
another type of song, with complex chord structures, tuning, etc. i happen
to prefer pete's songwriting b/c i think it holds up better through time.
now i know a lot of pete-centered people are going to be up in arms, but  
page is a better guitar player. he utilized more of the instrument to
better effectiveness (like tuning, middle eastern and english folk-type
chord progressions, etc). pete was a wonderful innovator, but the cigar
will have to go to jimmy.
 
both bands have a lot in common: the down-spell that hit around 75.
neither band's later albums hold up as well as their earlier records do.
(who on this newsgroup would say either PRESENCE or WHO ARE YOU is the
best zep or the who could do at anytime in their careers?) zep learned
from the who when bonham died. they say kenny jones and said, "no fucking
way." both pete and jimmy got into heavy drugs in the early 80s, after
both looked-down on clapton for letting heroin mess him up. 

a record store owner told me about his days listening to zep with
fondness, though those days were very much over. he listened to sinatra's
Nice & Easy, and we both agreed that that album has held up with time
better than anything zep had done. "i hope i die before i get old" or not,
i simply do not think i'll be listening to zep either when i'm past 25.
(i'm 20 now.) imagine a 50 year old banging his head up and down! don't
you outgrow that stuff? now the who is a little different story. they're
also a young-man's rock band (sorry ladies, i've always seen them as a
very masculine band). i know also that pete would rather kill himself than
make music like WGFA anymore. it's great, but you mature, right? that's
why the who will have that edge over zep for me; i love zep, but i LISTEN
to the who. i think i'm just to old for it. (not to offend any 50-yr-old
headbangers, though.) 

[one more thing: PLEASE check out Genesis/Sellig England By The Pound.
this is peter gabriel-era genesis, which is totally different band than in
the later waning years. if you like the who, PLEASE listen to this. BTW,
i think we should have some more reccomendations of other bands on this
list. it would give an interesting reading of what members are listening
to (when not the who).]

(rhino will release roger's greatest hits soon, inc mcvicar stuff.)
sorry for the length; i sometimes have the urge to write a menifesto.

Dave