Led Zeppelin vs The Beatles

Remove this Banner Ad

scooterb said:
If the Beatles music had never been released before until this day it would be considered poppy rubbish, similar to what tops the U.S charts these days (just like Timbaland, every time i look at the charts he has like a number 1 single every god damn week, and its always a different track).

If Led Zepp's music was released today, the amount of respect it would have over the Beatles music would be immense.

LZ I - Awesome
LZ II - Awesome
LZ III - Criticized, but awesome
LZ IV - The best
Physical Graffiti - Awesome
Houses of the Holy - Awesome
Presence - Average
In Through the Out Door - Average

Still a damn fine record.
Click to expand...


But LZ didn't change the world of music like the Beatles did.

And in the end The Beatles sound ended up far more diverse than LZ.

You don't have poppy rubbish when you have the greatest song writing duo ever, you don't have poppy rubbish when you have an extremly talented guitarist in your line up.

How the **** you think that equates to Timbaland I'm bemused to say the least.
 
AndSmithMustScore said:
But LZ didn't change the world of music like the Beatles did.

And in the end The Beatles sound ended up far more diverse than LZ.

You don't have poppy rubbish when you have the greatest song writing duo ever, you don't have poppy rubbish when you have an extremly talented guitarist in your line up.

How the **** you think that equates to Timbaland I'm bemused to say the least.
Click to expand...



oh yeah, i remember now.
you were the one that critisized Nirvana and didnt even think they were influential!
i remember that you said that Nirvana didnt create a music style or were unique in any way. so you agree that if nirvana were around 30 years later, they wouldnt be anything special? do you now suggest that they did start something special that teenagers could relate to across the world?

i ******* hope so
 
scooterb said:
If the Beatles music had never been released before until this day it would be considered poppy rubbish, similar to what tops the U.S charts these days (just like Timbaland, every time i look at the charts he has like a number 1 single every god damn week, and its always a different track).
Click to expand...

Difficult to say really, given the music industry wouldn't be what it is today without The Beatles.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

strauchy said:
oh yeah, i remember now.
you were the one that critisized Nirvana and didnt even think they were influential!
i remember that you said that Nirvana didnt create a music style or were unique in any way. so you agree that if nirvana were around 30 years later, they wouldnt be anything special? do you now suggest that they did start something special that teenagers could relate to across the world?

i ******* hope so
Click to expand...


We are talking about 2 incredibly talented bands in The Beatles and Led Zeppelin.

Nirvana isn't good enough to be their skid marks.
 
AndSmithMustScore said:
But LZ didn't change the world of music like the Beatles did.

And in the end The Beatles sound ended up far more diverse than LZ.

You don't have poppy rubbish when you have the greatest song writing duo ever, you don't have poppy rubbish when you have an extremly talented guitarist in your line up.

How the **** you think that equates to Timbaland I'm bemused to say the least.
Click to expand...

The Beatles only changed the world of music because they were hit seekers that lured loopy teenagers into "Beatlemania" commercialism. I can barely stand their B-Grade music, some of the hits are ok, but their music is not diverse. At the end of the day it starts sounding all the same, most likely because of monotoned vocals and simple drumming.
Led Zeppelin was raw power with 4 of the best musicians of all time. To tell me that the Beatles "extremely talented guitarist" was any where near Jimmy Page's level is a joke. You can barely hear guitar in most Beatles track, but with Zepp it is pure bliss dominated by Jimmy Page's mesmerising wizardry.
I wasn't comparing the Beatles music to Timbaland's music, i was judging what their position in the music industries eyes would be like, as in more poppy rubbish (Pussycat Dolls, Britney Spears, etc...) that most knowledgeable people would laugh at. You don't see hard rock tracks dominating the charts, but im sure theres more rock fans out there than what the Beatles would have if they came out a few years ago.

The gap between LZ's music and the Beatles music is enormous.
You barely talk up the Beatles, you just bash LZ.

BTW - Nirvana rules.
 
scooterb said:
The Beatles only changed the world of music because they were hit seekers that lured loopy teenagers into "Beatlemania" commercialism. I can barely stand their B-Grade music, some of the hits are ok, but their music is not diverse. At the end of the day it starts sounding all the same, most likely because of monotoned vocals and simple drumming.
Led Zeppelin was raw power with 4 of the best musicians of all time. To tell me that the Beatles "extremely talented guitarist" was any where near Jimmy Page's level is a joke. You can barely hear guitar in most Beatles track, but with Zepp it is pure bliss dominated by Jimmy Page's mesmerising wizardry.
I wasn't comparing the Beatles music to Timbaland's music, i was judging what their position in the music industries eyes would be like, as in more poppy rubbish (Pussycat Dolls, Britney Spears, etc...) that most knowledgeable people would laugh at. You don't see hard rock tracks dominating the charts, but im sure theres more rock fans out there than what the Beatles would have if they came out a few years ago.

