Led Zeppelin or The Beatles? Page 4

  • Page

    of 9 First / Last

  • Tom_Servo 8 Mar 2013 21:39:44 18,083 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Beatles, easy.

    However, I'd take The Velvet Underground over The Beatles if we're talking 60s bands in general.
  • Trafford 8 Mar 2013 21:46:51 5,931 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    The Mothers of Invention is the correct answer.
  • Deleted user 8 March 2013 21:51:22
    Trafford wrote:
    The Mothers of Invention is the correct answer.
    i was very lucky to see them a few years back. Abiet without frank... obivously, and a bit older and greyer, but it was fantastic. Montanna baby!

    it was great, awesome set, and they told stories and all that.

    Edited by joelstinton at 21:52:02 08-03-2013
  • b0rk 8 Mar 2013 21:51:53 2,942 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Bowie is GODLIKE.
  • dsmx 8 Mar 2013 23:31:36 7,689 posts
    Seen 20 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I chose neither and go with Queen, I could happily live without listening to anything zepplin and the beatles have ever done but I don't think I could stand to live in a world with no music from Queen.

    "If we hit that bullseye the rest of the dominoes will fall like a a house of cards, checkmate." Zapp Brannigan

  • bladdard 9 Mar 2013 00:35:20 1,009 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Goodfella wrote:
    Never understood the argument that The Beatles were overrated. Sure you could say 63-65 they were just a 'boy band' but they matured so much after that period both lyrically and musically, and to this day the vocals and harmonies are uniquely memorable.
    I just never got on with them, my parents were fans and my brother too so I know their catalog really well.

    Their early stuff was a load of throwaway pop songs - please please me, love me do, hard days nigh, can't by me love, wanna hold your hand.

    Their middle stuff, Help album and so on was better but hardly chock full of classics. I mean you're gonna lose that girl and yesterday are awful songs although I do like nowhere man.

    Revolver had Yellow Submarine which is awful, I do actually like Eleanor Rigby off that album which is sort of a guilty pleasure.

    And the later Sergeant Peppers, Magical Mystery, Abbey Road and Let it be had a handful of good songs such as Come Together, LSD, Something (in the way), Sgt peppers lonely heartsclub bands, She's leaving home and revolution.

    So all in all a dozen goods songs and a whole load of crap.

    Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and even the Stones produced far more great material IMHO.

    Edited by bladdard at 00:39:12 09-03-2013
  • mal 9 Mar 2013 00:41:57 22,792 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Led Zep were an albums band, who didn't release singles. According to BBC 4, the Beatles invented the rock album.

    Cubby didn't know how to turn off sigs!

  • Deleted user 9 March 2013 02:42:58
    I don't see why I have to choose. I like them just as much :)
  • rtk79 9 Mar 2013 22:59:12 496 posts
    Seen 23 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Do you people not know Roy Harper ? Because if there's an unacknowledged king of English pop music, he's your man. Just ask Jimmy Page, David Gilmore or McCartney, they'll all vouch for him (and have all played on records of his, see : Stormcock, Valentine, HQ, and Bullinamingvase for proof and pleasure).

    Edited by rtk79 at 23:30:17 09-03-2013
  • Deleted user 10 March 2013 10:34:45
    Great dedication show to led zeppelin, with introduction from ~Jack Black confirming led zeppelin as the greatest of all time :)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOy5TCB9JMw
  • crispyduckman 10 Mar 2013 11:43:59 1,888 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Pepsipop wrote:
    Great dedication show to led zeppelin, with introduction from ~Jack Black confirming led zeppelin as the greatest of all time :)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOy5TCB9JMw
    I love Led Zep but that show is one of the least rock n roll things I have ever seen.

    PSN/XBL/Steam/Origin: crispyduckman

  • speedofthepuma 10 Mar 2013 12:02:59 13,310 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    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.

    I lurk. If I've spoken to you, I'm either impassioned, or drunk.

  • Deleted user 10 March 2013 12:17:42
    crispyduckman wrote:
    Pepsipop wrote:
    Great dedication show to led zeppelin, with introduction from ~Jack Black confirming led zeppelin as the greatest of all time :)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOy5TCB9JMw
    I love Led Zep but that show is one of the least rock n roll things I have ever seen.
    Well it was an event with the president etc so it wouldn't be like the 70s. Led zeppelin are also ancient now.
  • Mr_Sleep 10 Mar 2013 12:28:18 17,293 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Led Zeppelin were rightly accused by their peers of plagirising large amounts of blues music and not giving any credit to the progenitors. Not just blues, Black Mountainside is a complete rip off of Bert Jansch's Black Waterside (which is eminently superior). Compare that with how the Rolling Stones introduced Howlin Wolf to an American audience and it shows who the class act are.

    You are a factory of sadness.

  • Cappy 10 Mar 2013 12:34:59 12,096 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Once you strip the first four Led Zeppelin albums down to the stuff that isn't obviously plagiarised there's practically nothing left.

    They're a covers band.
  • crispyduckman 10 Mar 2013 13:16:13 1,888 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Mr_Sleep wrote:
    Led Zeppelin were rightly accused by their peers of plagirising large amounts of blues music and not giving any credit to the progenitors. Not just blues, Black Mountainside is a complete rip off of Bert Jansch's Black Waterside (which is eminently superior). Compare that with how the Rolling Stones introduced Howlin Wolf to an American audience and it shows who the class act are.
    I don't know specifically what your referring to. However, speaking generally, there are some quirks relating to the nature of some blues music/writing. People often associate certain blues tracks with early recording artists. However, the lyrics or music were often copied from even earlier songs or other non-recording contemporaries. The true identity of the original composers is often uncertain or completely unknown. The nature of blues, and many other types of music, was to copy and pass songs on by performance. That's a musical attitude that most people have completely forgotten about these days.

