Led Zeppelin vs The Beatles

[wally funk]

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.

this doesn't make sense to me in the slightest. LZ is your fave over the beatles but you acknowledge that they're shitter than the beatles in your opinion... surely your favourite of the two would be the 'better' of the two? surely... since the word 'better' is as much an opinion as 'favourite'? know what i mean?

 

[ManWithNoName]

this doesn't make sense to me in the slightest. LZ is your fave over the beatles but you acknowledge that they're shitter than the beatles in your opinion... surely your favourite of the two would be the 'better' of the two? surely... since the word 'better' is as much an opinion as 'favourite'? know what i mean?

The Fratellis are my second favourite band ever. I like listening to them more than anyone else, up until yesterday that included The Beatles. (I'm now back in Beatles craze mode). Does that mean I think that The Fratellis are the second best band ever? Hell no. Just means I consider them my second favourite band to listen too.

In the same way, Back to the Future is my favourite film to watch. But it's not the best film I've ever seen.

 

[Jimi]

this doesn't make sense to me in the slightest. LZ is your fave over the beatles but you acknowledge that they're shitter than the beatles in your opinion... surely your favourite of the two would be the 'better' of the two? surely... since the word 'better' is as much an opinion as 'favourite'? know what i mean?

Ok, Zeppelin aren't sh*te. I wouldn't say that they are a 'shitter' than the Beatles. Led Zeppelin are better for what they are - a rock and roll band. The Beatles are a lot more than that.
LZ are probably the best rock band ever, but The Beatles are more than a rock band. The world favourite has a lot more to do with personal taste than opinion. Matthew Hayden is my favourite batsman, but I wouldn't say he's better than Ricky Ponting.

 

[wally funk]

i didnt say LZ are shit, they're my favourite band as well. i was saying when i quoted that other post that surely in opinions, 'favourite' and 'best' mean more or less the exact same thing as in:
"LZ are my favourite band" or, "i reckon LZ are the best!"

 

[ManWithNoName]

i didnt say LZ are shit, they're my favourite band as well. i was saying when i quoted that other post that surely in opinions, 'favourite' and 'best' mean more or less the exact same thing as in:
"LZ are my favourite band" or, "i reckon LZ are the best!"

Favourite means one you enjoy the most.

Best means the best.

Generally peoples favourites are the best, but with things like sportsmen, movies, music, often peoples favourites aren't what they would consider the best.

 

[ShepBoy]

"I Roll a Stoney...you can imitate everyone you know"

Better a Stones imitation of The Beatles than a Heebee Geebees imitation of treacle.

Very overrated and how boring is falsetto song after song after song?

One trick ponies.

 

[Papa G]

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.

Actually LZ have done extremely well considering the ingrained, from birth instilled notion that the Beatles are the greatest band of all time all of us have grown up with. I see it as a maturing of the population. It's a bit like being forced by your parents to go to church all your childhood, but when you reach a certain age you start questioning this enforced belief and make up your own mind. Like Christianity, the unquestioned divine worship of the Beatles is slowly dissipating. It is healthy. Our society is evolving.

 

[evo]

hehe.Nice analogy PapaG.

 

[Partridge]

Zeppelin did some good stuff but they are generally a simple blues based c ock rock band and can't really compare to the complex music of The Beatles. If you prefer a band that "Rawks" sure listen to Zeppelin,however if you want to listen to musical genius listen to The Beatles.

As I said try Zeppelin vs Stones where they actually have a chance.

Seems like the people have spoken as usual

Sorry I can't agree. Zeppelin's acoustic material alone - and later stuff such as Physical Graffiti - is anything but simple. I'm a guitarist myself and I can tell you from hours spent at the fretboard that most Beatles stuff takes 5 seconds to work out, Zeppelin is much, much harder. That doesn't make them a better band, but to say they were a simple blues based band is woefully incorrect. I won't even bother comparing the bass players or drummers as again Zeppelin's personnel is way ahead.