The gap between LZ's music and the Beatles music is enormous.
You barely talk up the Beatles, you just bash LZ.

BTW - Nirvana rules.
Click to expand...

Do you even know what you are talking about?

Poppy Rubbish?

Nobody would think of them as 'poppy rubbish' because alot of their songs are still great musical achievements.

If they truly were just 'poppy rubbish' do you think a genius the likes of George Martin would have been working with them?

Do you even know who he is more the point?

If 'poppy rubbish' was all the standard he wished to work with he'd have worked with Freddie and the Dreamers.

Making great music isn't all about some tossbag doing a 5 minute drum or guitar solo, there's more to music than that.

Some of those Beatles songs were so wonderfully layered with numerous sounds only a twit would label them as 'poppy rubbish'.

Sure LZ were better musos, no arguement there, but it doesn't mean they knew how to create a song and make it work as well as The Beatles.

The best way to prove the The Beatles had more talent is as simple as looking at the careers of all artists involved once each band split up.

The Beatles individually still went on to have alot of success, LZ??

Hmmm can't say the same for them.
 
scooterb said:
The Beatles only changed the world of music because they were hit seekers that lured loopy teenagers into "Beatlemania" commercialism. I can barely stand their B-Grade music, some of the hits are ok, but their music is not diverse. At the end of the day it starts sounding all the same, most likely because of monotoned vocals and simple drumming.
Led Zeppelin was raw power with 4 of the best musicians of all time. To tell me that the Beatles "extremely talented guitarist" was any where near Jimmy Page's level is a joke. You can barely hear guitar in most Beatles track, but with Zepp it is pure bliss dominated by Jimmy Page's mesmerising wizardry.
I wasn't comparing the Beatles music to Timbaland's music, i was judging what their position in the music industries eyes would be like, as in more poppy rubbish (Pussycat Dolls, Britney Spears, etc...) that most knowledgeable people would laugh at. You don't see hard rock tracks dominating the charts, but im sure theres more rock fans out there than what the Beatles would have if they came out a few years ago.

The gap between LZ's music and the Beatles music is enormous.
You barely talk up the Beatles, you just bash LZ.

BTW - Nirvana rules.
Click to expand...


:thumbsu:100% agree with you there. you're right.
 
scooterb said:
The Beatles only changed the world of music because they were hit seekers that lured loopy teenagers into "Beatlemania" commercialism. I can barely stand their B-Grade music, some of the hits are ok, but their music is not diverse. At the end of the day it starts sounding all the same, most likely because of monotoned vocals and simple drumming.
Click to expand...

Oh. My. God.
 
AndSmithMustScore said:
.Some of those Beatles songs were so wonderfully layered with numerous sounds only a twit would label them as 'poppy rubbish'.

Sure LZ were better musos, no arguement there, but it doesn't mean they knew how to create a song and make it work as well as The Beatles.QUOTE]

Very interesting post. Thank you. One of my favourite guitarists is Robbie Robertson of 'The Band'. When interviewed about Robbie's guitar playing, George Harrison said something like, " I know there are guitarists who can play 10,000 notes a minute, but Robbie had a feel, a soul to his playing. I don't play at 10,000 notes a minute either."

When he played at his best, nobody ever confused Harrison's playing with somebody else's. This is the guts of The Beatles. Nobody ever did what they did as well, ever. They were unique. Admittedly, and they freely acknowledged this, they had their influences, but nobody sounded like them.

If you grew up in the sixties as a teenager, the influence of this band after the studied cabaret drabness of the likes of Sinatra, the vacuity of doo-wop and the sell-out by Elvis to commercial considerations dictated by Col. Parker, they were a breath of fresh air. My generation had its own music. It was better than what had gone before, because we'd never heard the really good black stuff which influenced them.

I can sympathise with those who followed them though. Their task to exceed them is impossible.
Click to expand...
 
scooterb said:
The Beatles only changed the world of music because they were hit seekers that lured loopy teenagers into "Beatlemania" commercialism. I can barely stand their B-Grade music, some of the hits are ok, but their music is not diverse. At the end of the day it starts sounding all the same, most likely because of monotoned vocals and simple drumming.
Led Zeppelin was raw power with 4 of the best musicians of all time. To tell me that the Beatles "extremely talented guitarist" was any where near Jimmy Page's level is a joke. You can barely hear guitar in most Beatles track, but with Zepp it is pure bliss dominated by Jimmy Page's mesmerising wizardry.
I wasn't comparing the Beatles music to Timbaland's music, i was judging what their position in the music industries eyes would be like, as in more poppy rubbish (Pussycat Dolls, Britney Spears, etc...) that most knowledgeable people would laugh at. You don't see hard rock tracks dominating the charts, but im sure theres more rock fans out there than what the Beatles would have if they came out a few years ago.

