Crackorn Posted December 12 Report Share Posted December 12 This could be the most mentally taxing question posed to any classic rock fan. I've been fighting with this question for years and have become convinced that this is one of the reasons I'm so emotionally frail. EVERYTHING must be taken into consideration here- musicianship, songwriting, orchestration, presentation (on albums, not live). Here's my breakdown-As musicians- ZepSongwriting- BeatlesOrchestration- ZepPresentation(album)BeatlesLive- ZepOn Bass- tough one, but ZepGuitar- ZepVocals- tough, but Beatles (sorry)Drums- C'mon.Ratio of good songs to flukes- no contest- ZeppelinI'm stumped, please help........------------------Too crazy for Boys Town, too much of a boy for Crazy Town.Do what thou wilt. Aleister CrowleyWe are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams- Willy WonkaAIM: crackorn71 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crookedcorn Posted December 12 Report Share Posted December 12 I vote for Flock of Seagulls.------------------alsoabump Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coxwingin Posted December 12 Report Share Posted December 12 I vote for Walls of Voodoo.------------------thisisabump Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrblonde55 Posted December 12 Report Share Posted December 12 Zepplin all the way. I understand the Beatles have influenced almost every band and I love today, but I just dont seem to get it. Some of their songs are great, but alot of it is crap. Im more of a Rolling Stones man myself, and I have come to find that is where the big division lies: people are Beatles people or Stones people, thats just the way it breaks down. P.S. - Everyone likes Zepplin,lol. Robert P.P.S. - Plant's vocals smack the shit out of John or Paul any day of the week.------------------The fame, it was like a drug......but what was more like a drug were the drugs.How do you shoot the Devil in the back?.....What if you miss?[This message has been edited by mrblonde55 (edited 12-12-2000).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crackorn Posted December 12 Author Report Share Posted December 12 I like the stones and all, but just can't put them in the same catagory simply because none of them were anywhere near as talanted as the other fellows, except MAYBE Jagger as a showman. I'd put the Who up there first. ------------------Too crazy for Boys Town, too much of a boy for Crazy Town.Do what thou wilt. Aleister CrowleyWe are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams- Willy WonkaAIM: crackorn71 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrblonde55 Posted December 12 Report Share Posted December 12 Originally posted by Crackorn:I like the stones and all, but just can't put them in the same catagory simply because none of them were anywhere near as talanted as the other fellows, except MAYBE Jagger as a showman. I'd put the Who up there first. Im not talking about talent, just showmanship/popularity/chemistry etc. it just seems most people break down along those lines. Now the Who and Zepplin, thats a question for the ages.------------------The fame, it was like a drug......but what was more like a drug were the drugs.How do you shoot the Devil in the back?.....What if you miss? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sguid266 Posted December 13 Report Share Posted December 13 I have to go for the Beatles. The impression they left on so many bands has never, and may never happen again!------------------If ignorance is bliss, then you must be rolling! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted December 13 Report Share Posted December 13 you can't honestly compare these two, the beatles started that genre of music. Zep is excellent all the way through, but not really comparable to the beatles. if you wanted to compare Led Zep to someone more logical, i would say pin them up against The Stones, or The Who, at least as far as commercial success, i would add The Kinks, but commercially they couldnt hang with these guys. althout Ray Davies is a genius. the beatles were groundbreakers, they paved the way for all the others in more ways than one. you can't simply break it down to parts and try to add up the sum. for example, Zep were better musicians at the type of music they were playing, the harder stuff. i can't imagine what the beatles version of "Whole lotta love" might sound like... yes, i believe the beatles were better songwriters, but only its a matter of preference, i like tons of zep songs, most of them. but crackorn, don't be sorry about believing the beatles to have better vocals, they simply did. john and paul both had PERFECT pitch, that's hard to match up against, but still in some instances i'll take the wailing of Plant any day.i also wouldnt call a lot of the beatles hits flukes by any means, they started earlier, thats what the industry called for. without the beatles audacity, bands like zep may never have been.by and large i prefer the beatles body of work to led zep, but thats just one guy. good question man, made me think.stephen------------------we must cultivate our gardens... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.