To the point of the thread - I'd say Led Zeppelin. I'd also say the Stones and the Who were better than the Beatles.

To me bands have 3 qualities - make great music in the studio, make great music on stage, and have top notch musicians. The Beatles undoubtedly ticked off number 1, but I've big doubts about 2 and 3. Whereas for Led Zeppelin, and the Stones, and the Who, they made great studio music, they had brilliant musicians, and all 3 were brilliant live performers.

There's a little thing people are forgetting also about the Beatles last 4 years - they stopped touring. No live shows. Zeppelin, the Stones and the Who were touring constantly throughout their peak periods. It has to be considered.

I'm not a Beatles-hater either, I love them and I have all the albums. But I think the other 3 are superior. Simple as that.

 

[ManWithNoName]

The Beatles were great live. It just got to the extent that they couldn't actually hear themselves play due to the crowd.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Actually LZ have done extremely well considering the ingrained, from birth instilled notion that the Beatles are the greatest band of all time all of us have grown up with. I see it as a maturing of the population. It's a bit like being forced by your parents to go to church all your childhood, but when you reach a certain age you start questioning this enforced belief and make up your own mind. Like Christianity, the unquestioned divine worship of the Beatles is slowly dissipating. It is healthy. Our society is evolving.

A BF poll isn't a true indication of anything.

BF has a bigger heavier rock population that britpop type artists so of course LZ will get a few votes.

But as yet iv'e seen no evidence to prove why LZ were greater than the Beatles which would be nice to see and discuss.

 

[EnglishWarrior]

Actually LZ have done extremely well considering the ingrained, from birth instilled notion that the Beatles are the greatest band of all time all of us have grown up with. I see it as a maturing of the population. It's a bit like being forced by your parents to go to church all your childhood, but when you reach a certain age you start questioning this enforced belief and make up your own mind. Like Christianity, the unquestioned divine worship of the Beatles is slowly dissipating. It is healthy. Our society is evolving.

Bloody hell mate you really are stuck on this one! Can't you just accept that people can actually see genius for what it really is!

 

[cats56]

Sorry I can't agree. Zeppelin's acoustic material alone - and later stuff such as Physical Graffiti - is anything but simple. I'm a guitarist myself and I can tell you from hours spent at the fretboard that most Beatles stuff takes 5 seconds to work out, Zeppelin is much, much harder. That doesn't make them a better band, but to say they were a simple blues based band is woefully incorrect. I won't even bother comparing the bass players or drummers as again Zeppelin's personnel is way ahead.

To the point of the thread - I'd say Led Zeppelin. I'd also say the Stones and the Who were better than the Beatles.

To me bands have 3 qualities - make great music in the studio, make great music on stage, and have top notch musicians. The Beatles undoubtedly ticked off number 1, but I've big doubts about 2 and 3. Whereas for Led Zeppelin, and the Stones, and the Who, they made great studio music, they had brilliant musicians, and all 3 were brilliant live performers.

There's a little thing people are forgetting also about the Beatles last 4 years - they stopped touring. No live shows. Zeppelin, the Stones and the Who were touring constantly throughout their peak periods. It has to be considered.

I'm not a Beatles-hater either, I love them and I have all the albums. But I think the other 3 are superior. Simple as that.

Quite a good post Partridge, but you do need to be corrected on the point i've highlighted.

I've dissed out on McCartney on a number of occasions, but there's no argument he is a great bass player.

In fact i'd rate only Entwhistle, Andy Fraser (Free) and Jack Bruce above him of the English bass player's.

 

[Papa G]

A BF poll isn't a true indication of anything.

BF has a bigger heavier rock population that britpop type artists so of course LZ will get a few votes.

But as yet iv'e seen no evidence to prove why LZ were greater than the Beatles which would be nice to see and discuss.

Bigfooty polls not a true indication of anything. And here I was thinking that I had all the answers to Global Warming, Hird/Buckley/Voss and who is the greatest pr0n star. Shit, now you tell me everything needs a rethink?