The gap between LZ's music and the Beatles music is enormous.
You barely talk up the Beatles, you just bash LZ.

BTW - Nirvana rules.
Click to expand...


Quite possibly the most ignorant post that I have read on BF.

The Beatles are by far and away the greatest band that walked the earth. They may not have been the best musicians per se, but what they did do was change the course of popular music. Simple. That in itself is recognition that they should be classified as the greatest band ever.

To say they are not diverse is an utter joke - you obviously haven't listened to any of their albums to make such outlandish statements. For their time they were the most diverse and experimental band around and they would still stack up today as one of the most experimental bands ever.

Yes LZ were a damn fine band. But they don't even come close to the Beatles. Full ****ing stop.
 
LIONS then DAYLIGHT said:
Listen to you students.

Anyone knows that the beatles smoke all other bands.

I get ****in angry when such a shit thread is filled up with ****ing students arguing over a pointless ****ing argument.

Students.
Click to expand...
Students?

**** me dead you are an absolute w***er:rolleyes:
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

whythelongface said:
Quite possibly the most ignorant post that I have read on BF.
you obviously haven't listened to any of their albums to make such outlandish statements.
Click to expand...
I own all of them and have listened to all of them and i stand by what they said. You haven't obviously listened to LZ's albums because they experimented a hell of a lot as well. Beatles music starts sounding the same after a while.
 
scooterb said:
I own all of them and have listened to all of them and i stand by what they said. You haven't obviously listened to LZ's albums because they experimented a hell of a lot as well. Beatles music starts sounding the same after a while.
Click to expand...
I Saw Her Standing There
She Loves You
Paperback Writer
Drive My Car
Norwegian Wood
In My Life
Taxman
I'm Only Sleeping
Tomorrow Never Knows
Helter Skelter
Revolution/Revolution 1
Why Don't We Do it in the Road
Magical Mystery Tour
Flying
I Am the Walrus
All You Need is Love
A Day in the Life
Sgt Peppers
Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds
Within You, Without You
Come Together
Maxwells Silver Hammer
Octopus' Garden
I Want You (She's So Heavy)
Abbey Road Medley
Get Back
Let it Be
For You Blue
I Me Mine

No, I agree. All the Beatles stuff did sound the same.
 
scooterb said:
I own all of them and have listened to all of them and i stand by what they said. You haven't obviously listened to LZ's albums because they experimented a hell of a lot as well. Beatles music starts sounding the same after a while.
Click to expand...


Do you read posts correctly? I never stated Zep didn't experiment.

I have every Zep album and all Beatles albums. Neither are my favourite band (but I am a fan of both) but the Beatles are without a shadow of doubt the greatest band ever.
 
LZ are my favourite band and the group I most enjoy listening to, but there's no doubt The Beatles are a better band. In terms of popular songs, diversity, longevity and sheer listenability. If Bonzo hadn't gone and died who knows what would have happened. Im suprised that LZ have got as many votes as they have in this thread, but im sure more of them are beatles haters than true zeppelin fans.
 
Jimi said:
LZ are my favourite band and the group I most enjoy listening to, but there's no doubt The Beatles are a better band. In terms of popular songs, diversity, longevity and sheer listenability. If Bonzo hadn't gone and died who knows what would have happened. Im suprised that LZ have got as many votes as they have in this thread, but im sure more of them are beatles haters than true zeppelin fans.
Click to expand...

Finally some sense.

I too love Led Zeppelin, and maybe more often than not prefer listening to them than the Beatles.

But there is no way they are the better band. Even Zeppelin themselves, with all their super sized egos, would baulk at the suggestion.

The Beatles are a 20th century phenomenon. Led Zeppelin, in comparison, are merely an extraordinary talented hard rock band.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Led Zeppelin vs The Beatles

Similar threads

Aristotle Pickett
Beatles- Now and Then released
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Professor Knowall
Professor Knowall
B
The meandering thematic weirdo muzak thread
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
2K
rank and file
rank and file
B
Link to “The Blue Moon Project”.
Replies
0
Views
224
Brian Oblivion
B
G
WHO THE HELL IS BILLY STRINGS?!
Replies
12
Views
577
moto748
moto748
FreoGirl
OMD and The Jesus and Mary Chain are coming!!
Replies
0
Views
345
FreoGirl
FreoGirl
footy75
Which live performances ever are considered the greatest concerts of all time?
Replies
5
Views
887
the_interloper
the_interloper
raskolnikov
  • Poll
Rank these Aussie bands.
Replies
15
Views
893
Purple7x08_24
Purple7x08_24

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top