To each his own.

If every member of Led Zeppelin died and it was just Jason Bonham on drums I would still say Led Zeppelin is better.

Led Zeppelin fused blues, rock, acoustic, and folk to give us an amazing array of albums. With the exception of Presence, every single Led Zeppelin album has been great (and that was certainly understandable considering the...circumstances). The Who has given us maybe two to three really good albums, and those sales were built upon the success of singles. I'm not trying to dismiss the influence The Who had on the genre or their ability as musicians, but comparing the two bands is pointless, and sad.

Led Zeppelin had an amazing keyboardist and bassist, an incredibly emotional and soulful vocalist, an impeccable and accomplished guitarist, and the best drummer in the world (hands all the way down).

The Who had "Teenage Wasteland," so I guess it wasn't all bad.

Say what? Presence is a damn good album, and the most under appreciated of their work. I mean c'mon, Achilles Last Stand? Ten For One? How can you go wrong with those?

It's better than In Through The Out Door, thats for sure. Please don't even try to defend that abomination.

Who Sell Out, Tommy, Live At Leeds, Whos Next and Quadrophena (which is overrated by Who fans, but still damn good).

C'mon now, you're being a little fanboish.

No, and I repeat, no, Presence was not a great album. Both it and In Through The Out Door were simply albums to fulfill their contract obligations; they were written in a hurry (well, ITTOD was - Presence was abridged by tragedy).

As for The Who albums, I refuse to accept Tommy as a genuine work of musical talent. And if we're comparing live albums, don't even try to wage war when there's How The West Was Won, which destroys Live at Leeds in every ****ing category. I know, it came about thirty years too late, but it is the single greatest live album since At Fillmore East (by The llman Brothers Band). I admit, I liked Quadrophenia a lot. But it wasn't nearly as profound as Led Zeppelin IV.

Most of my displeasure with this entire idea of comparing the two bands stems from their approach to music. While The Who used radio to ensnare looming fans with their most popular singles, Zeppelin intended to focus upon making good albums - not good singles - to sell themselves. I don't dislike The Who. I think they are an extremely talented band. But Led Zeppelin's all-encompassing talent simply surpasses them.

If I'm a Zeppelin fanboy, I come by it honestly.

(And for those of you who claim Daltry was a much better vocalist than Plant, understand first that they are different. Plant never intended to be a crooner or someone who would shout phrases with unbroken vocalization. But it takes vocal talent of an unwieldy nature to change "baby I'm going to lose my worried mind" to "baby baby baby baby baby baby...I'm going to lo-o-o-ose my worried mind.")

Those made up facts, those ridiculous exagerations, that stubborn "I'm right, you're wrong attitude, your huge bias towards Zep and against The Who.

Could it be..... Archie from DDD? Is that you?

Oh and

Absolutely not. HTWWW is good, but to even compare it to At Fillmore East let alone Live at Leeds is just absurd, both of those albums sh*t on HTWWW like crazy. I prefer Zeppelin to The Who and certainly to the Allman Bros, but I'm not blind from the truth. Zep are better than The Who in the studio, but live it's no comparison, it has to be The Who.

Who is Archie? And what is DDD?

More importantly, have you heard the entirety of How The West Was Won? Could you hear the unbridled emotion of Plant's vocals in "Since I've Been Loving You" or the perfect guitar of Jimmy Page in "Black Dog"? Or, perhaps you skipped over the seventeen minute drum opus in "Moby ****"? Somehow, I don't think you heard the harmonies in "Bron-Yr-Aur Stomp."

Maybe the album wasn't an accurate reflection of their overall stage abilities. After all, I've never seen them live. I'm betting you haven't either. But from what I've seen from videos, Led Zeppelin were certainly excellent performers. And I'm sorry that I don't share your respect for guitar smashing.

This is an interesting argument; two very good, very different bands. I don't think you can go wrong with either, still I'd give a slight edge to Zeppelin for consistency. I agree boo boo; Presence is an under appreciated album. It may not be "great" but it holds up very nice. The guitar riffs in "Achilles..." is vintage Zeppelin. "For your life", "Hots on for nowhere", "Tea for one" and "Royal Orleans" are all very good songs.

The Rock Operas are my favorite aspect of the Who, but "Who's Next" and "The Who Sell Out" are very good albums and I am a big fan of "A quick One" it was the first Who album I ever owned.

Above anything else, they are two of the best stage acts ever. Zeppelin's shows in the mid 70's were events. They started a day before the band went on and continues until their plane or bus departed. The Who's show were productions, effects, lighting, stage presence and energy unmatched in the mainstream of their era. It's a matter of personal preference and I actually lean towards the Who because while Zeppelin had moments of greatness there were also a lot of drawn out instrumentals that felt out of place in my opinion.

Lol. Seeing as you don't even know the name of the Who's most famous song you don't know much about them. I didn't know Led even used keyboards and Entwhistle is much better than JPJ. Bonham's only slightly better than Moon and Townshend is close to Page. Songwriting wise no one in Hard Rock matches Townshend. Vocally Daltrey is worlds better technically than Plant and doesn't exactly stand around on stage. The Who have much better lyrics as well. Live the Who were incredibly tight and even now in 2007 they put on a damn good show.

I'll say that Moon is still the greatest drummer ever and that Entwistle is still the greatest bass player ever (not convinced? Listen to Live At Leeds again). Townshend was one of the best songwriters of the 60's and 70's, and even the "new" Who album (why couldn't they just bill it as it is, Townshend/Daltrey?) completely smokes most other band's work.

If we're talking The Who from My Generation up to Quadrophenia, then no contest, The Who. Townshend was a MUCH more ambitious and adventurous songwriter than Page/Plant/Jones/Bonham, and more innovative to boot. He was (at his best) probably the most artistically ambitious songwriter in British popular music period, perhaps even over-ambitious. Of course The Who then sold out and became hacks, so later 70s The Who onwards is far inferior to Led Zep.