Led Zeppelin or The Beatles? Page 3

  • Page

    of 9 First / Last

  • FuzzyDuck 8 Mar 2013 17:14:22 4,141 posts
    Seen 35 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Pepsipop wrote:
    Boo all of them have little merit :) I'm pretty anti commercial music although not exclusively.

    Led zeppelin were signed to Atlantic yes but they were disliked by the press and didn't look commercial at all for the time. Not like that clean Beatles look. Zeppelin were too busy trashing hotels and doing heroin.
    Wha??? All of them have little merit? Do explain! :D

    And John Lennon was busy thrashing his first wife, doesn't mean he didn't pen commercial music! Beatles looked commercial early in their career, but Zep didn't look like they just turned up from a hippy convention initially.
  • Deleted user 8 March 2013 17:14:24
    So, I can read and also my ears work.
  • Deleted user 8 March 2013 17:18:42
    http://bloody-led-zeppelin.tumblr.com/post/3979960941

    First tour, they don't look squeaky clean.
  • El_MUERkO 8 Mar 2013 17:29:19 17,035 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    RedSparrows wrote:
    Head - Beatles
    Heart - Zeppelin, every time
    this, but thankfully I never have to choose :)
  • ronuds 8 Mar 2013 17:31:49 21,788 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Zeppelin music is in half of the ads on TV. I'd say they're pretty commercial.
  • Deleted user 8 March 2013 17:34:07
    I have never heard a zeppelin track in ads, anyone else? Show me please. Zeppelin don't often allow their music to be used. Took them until 2007 to allow I tunes to sell their music and jack black had to beg them to have immigrant song in school of rock
  • elstoof 8 Mar 2013 17:34:20 7,372 posts
    Seen 17 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Neither.

    Do you have any more questions you'd like to ask?
  • Maturin 8 Mar 2013 17:34:31 3,006 posts
    Seen 15 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Led Zep did hit the ground running though, they didn't come out of nowhere. Page was already famous and he'd retained the ownership of the Yardbirds name when the original members all left. LZ toured Denmark as The New Yardbirds and then changed their name. But there was plenty of anticipation for the first album, rock fans at least knew Page and were interested in the new record/band.
  • Deleted user 8 March 2013 17:37:45
    elstoof wrote:
    Neither.

    Do you have any more questions you'd like to ask?
    One. I would like to know your life story and how it lead you to because such a retard?
  • ronuds 8 Mar 2013 17:38:20 21,788 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpD7f8gWgDg

    Cadillac ad.
  • FuzzyDuck 8 Mar 2013 17:41:53 4,141 posts
    Seen 35 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Pepsipop wrote:
    So, I can read and also my ears work.
    ?

    First album, back cover, they look pretty clean to me.

    Annyyyywwaayyyy, this is going in circles; I think Zep are commercial, and you feel the opposite. I think I will pop Zep 3 in the hifi next and enjoy it as much as I'm currently enjoying Sleep's 'Dopesmoker'.
  • disusedgenius 8 Mar 2013 17:42:13 5,333 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Pepsipop wrote:
    I have never heard a zeppelin track in ads, anyone else?
    Lep Zep were quite a different beast over in Americaland, it wouldn't surprise me over there, really.

    Edit: I wouldn't really call them commercial either: just insanely popular.

    Edited by disusedgenius at 17:43:01 08-03-2013
  • ronuds 8 Mar 2013 17:50:39 21,788 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    They have their music in ads for Verizon. I love their music as much as anybody else, but lets call a spade a spade. Who cares, anyway? It's only a testament to their greatness that people want to use their music.

    Next you're going to try and convince me the Stones aren't commercial either? :p
  • Deleted user 8 March 2013 18:00:29
    FuzzyDuck wrote:
    Pepsipop wrote:
    So, I can read and also my ears work.
    ?

    First album, back cover, they look pretty clean to me.

    Annyyyywwaayyyy, this is going in circles; I think Zep are commercial, and you feel the opposite. I think I will pop Zep 3 in the hifi next and enjoy it as much as I'm currently enjoying Sleep's 'Dopesmoker'.
    That comment wasn't to you silly :)

    Oh 3 is great, my favorite zeppelin song of all is on that. 'since I've been loving you'e

    Edited by Pepsipop at 18:03:53 08-03-2013
  • Chopsen 8 Mar 2013 18:00:58 16,000 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Well, the Stones are interesting because they lost the publishing rights to most of their songs. So anyone could use their songs, and they had to find other things (like touring, and merch) to make money back.
  • elstoof 8 Mar 2013 18:07:02 7,372 posts
    Seen 17 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Pepsipop wrote:
    elstoof wrote:
    Neither.