There is no evidence to suggest the greatest band, it is all opinion. You have poo pooed on statistical data such as sales, number 1's, commercial success etc in earlier posts which you have stated as meaningless, but then come out with claims that Pete Townsend is a better writer than Page and Plant - Where is the evidence for this? There is none, it is personal opinion.

I like Zeppelin more than I like the Beatles. They are my favourite band of all time. To me they are the greatest band of all time as their music speaks to me more than the Beatles music does. My main arguement has not been that Zeppelin are the greatest band of all time, my main arguement has been that a lot of people say the Beatles because that is what they have always been taught, not because they genuinely believe it. It is what they are suppossed to say. There have been numerous examples of it on this thread.

Patridge makes some good points on where the Beatles sit in certain aspects/limitations of their talents - is this evidence or opinion, I'm not quite sure.

I understand the distinction between greatest and favourite, but a band like Led Zeppelin has earnt the right from what has it has achieved to be considered in the same stratosphere as the Beatles whereby a band like the Fratelli's that another poster used as an example of his favourite band is a ludicrous comparison and not worth arguing.

What evidence do you want? Musical talent, song writing ability, influence, historical significance, fashion trends, how many people were conceived whilst their parents were listening in the back seat of the Morris Minor??? Where does it start and end and how, who, what are measuring it?

There are still more people who think the Beatles are the greatest band of all time. We live in a democracy, majority rules, I conceed. My main point is, with the passing of time maybe the God Like status of the Beatles will be diminished. As children of the baby boomer generation it was stuffed down our throats by everyone from our parents to the popular media, but I would suggest this is on the wane and the younger generations with the lessening effects of Beatlemania/zealotry will come to their conclusions more on their own.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Bigfooty polls not a true indication of anything. And here I was thinking that I had all the answers to Global Warming, Hird/Buckley/Voss and who is the greatest pr0n star. Shit, now you tell me everything needs a rethink?

There is no evidence to suggest the greatest band, it is all opinion. You have poo pooed on statistical data such as sales, number 1's, commercial success etc in earlier posts which you have stated as meaningless, but then come out with claims that Pete Townsend is a better writer than Page and Plant - Where is the evidence for this? There is none, it is personal opinion.

I like Zeppelin more than I like the Beatles. They are my favourite band of all time. To me they are the greatest band of all time as their music speaks to me more than the Beatles music does. My main arguement has not been that Zeppelin are the greatest band of all time, my main arguement has been that a lot of people say the Beatles because that is what they have always been taught, not because they genuinely believe it. It is what they are suppossed to say. There have been numerous examples of it on this thread.

Patridge makes some good points on where the Beatles sit in certain aspects/limitations of their talents - is this evidence or opinion, I'm not quite sure.

I understand the distinction between greatest and favourite, but a band like Led Zeppelin has earnt the right from what has it has achieved to be considered in the same stratosphere as the Beatles whereby a band like the Fratelli's that another poster used as an example of his favourite band is a ludicrous comparison and not worth arguing.

What evidence do you want? Musical talent, song writing ability, influence, historical significance, fashion trends, how many people were conceived whilst their parents were listening in the back seat of the Morris Minor??? Where does it start and end and how, who, what are measuring it?

There are still more people who think the Beatles are the greatest band of all time. We live in a democracy, majority rules, I conceed. My main point is, with the passing of time maybe the God Like status of the Beatles will be diminished. As children of the baby boomer generation it was stuffed down our throats by everyone from our parents to the popular media, but I would suggest this is on the wane and the younger generations with the lessening effects of Beatlemania/zealotry will come to their conclusions more on their own.

I did provide evidence.

Townshend wrote the one of the first rock operas before LZ were hitting their straps.

And it recieved critical acclaim and is still to this day being performed as a production around the world.

That's one man alone (not a duo) writing a set of songs that all merge into a story.

