It really is as if you're comparing apples and oranges. They may both be classic rock, but they're completely different sounds. My opinion is that Led Zeppelin was better in the general sense of classic rock band comparison but it's certainly really close for me. I've seen both, and Jagger will never be the frontman Plant used to be. They were both bad frontmen by the time I saw them, but in my opinion, back in "the day", Plant was the frontman. He's like the David Coverdale of yesterday. The guitar work of Jimmy Page was a lot better in the studio, but Richards was always a better player live. Also, I like Keith's tone much more than Page's and Keith, after Page got a few years into, started having the upper hand when it came to control of his instrument live. Any Zeppelin fan will admit that in the latter years Jimmy got really sloppy. Again, though, in "the day", Page was a master of feedback, almost as good as Jimi Hendrix. Bonham was rocking incredibly hard on a three-peice, so you have to respect that. In terms of over-all composition, if you want to compare the two, Led Zeppelin was always much more complex, and in my opinion had much better phrases and voicings, as well as much more meaningful lyrics. The Rolling Stones were always more of the simple, tear-it-up classic rock band, which is good for certain times, but they're not as artsy as Zeppelin. The Stones certainly are better at the decadence and flatulence, but that's kind of irrelevent in terms of art. It seems Plant and Page were simply burnt-out by the eighties. Any time a rock star starts writing new wave music, you can assume he's burnt out with the decadence. The better singer? That's pretty simple. lol Let us not even have to name him. Supposedly Mick has a much bigger :X... so I guess he's got Plant there. They both had record numbers of women, so that's probably not hurting either one. It doesn't really matter who's better though, more than likely if you like classic rock you like both, and both have different meanings to you.
I'd actually rather listen to the Stones if I'm drinking or smoking and partying at the same time. They're like the AC/DC of the 60s. Party rock. But, I'd certainly rather listen to Zeppelin when I'm stoned, laying in the dark, being pseudo-intellectual and quasi-philosophical. lol Very much like Pink Floyd for me.
haha, yeah, he made millions of dollars (still making royalty checks from the Yardbirds and Zeppelin, too), was a rock legend and got hundreds of women. Poor guy! I'm totally glad I'm not in his shoes. In all honesty though, despite the fact that he's mastered several instruments, it's his own fault for playing bass on the main. Unless you're really good and really wanking it hard on albums, no one cares about you as a bassist. It usually goes singer, guitarist, drummer, bassist, keyboard player. Unfortunately for him, he was both of the latter guys! Look at the Doors. Sorry bassists, we can do just fine without you! And as for you drummers, you better shut your mouths 'cause you're simply a human metronome and another smart-ass comment away from being replaced with a cheap beat machine! hahaha!