Led Zeppelin or The Beatles? Page 6

  • Page

    of 9 First / Last

  • crispyduckman 10 Mar 2013 20:13:41 1,856 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    @Pepsipop Totally plausible in my opinion. They are - I mean they were - American after all. Although, compared to the story of Randy Rhoads' death, which is both deeply tragic and utterly bonkers, that's nothing.

    PSN/XBL/Steam/Origin: crispyduckman

  • speedofthepuma 10 Mar 2013 22:06:04 13,263 posts
    Seen 17 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Chopsen wrote:
    speedofthepuma wrote:
    I'm not comparing the two, that's pointless. I do however love The Beatles and always will. How a band could spend so long producing high quality popular music, often redefining or inventing genres and then be judged years later as rubbish by some people amazes me.
    While undeniably a classic act in the history of pop I can fully appreciate the Beatles for what they are and the impact they, I am literally never in the mood to listen to them. I once heard someone compare their music to Monopoly (the board game). Undeniably a classic, and pretty much every home has it somewhere, but let's be honest. When did you last actually get it down off the shelf and play it?

    Some of that Led Zep plagiarism is hilarious though. Given how off their tits they were for most of the height of their career, I can quite believe that Jimmy Page heard a song and then wrote it down and couldn't remember where it came from :D
    I bought Monopoly yesterday, and we intend to all sit together and play it today!

    I must admit I don't sit and listen to the Beatles much, but i don't sit and listen to any music much any more, just don't have the spare time, and if I'm walking the dog I tend to stick on a podcast nowadays. Certainly a few years ago I would often stick the White Album on if I had a car journey.

    Someone earlier mentioned the nearest point of reference to The Beatles being The Hollies and The Kinks, both of whom I also love, so perhaps I'm biased towards that generation.

    I've turned off all the avatars and crap, so don't expect me to be impressed by yours.

  • Chopsen 10 Mar 2013 22:41:21 15,686 posts
    Seen 35 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I listen to music a lot, but it's usually while I'm doing other stuff. I rarely sit down and *just* listen, in the way I used to. But if I am sitting down, I'm usually listening to music.
  • crispyduckman 10 Mar 2013 22:59:52 1,856 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Goodfella wrote:
    speedofthepuma wrote:
    I must admit I don't sit and listen to the Beatles much, but i don't sit and listen to any music much any more
    This is quite a sad realisation in my life (I'm 42 now). I very rarely listen to music these days, if I do it's a bit of nostalgia based instant gratification on YouTube (Zep, Sabbath, Beatles, Floyd etc).

    I have a huge record collection (yes, remember vinyl? :p ) and CD's and access to downloadable music, but I don't bother any more. I used to spend half my day listening to music.

    What is wrong with me. :(
    You're 42 so it's time to prepare for your mid life crisis. Get yourself a Porsche and start banging the trainee. You'll find Led Zep sounds a hell of a lot better when you're hurtling down the motorway at 2am getting blown by a girl 20 years your junior.

    Seriously though - do NOT fucking try this with the Beatles.

    PSN/XBL/Steam/Origin: crispyduckman

  • thelzdking 10 Mar 2013 23:04:20 4,296 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Not even to Revolution 9?
  • crispyduckman 10 Mar 2013 23:09:42 1,856 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    TBH, there's a risk of disaster there with both the Beatles and Led Zep IMO. AC/DC are really your only guaranteed safe option. Literally any AC/DC track is acceptable in that scenario.

    PSN/XBL/Steam/Origin: crispyduckman

  • FuzzyDuck 11 Mar 2013 01:10:37 3,843 posts
    Seen 23 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    crispyduckman wrote:
    TBH, there's a risk of disaster there with both the Beatles and Led Zep IMO. AC/DC are really your only guaranteed safe option. Literally any AC/DC track is acceptable in that scenario.
    Except 'The Jack'. Or 'She's Got Balls' :D
  • FuzzyDuck 11 Mar 2013 01:19:17 3,843 posts
    Seen 23 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Pepsipop wrote:
    Yeah and we can all agree pop music is generally shit, thanks for your input. :).

    Thank you Beatles for Britney spears and Justin beiber. Man the Beatles really shaped pop well. :p.
    But shit isn't a term exclusive to pop music. There's shit metal, rock, blues, jazz, r'n'b, electronic, etc. Equally, there's good music in those genres too.

    No genre is without merit, otherwise it wouldn't exist. And it's all subjective anyway.
  • Kovacs77 11 Mar 2013 07:45:55 364 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    MrTomFTW wrote:
    Faith No More
    I genuinely agree with this.
  • PazJohnMitch 11 Mar 2013 08:39:31 7,727 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I always favoured Led Zep over the Beatles.
  • kalel 11 Mar 2013 08:49:20 86,005 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    FuzzyDuck wrote:
    Pepsipop wrote:
    Yeah and we can all agree pop music is generally shit, thanks for your input. :).

    Thank you Beatles for Britney spears and Justin beiber. Man the Beatles really shaped pop well. :p.
    But shit isn't a term exclusive to pop music. There's shit metal, rock, blues, jazz, r'n'b, electronic, etc. Equally, there's good music in those genres too.

    No genre is without merit, otherwise it wouldn't exist. And it's all subjective anyway.
    Also "pop" is a broad term, and one that can crossover with most other genres. Beatles were pop rock, but you also get all other sorts like pop dance music, pop rnb and pop hip hop, which ironically Pepsipop appears to be a fan of judging from the other thread.

    Frankly, Led Zep weren't all that alternative either.

