that daltrey's singing on 'endless wire' was little short of appalling - his voice seemed totally shot.
However, in their prime both bands produced more than their fair share of classics.

I shall answer that for me it comes down to sex. Led Zep are (and were) down and dirty, throw you down and ravish you, good old fashioned rock and roll. Would I have slept with Page or Plant back in 'their' day? Oh yes, though I would have had to fight through the crowds to do so. Would I sleep with them now? Oh yes.

The Who just don't have that effect on me. Some good songs though.

Hands down. Not even close.

is viscerally exciting and on Young Man Blues, The Who manage to sound at times like Black Sabbath, The Zep and Santana.

However, having enlisted your support rocker 43 of my contention that the Stones have dominion over the Beatles, it is with regret that I must inform you that it is my belief that Zep are an infinitely greater alliance than Shepherd's Bush's finest.

The Who were a great singles band who mutated into a power rock quartet but other than "Who's Next" failed to produce a single album of any substance. I cannot begin to articulate the disdain I have for Tommy - a cause not helped by my first exposure to it being its risible re-imagining at the hands of Ken Russell. (Ann Margaret in a waterfall notwithstanding)

I think it's often when you examine a band's lesser known tracks that its true qaulity emerges. And I would rather listen to "Tangerine" from Zep III, say, or "Night Flight" from "Physical Graffiti" than almost anything produced by The Who post '66.

As for wider influence, for good or bad, Zep along with The Stones, The Beatles, Dylan and The Velvet Underground are the apotheosis of what we know as Rock.

Led Zep - so much more than rock blues. What about the folk, the psychedelia? The Who seem so much more limited to me. Pete Townshend seemed to worry too much about his 'message', to the deteriment of the music, much of the time. I am not convinced by Daltrey either. His singing does impress but I don't feel it, his slick showmanship leaves me a bit cold. I think their 60s singles are their best work - Pictures Of Lily, I Can See For Miles.

Zeppelin by a country mile. Page was one of the the great pop music producers - he understood the value of space.

Post-69 the Who weren't really produced as such.

have to agree with the majority here, loved some of the Who records ,wont get fooled again one of my most played through the years for "getting in the mood" (not that kind of mood) At the time I remember finding Townshend a bit of a self important twat, bit like a 60s Paul Weller, although to be fair, having seen interviews recently he seems to have aged well. (Townshend not Weller)

Now, the one I'd like to see next is Sabbath vs Purple?? I'll leave it to you all to decide whether that warrants a new thread as I guess repetition can get tiresome.

Let me first say that I am slightly biased here as Led Zeppelin are the first band I truly loved. However I will try to write in a way that doesn't come across as a load of flannel.

Firstly, these comparisons are inherently ludicrous as aesthetic worth cannot really be quantified. However, it's great fun doing so so I'll forget about that for the moment.

In terms of lyrical quality and sophistication, The Who win hands down. In particular I am thinking of the singles they put out in the 1960s, which conveyed the mad, confused, horny rush of adolescence better than any others of the time (with the possible exception of those released by The Kinks). Townshend had an agenda from the off; a clear vision of what he wanted to express, and believed rock n' roll to be the perfect medium through which to do so. I would hesitate to call him an intellectual, as that word always makes me think of fusty professors, but he has always approached his craft with a thoughtfulness and curiosity that has set him apart from most of his contemporaries. He sometimes overreached himself ('Lifehouse' being a prime example), but at least he tried. If only more contemporary musicians would put as much effort as he did into coming up with something meaningful to say.

Robert Plant, on the other hand, is not a great lyricist. Bustles in hedgerows are a long way from Shakespeare. But when you combine his words with Led Zeppelin's music, that doesn't really matter too much. They do a job. I don't think Plant ever saw himself as a 'voice of a generation', even though a great many more kids sang along with his words in the 1970s than Pete Townshend's.

OK, onto the music. In my opinion The Who were a great singles band, whilst Led Zeppelin were a great albums band. The run of singles Townshend's mob had in the sixties was phenomenal, up there with The Beatles and The Stones. And they continued to put out the odd pearl right up until their demise in 1982. But their albums were wildly inconsistent, with only 'Who's Next' being truly classic in my opinion. Others came close ('Quadrophenia', 'The Who By Numbers'), but there were always clunkers in the mix.

Zeppelin, on the other hand, have one of the most consistently brilliant bodies of work in all of rock music. They never released a truly poor record during their 12 year career (even 'In Through the Out Door' has its moments), and several of them are quite superb.