That's more of a writing achievement than writing an album full of random songs that don't have any relevence to each other.



In regard to other points I don't have either band in my top 5 bands of all time, so I don't judge them on a personal bias, I judge them on what Iv'e read over the years from magazines and articles on the production of their music and what went in to making those songs /sounds.

I personally never had either band stuffed down my throat, I actually had Neil Diamond/CCR and Gene Pitney(and a zillion Irish and bagpipe songs) shoved down mine.

So i was fortunate enough not to have a bias when i finally sat down to listen to both artists music.

I just find The Beatles expanded their musical horizons far more through their years than LZ did.

And i take that as being a sign The Beatles were far more musically intelligent and creative than LZ were.

And as Iv'e already stated I place a bit of credence on what they all did after their bands broke up to help judge who actually had more musical talent as a group.

And in that respect The Beatles win hands down.

 

[Papa G]

I did provide evidence.

Townshend wrote the one of the first rock operas before LZ were hitting their straps.

And it recieved critical acclaim and is still to this day being performed as a production around the world.

That's one man alone (not a duo) writing a set of songs that all merge into a story.

That's more of a writing achievement than writing an album full of random songs that don't have any relevence to each other.


And as Iv'e already stated I place a bit of credence on what they all did after their bands broke up to help judge who actually had more musical talent as a group.

And in that respect The Beatles win hands down.

Point 1 - This is not evidence, it is opinion. The writing of a rock opera is a great achievement in story telling but does that mean every song is a master piece? In your opinion the synergistic value of the whole album makes it great, but individually does each song stack up on it's own? In your opinion it probably does, but just because the whole album tells a story doesn't mean it is a masterpiece and superior to the traditional album where most of the songs are not interelated in any way. Perhaps you should be comparing Pete Townsend to Andrew Lloyd Webber?

Point 2 - I for one am grateful Robert Plant did not go down a Wings type road.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Point 1 - This is not evidence, it is opinion. The writing of a rock opera is a great achievement in story telling but does that mean every song is a master piece? In your opinion the synergistic value of the whole album makes it great, but individually does each song stack up on it's own? In your opinion it probably does, but just because the whole album tells a story doesn't mean it is a masterpiece and superior to the traditional album where most of the songs are not interelated in any way. Perhaps you should be comparing Pete Townsend to Andrew Lloyd Webber?

Point 2 - I for one am grateful Robert Plant did not go down a Wings type road.

1. Well you have to take LZ albums as a whole and not indvidual songs because the band itself always stated it was about a whole album experience not an individual song thing.

So by their own admission it wasnt about one individual thing it was about a whole project.

Which is why I used The Who's 'Tommy' as an example of a whole body of work to compare with in regards to difficulty in producing to a high standard.

None of LZ albums were all masterpieces, but compared to other bands LZ and The Who had far more well constructed songs within them generally.


I just think it's harder to write a whole rock album that joins in with each other as compared to an album where you are free to write about anything and everything for your materials inspiration.



2. You might be grateful, but despite all their talents they pretty much faded quickly from the musical landscape and to the "greater general public" never to be heard again, which is a shame i guess because it's almost a waste of talent.

If we compare a Beatles member and their corresponding LZ member

Say compare Page to Harrison, sure Page could play like a demon, but once both groups finished up who actually gave us something more to remember them by?

Harrison actually added some ok stuff to his resume to prove he was capable without the big 2 there around him.

What happened to Page?

People have stated he was a great song writer, so why couldnt he muster something else to show he was more than just LZ?

The same goes for Plant.

In all seriousness why did they just fade away?

 

[Papa G]

1. Well you have to take LZ albums as a whole and not indvidual songs because the band itself always stated it was about a whole album experience not an individual song thing.

So by their own admission it wasnt about one individual thing it was about a whole project.

Which is why I used The Who's 'Tommy' as an example of a whole body of work to compare with in regards to difficulty in producing to a high standard.