    Edited by kalel at 08:50:43 11-03-2013
  • Deleted user 11 March 2013 08:54:06
    Generally pop is gash though. If you classed pop as the top 40, generally 30 of the 40 are terrible commercially produced garbage.

    Beatles anything but gash, they were good pop.
  • kalel 11 Mar 2013 09:00:11 86,005 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Anyone that writes off an entire genre is being an ignorant snob to be quite frank.

    Pop music has probably has its heyday (as have a good deal of other genres which you probably don't write off as gash), but in the 60s, 70s and 80s there was a huge amount of incredibly well written and quality pop music.
  • kalel 11 Mar 2013 09:03:10 86,005 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Goodfella wrote:
    I hesitate to even label The Beatles a pop group, early on yeah but certainly not in the later stages as they shied away from the whole scene, focusing on albums and not touring any more.
    They were still working with the likes of Phil Spector, so hardly shying away from pop as a genre, just pushing the boundaries of it.

    The White Album is the only one I'd say is far away enough to not be considered a pop album, and it still has songs like Ob-la-di on it.

    Point is pop was a different thing then. This stigma that has now attached to the word didn't exist then. Pop was an experimental and interesting genre.
  • speedofthepuma 11 Mar 2013 09:08:24 13,263 posts
    Seen 17 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    What interests me about the generation is they all appeared to be trying to evolve and innovate. When you look at even The Hollies and compare the early stuff to He Ain't Heavy, or King Midas, you can see that they were growing up too, they were just outshone constantly.

    Ray Davies did a few songs for a "rock Opera" after The Kinks, that seems clear to me was aiming for what The Who did with Tommy.

    None of these guys sat on their laurels and festered.

    I've turned off all the avatars and crap, so don't expect me to be impressed by yours.

  • Chopsen 11 Mar 2013 09:15:09 15,686 posts
    Seen 35 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I think it's more of how the market has changed, or specifically has been changed. I just don't think the money in the industry is interested in actually developing new and interesting acts in the way that they were. People want predictability.
  • speedofthepuma 11 Mar 2013 09:19:40 13,263 posts
    Seen 17 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    But surely fans grow up and want something different? That's why acts burn brightly but quickly nowadays I guess. Musicians seem so comfortable with being type cast.

    I've turned off all the avatars and crap, so don't expect me to be impressed by yours.

  • kalel 11 Mar 2013 09:23:09 86,005 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    The real difference is "pop" these days tends to mean corporate manufactured artists. Bands like the Beatles and the Kinks were proper bands - friends who got together independently and wrote songs together and worked their way up. They're always going to have a different ethic to a bunch of strangers that have been thrown together by Sony and given songs to sing.

    I really think a lot of this comes doen to semantics. If you consider for example a band like Blur as pop (which imho they pretty much are in the traditional sense) then you can certainly see a lot of progression and experimentation as their albums go on.
  • nickthegun 11 Mar 2013 09:38:31 58,635 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Pepsipop wrote:
    Generally pop is gash though. If you classed pop as the top 40, generally 30 of the 40 are terrible commercially produced garbage.
    90% of everything you have mentioned in the hip-hop thread falls into this category.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • nickthegun 11 Mar 2013 09:40:17 58,635 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    speedofthepuma wrote:
    But surely fans grow up and want something different? That's why acts burn brightly but quickly nowadays I guess. Musicians seem so comfortable with being type cast.
    Even in the so called 'indie' scene. You get a band like MGMT who release an album that everyone spunks over and sells millions, then they release the second album and it absolutely bombs.

    For whatever reason *everyone* is faddy at the moment, not just the pop pickers, mate.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • LeoliansBro 11 Mar 2013 09:42:55 43,016 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    That's because there were two songs on the first MGMT album that everyone bought it for, and no songs like that on the second. I saw them live in Brixton, it was almost embarrassing, people milling about chatting and drinking for 40 minutes waitig for them to play Kids and Time to Pretend.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • kalel 11 Mar 2013 09:46:55 86,005 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Just breaks my heart to think that songs like Sam Cooke's 'Wonderful World" or Ronnete's 'Be My Baby' would be written off as crappy pop songs. There are so many truly beautifully written pop songs.
  • nickthegun 11 Mar 2013 09:49:37 58,635 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    That may not be the best example then (fwiw, I thought it was OK) but there are a ton of bands who sell millions then fuck all for the follow up at the moment.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • LeoliansBro 11 Mar 2013 09:51:53 43,016 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Yeah, it's totally true, and a product of the industry. 'You have your whole life to write your first album and six months to write your second.'

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • LeoliansBro 11 Mar 2013 09:54:59 43,016 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I'm going to say something incredibly wanky now but what the fuck: I think part of the reason Nick Drake resonates so much and still sounds so fresh is that he was totally ignored by his label, and left to pen his own work uncluttered by deadlines and studio interference.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Deleted user 11 March 2013 10:04:53
    nickthegun wrote:
    Pepsipop wrote:
    Generally pop is gash though. If you classed pop as the top 40, generally 30 of the 40 are terrible commercially produced garbage.
    90% of everything you have mentioned in the hip-hop thread falls into this category.
    Haven't I spoke on clipse, NAS, ghostface, styles p etc? Yeah, they real commercial like flo Rida and 50 cent. / Rolls eyes as always at a nickthegun post.
  • warlockuk 11 Mar 2013 10:05:25 19,122 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Anyone mention Mick Ronson-era Bowie yet?

    I'm a grumpy bastard.

  • Page

    of 9 First / Last

Log in or register to reply