What about musicianship? Now this really is difficult, as both bands were seriously blessed in that department. In terms of bass playing, I would give the nod to John Entwistle. He was extraordinarily gifted, redefining the bass guitar's role in a group. But John Paul Jones is no slouch either, in fact he's brilliant. And the fact that both Entwistle and Jones were classically-trained multi-instrumentalists meant they added so much to their respective groups in terms of musical arrangements.

Drums? Now this is a hard one. The older I get, the more I think Keith Moon was somewhat overrated. Sure, he had a unique style and was terribly exciting to listen to and watch, but he was somewhat limited by his own unorthadox way of playing. He did what he did brilliantly, but he would have struggled to adapt his style to different forms of music. Bonham, on the other hand, had a more traditional approach to the drum kit which gave him the basis to be able to play all sorts of different styles and do them all brilliantly. And he was an innovator too... nobody had played drums like that before him and nobody has done since.

Guitar? I would say this is a dead heat. Both Page and Townshend are truly gifted musicians, each has done so much to expand the possibilities of the guitar in popular music. Neither is a virtuoso (both can be incredibly sloppy at times), but they each have an uncanny ability to create multi-layered, orchestrated guitar parts that sometimes have the sophistication of classical music.

Vocals? Another difficult one. Neither Daltrey nor Plant would have worried Pavarotti, but both have been extraordinary in their own ways. Daltrey has an amazing talent for interpreting Townshend's lyrics, for giving them voice. He is a far better actor as a singer than he is in his numerous appalling movies. Perhaps he is somewhat limited, but he has such heart that one can forgive him that. Plant, meanwhile, is the more versatile of the two. In his heyday he could wail like a banshee ('Immigrant Song') and croon with a voice of honey ('That's the Way'). And at times he just sounded extraordinary ('Kashmir', 'Nobody's Fault But Mine') - the very definition of a rock singer.

Are you getting bored yet? Well never mind if you are, I'm continuing. Production. Here Jimmy Page wins hands down. Led Zeppelin's records sound incredible. His background as a session musician and house producer for Immediate Records gave him invaluable experience in how to mike up a room and achieve different sounds with subtle changes in the positioning of amps and microphones. Listening to Led Zeppelin's records from today's perspective - when we are bombarded with all manner of digitized, Pro Tooled-to-shit bollocks - makes one realize just what an amazing job Page did behind the recording console. And for the drum sound on 'When the Levee Breaks' alone he should be lauded into the next millenium.

Townshend was no muppet when it came to record production either. To cite one example, the meshing of synths and fiddle on 'Baba O'Riley' is one of the most exciting sounds in all rock music, a monumentally brilliant stroke of genius. I imagine Glyn Johns had a lot to do with the finished record, but it was Townshend's musical brilliance that came up with the idea in the first place.

And last but not least... live performance. Here, The Who swing it for me. I don't think I have ever heard another band that could play with as much righteous fury as they did at their peak. The very make-up of the band was so different (Townshend providing the rhythm with Entwistle and Moon playing over the top) that it is hard to imagine that they wouldn't have been an extraordinary live band. But the combination of those four individuals, with such different personalities and temperaments, created something truly special. The footage of The Who from their 1976 US tour is just staggeringly great.

Zeppelin by comparison were extremely good in concert, but they could be incredibly self-indulgent which rather detracts from their standing in my book. When they played the songs straight and kept the solos to a minimum (as they did so memorably at the O2 reunion gig), they could be immensely powerful and as good as anyone has ever been onstage.

So there you have it. I'll always love Zeppelin more than I love The Who - and I think they're the better group - but both could rock like the proverbial bastard.

And very eloquently too. Don't agree with the Moon v Bonham bit though!

I think the Overall Contribution Award clearly goes to Led Zeppelin.

In a quality that could be described as 'atmosphere' in music, they achieved something that really hasn't been matched. Their music at its best paints pictures. Maybe these qualities are something you either understand in music or you don't. It's through sheer musicianship, from all the members, that this is achieved. These are qualities that in this age of digital fraud are certainly under-appreciated, and in some cases completely forgotten qualities.

Important as well to remember that Led Zeppelin were thoroughly suppressed by the music press in this country for years. (shhh … including at least one of the self appointed critical 'elite' responsible for this site)

In terms of lyrics, yes agreed The Who win here, but in every other achievement - Led Zeppelin are the best of the two in my opinion.

Neither. My friend Ross and I were talking about Zeppelin the other day, and we've never been able to get into them. Too long-winded and wanky to have the appeal of blues, not heavy enough to appeal from the röck end of the spëctrüm. For us, that is.

And The Who have never done anything for me. Maybe you had to be there.