None of LZ albums were all masterpieces, but compared to other bands LZ and The Who had far more well constructed songs within them generally.


I just think it's harder to write a whole rock album that joins in with each other as compared to an album where you are free to write about anything and everything for your materials inspiration.



2. You might be grateful, but despite all their talents they pretty much faded quickly from the musical landscape and to the "greater general public" never to be heard again, which is a shame i guess because it's almost a waste of talent.

If we compare a Beatles member and their corresponding LZ member

Say compare Page to Harrison, sure Page could play like a demon, but once both groups finished up who actually gave us something more to remember them by?

Harrison actually added some ok stuff to his resume to prove he was capable without the big 2 there around him.

What happened to Page?

People have stated he was a great song writer, so why couldnt he muster something else to show he was more than just LZ?

The same goes for Plant.

In all seriousness why did they just fade away?

Heroin addiction

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Heroin addiction

Can't be just that, other artists still made music while ****ed off their heads on booze and drugs.

Shit Keith Richards still managed to pump out good music desipte never being with it and did so for god only knows how long.


And Plant?

Why did he find little or no success after LZ?

 

[Papa G]

Can't be just that, other artists still made music while ****ed off their heads on booze and drugs.

Shit Keith Richards still managed to pump out good music desipte never being with it and did so for god only knows how long.


And Plant?

Why did he find little or no success after LZ?

Don't know - For whatever reason their music careers tailed off as can be seen in the last couple Led Zeppelin records. Regardless of Keith Richards freakish abilities (most other people would be dead) I would say Heroin addiction did hamper Page's work post 1977. Plant soldiered on and had limited success with a solo career, but never reaching any great heights. The difference with LZ and the Beatles is that all their better music came at different times of their career. When the Beatles split up they were still at a musical high point with their crap stuff coming at the start of their career, LZ were the opposite. John Bonham's death, Plant's sons death plus Page's dependance on drugs were all pretty destructive things to happen and I don't really think any of them recovered. Led Zeppelin, like a Pete Townsend's rock opera seem to rely on the sum rather than the individual parts.

 

[scooterb]

Can't be just that, other artists still made music while ****ed off their heads on booze and drugs.

Shit Keith Richards still managed to pump out good music desipte never being with it and did so for god only knows how long.


And Plant?

Why did he find little or no success after LZ?

Wow, it looks as though his last album was released this year and it debuted at number 2 in the U.S. Hasn't he just fallen off the earth....

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Wow, it looks as though his last album was released this year and it debuted at number 2 in the U.S. Hasn't he just fallen off the earth....

Wow I guess those 27 years off from doing anything decent really payed off then.

Maybe it was Alison Krauss that made em buy it

 

[Partridge]

Quite a good post Partridge, but you do need to be corrected on the point i've highlighted.

I've dissed out on McCartney on a number of occasions, but there's no argument he is a great bass player.

In fact i'd rate only Entwhistle, Andy Fraser (Free) and Jack Bruce above him of the English bass player's.

Fair enough, I should have explained that a little better.

I think McCartney was clearly the great musician of the Beatles, and is undoubtedly a top class bass player. I would still go for John Paul Jones however. That's not dissing McCartney, I just think JPJ is a better player. Incredible all round musician.

Great call on Andy Fraser too, he's playing was so underrated and so important to Free's sound. Entwistle and Bruce are the other obvious standouts.

 

[goal sneak]

Daft punk

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Fair enough, I should have explained that a little better.

I think McCartney was clearly the great musician of the Beatles, and is undoubtedly a top class bass player. I would still go for John Paul Jones however. That's not dissing McCartney, I just think JPJ is a better player. Incredible all round musician.

Great call on Andy Fraser too, he's playing was so underrated and so important to Free's sound. Entwistle and Bruce are the other obvious standouts.

Both are great all round musos.

But I too would rate JPJ as a better bass player, in fact I'd rate him as the best all round muso in LZ.