    Do you have any more questions you'd like to ask?
    One. I would like to know your life story and how it lead you to because such a retard?
    That's actually two questions and they would need a lot if time and probably a medical examination, but to tide to over I've got some of my other preferences for you to enjoy.

    I prefer New York cheesecake over pecan pie, long walks on cold days rather than bobsledding and pineapples are tastier to my palette than coca-cola.

    Will that do?
  • Deleted user 8 March 2013 18:09:19
    So it's official. Bowie wins.
  • ronuds 8 Mar 2013 18:15:02 21,788 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 8 years ago
  • Maturin 8 Mar 2013 18:58:55 3,006 posts
    Seen 15 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Chopsen wrote:
    Well, the Stones are interesting because they lost the publishing rights to most of their songs. So anyone could use their songs, and they had to find other things (like touring, and merch) to make money back.
    And the Beatles had little control of their music or touring - at least early on.

    Led Zeppelin and their manager Peter Grant were pioneers in this regard. The band controlled the records, using labels to distribute only. Later they hired venues and controlled tours. They made vastly more from their tours/albums than their contemporaries at the time - there were plenty of crooked promoters around who took most of the cash. Eventually other bands who were powerful enough followed this method. I remember reading a story of how one of Led Zep was at a party with George Harrison in the early 70s and shocked the Beatle by telling him they made as much in a month as he did in a year - or something like that.

    But the point being it was the artists who had control of their own art, which was unusual at that time.

    Edited by Maturin at 18:59:44 08-03-2013
  • bladdard 8 Mar 2013 19:05:11 942 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Floyd > Zep > Stones > Kinks > Bowie > Beach Boys > Monkees > Westlfe > Beatles

    Not a popular view but the Beatles were the most overrated band in history.
  • Maturin 8 Mar 2013 19:10:35 3,006 posts
    Seen 15 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    You're right, I doubt it will. Putting a manufactured pop covers band over the most innovative record artists/songwriters of the 20th century is certainly an interesting move. I'm not really into the Beatles at all, but I guess I'll have to sit on the opposition for this one. :)
  • Trafford 8 Mar 2013 19:31:54 5,791 posts
    Seen 24 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Did anyone pick up the Jimmy Page photobook, the one with all the personal pictures from his career in a lavish hardback tome?

    No? Really??

    Well it was 400quid.
  • stevethemeat 8 Mar 2013 19:39:57 472 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Zeppelin.
    The Stones.
    The Who.
    The Kinks.
    Sabbath.
    Pink Floyd.

    All great British bands, but for me the Beatles are the greatest.
  • localnotail 8 Mar 2013 19:43:45 23,093 posts
    Seen 7 months ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    jonsaan wrote:
    Both.

    It's like comparing two completely different things that are both fantastic.
    +1. Chocolate or steak, you decide.

    I've always been more of a Stillwater girl anyway. Russell Hammond was dreamy.

    A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

  • thelzdking 8 Mar 2013 20:02:14 4,367 posts
    Seen 3 weeks ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    The Beatles and Led Zeppelin are not that dissimilar. A comparison is muddled by their aesthetic (as in musical, not visual aesthetic) differences, but they're broadly coming from the same place, as the vast majority of guitar bands at the time were.

    Anyway, it's easily Zeppelin for me. Neither band is perfect but AFAIC The Beatles turned out a lot more crap, proportionally speaking.

    When I was younger I loved Zeppelin, but as I've got older I find that, as others have said, Black Sabbath are a far more interesting band.
  • localnotail 8 Mar 2013 20:21:24 23,093 posts
    Seen 7 months ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    OK, let's do Hawkwind vs Floyd next.

    A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

  • Trafford 8 Mar 2013 20:34:36 5,791 posts
    Seen 24 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    What's the best ever Double Live Album ever please?
  • localnotail 8 Mar 2013 21:37:26 23,093 posts
    Seen 7 months ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Trafford wrote:
    What's the best ever Double Live Album ever please?


    On so many levels, man.
    /tokes

    A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

  • Page

    of 9 First / Last

Log in or register to reply