    Fast forward to the British blues invasion and some labels choose to credit the early recording artists and some labels choose to consider them as "traditional songs". In either case, the decisions are generally based on financial considerations and whatever is easiest for the label.

    PSN/XBL/Steam/Origin: crispyduckman

  • Mola_Ram 10 Mar 2013 13:30:43 7,994 posts
    Seen 56 seconds ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    On the thread topic... Beatles.

    But Bowie wins. I'd rather listen to Bowie, Doors, Pink Floyd than either of those two. Which is not to say that they're not great - just not my preferred listening.
  • Cappy 10 Mar 2013 13:33:13 12,096 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    The nature of Led Zeppelin's plagiarism is in no way as innocent as that:

    Led Zeppelin plagiarism part 1

    Yes, that's right, that's just part one.

    Dazed and Confused, Stairway to Heaven, Babe I'm Gonna Leave You, etc. stolen from poor musicians who weren't backed by a behemoth record company, few got what they were due. Led Zeppelin's early albums were mostly uncredited covers and re-workings of other musician's work.
  • Deleted user 10 March 2013 13:52:07
    Makes more sense to compare Led Zep to the likes of The Who, Pink Floyd and Queen, all of which are better IMO, for different reasons. Closest points of comparison for The Beatles would be Beach Boys, The Hollies, The Kinks etc. Only the Beach Boys come close in terms of quality, and certainly don't come near in terms of long term consistency thanks to Wilson's health issues.

    As for The Beatles, they may "just" have been pop, but so what? There is ridiculous snobbery in the way people sneer down on the genre, particularly if we're talking about the 60s, when pop was far from the formulaic corporate engineered bullshit it is today. The Beatles wrote most of the greatest pop songs ever. Whether they're to your taste or not, that's hard to argue with.
  • Deleted user 10 March 2013 14:00:57
    Dazed and confused the only rip. All the others just used ideas and samples just like countless other bands.

    The lemon song for example is one of my favourites and it samples howling wolf but made it theit own.
  • Mola_Ram 10 Mar 2013 14:09:01 7,994 posts
    Seen 56 seconds ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    The Beatles have so much variety in their catalogue that saying you like or don't like them is almost meaningless without getting more specific. I like the psychadelic stuff and the bluesy stuff. The teenybopper tracks (I Wanna Hold Your Hand, for example) I could take or leave, but even then I recognise that they're of an exceedingly high quality.
  • Mr_Sleep 10 Mar 2013 14:12:14 17,293 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    crispyduckman wrote:
    I don't know specifically what your referring to. However, speaking generally, there are some quirks relating to the nature of some blues music/writing. People often associate certain blues tracks with early recording artists. However, the lyrics or music were often copied from even earlier songs or other non-recording contemporaries. The true identity of the original composers is often uncertain or completely unknown. The nature of blues, and many other types of music, was to copy and pass songs on by performance. That's a musical attitude that most people have completely forgotten about these days.
    Yeah, this is true. Does that make it okay for Led Zeppelin to plagarise specific lyrics and music when they were not part of the oral traidition?

    You are a factory of sadness.

  • Mr_Sleep 10 Mar 2013 14:15:34 17,293 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Black Waterside

    Black Mountainside

    It really speaks for itself.

    You are a factory of sadness.

  • Deleted user 10 March 2013 14:19:34
    I think that whole argument about blues music being owner-less and evolving over time is a post-rationalisation in the of case LZ.
  • chopsen 10 Mar 2013 15:07:50 16,209 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    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
  • crispyduckman 10 Mar 2013 15:07:52 1,888 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Cappy wrote:
    The nature of Led Zeppelin's v is in no way as innocent as that:

    Led Zeppelin plagiarism part 1

    Yes, that's right, that's just part one.

    Dazed and Confused, Stairway to Heaven, Babe I'm Gonna Leave You, etc. stolen from poor musicians who weren't backed by a behemoth record company, few got what they were due. Led Zeppelin's early albums were mostly uncredited covers and re-workings of other musician's work.
    I watched the video but I still think "plagiarism" is too strong a term in the context of blues, early rock and even many recording musicians generally up to the '70s.

    In the video, Wolf's How Many More Years vs. Zep's How Many More Times is actually a brilliant example of exactly how many blues and folk songs are written. You loosely follow an established rhythm and crank out some of your own lyrics - these often have overlaps with earlier songs. If you're into blues you'll hear tons of songs that have done this and Wolf's music itself is no exception.

    In modern times, many people might consider the above way of making music to be evil/stealing/plagiarism. However, with some exceptions, that's a relatively recent attitude, which was itself formed, in part, by litigation from the era of bands like Led Zep. I'm not trying to say whether it's right or wrong. However, I am saying that it was once common to write music that way and we got some great songs from it.

    PSN/XBL/Steam/Origin: crispyduckman

  • chopsen 10 Mar 2013 15:11:32 16,209 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Yeah, that might have been how things were done once with certain types of music. But the Dazed and Confused example pretty much nails it. They were blatantly ripping off original content with a living attributable known creator!

    Edited by Chopsen at 15:11:50 10-03-2013
  • Page

    of 9 First / Last

Log in or register to reply