Led Zeppelin vs The Beatles

Remove this Banner Ad

scooterb said:
What? That a band member died in a road accident and was replaced by look alike, sound alike?

Even with advanced technology, i don't think the Beatles would be as good live as The Who and Led Zeppelin because they don't seem to have the electric explosive playing these guys have.
Click to expand...
The Beatles weren't a hard rock band like the Who, Stones or Zeppelin, but that doesn't mean they couldn't produce some great hard rock. Songs like I Want You (She's So Heavy) would have sounded pretty explosive on stage. Harrison's guitar work was pretty average in 1965, but by '69 it was brilliant - the rooftop performance of One After 909 (which was an old early 60s rock & roll song) from him is a good example of how far it came.
 
Lidge said:
If you want to use number 1 singles as a guide

The Beatles 1 squillion def Led Zep 0

The Honeydrippers 1 def led Zep 0

Both great bands, but Beatles a class above IMHO
Click to expand...

Led Zep only released a handful of singles, probably like 3 or 4.
Led Zep were more of an album band, they were all about the music and usually all the songs on their albums could have been a lead single if they decided because the put lots of work in all their music.
Led Zep are the only band in history to never have an album peak on the charts below the top ten.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

johnnyhoward said:
The Beatles weren't a hard rock band like the Who, Stones or Zeppelin, but that doesn't mean they couldn't produce some great hard rock. Songs like I Want You (She's So Heavy) would have sounded pretty explosive on stage. Harrison's guitar work was pretty average in 1965, but by '69 it was brilliant - the rooftop performance of One After 909 (which was an old early 60s rock & roll song) from him is a good example of how far it came.
Click to expand...

True. They could produce some great rock songs (Helter Skelter, Revolution) but the majority of their stuff was a bit lighter. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Harrison's guitar playing did improve, but for me he still isn't close to any of the Stones top 3 (Taylor, Richards, Jones), or Page or Townshend. Just my opinion of course.
 
Lidge said:
If you want to use number 1 singles as a guide

The Beatles 1 squillion def Led Zep 0

The Honeydrippers 1 def led Zep 0

Both great bands, but Beatles a class above IMHO
Click to expand...
I've never been a fan of quoting album sales in determining how good a band is. The Beatles were the biggest selling band of all time but when poor albums like Beatles for Sale and A Hard Day's Night are part of that list, it just shows you that album sales mean nothing.
 
johnnyhoward said:
I've never been a fan of quoting album sales in determining how good a band is. The Beatles were the biggest selling band of all time but when poor albums like Beatles for Sale and A Hard Day's Night are part of that list, it just shows you that album sales mean nothing.
Click to expand...


Whilst I agree Beatles for Sale was the worst album only due to that fact that 6 of the 14 songs were covers (their originals were all still classics) cant agree with you on Hard Days Night. It is a great album.
 
Partridge said:
True. They could produce some great rock songs (Helter Skelter, Revolution) but the majority of their stuff was a bit lighter. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Harrison's guitar playing did improve, but for me he still isn't close to any of the Stones top 3 (Taylor, Richards, Jones), or Page or Townshend. Just my opinion of course.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Townshend could play. I'm still having a laugh over a couple of delusional moron's in another thread who claimed "he can barely play his instrument".
 
cats56 said:
Yeah, Townshend could play. I'm still having a laugh over a couple of delusional moron's in another thread who claimed "he can barely play his instrument".
Click to expand...

He could definately play, though he wasn't as proficient and creative as a Page or Beck on the guitar in all fairness.

But that's because Pete made more complete music that didn't have to rely on a massive guitar solo to make it half interesting or bridge gaps.

The Who, The Kinks, The Beatles all had good lead guitarists but due to their styles of music they never required them to rip out some 5 minute long guitar solos which to some people seems to mean they couldnt play that well.

When of course we know this is not true.
 
Partridge said:
Individual (and collective) musical ability, coherence as a group, ability to rock, and more material that lends itself to being played live.

Again, I love the Beatles, but their domain was the studio. The Stones, Who and Zeppelin were far more at home on stage.
Click to expand...
The Who and the Stones I can understand you saying were better live, but Led Zeppelin were definitely a studio band. Quite dull live, particularly in comparison to their brilliant studio recordings.

The Beatles were as good live as in the studio before they stopped performing live to focus on studio stuff. So although they made themselves become a studio band, they weren't too bad before then, and they went on to write their best albums after they stopped performing, so I imagine they would've done pretty well had they had the opportunity to perform some of those songs.
 
Just picking up on some of the latter points made, The Beatles were ahead of LZ as they we renot as self-indulgent.

Ringo Starr and George Harrsion both said at some time respectively that the found long drum solos and long guitar solos, boring.

Ditto.
 
GoSydneySwans said:
The Beatles were as good live as in the studio before they stopped performing live to focus on studio stuff. So although they made themselves become a studio band, they weren't too bad before then, and they went on to write their best albums after they stopped performing, so I imagine they would've done pretty well had they had the opportunity to perform some of those songs.
Click to expand...

I think the Beatles stopped playing live when it became uncool to stand with your feet together in the one spot and shake your collar length hair.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Papa G said:
I think the Beatles stopped playing live when it became uncool to stand with your feet together in the one spot and shake your collar length hair.
Click to expand...
Have you heard them live? I've got a recording of them Live in Melbourne in 1964 (?). They're actually very, very, very good. Also got a recording of their Shea Stadium gig, apart from nearly being deafened when they get introduced, it's a great listen. They rock out when they play Dizzy Miss Lizzy.

To say The Beatles weren't at home on the stage is a lie.
 
AndSmithMustScore said:
He could definately play, though he wasn't as proficient and creative as a Page or Beck on the guitar in all fairness.

But that's because Pete made more complete music that didn't have to rely on a massive guitar solo to make it half interesting or bridge gaps.
Click to expand...

True, but believe me, Townshend's guitar work is every bit as challenging as Page or Beck. I got a hell of a shock when I started trying to work out Live at Leeds. Not for the fainthearted.
 
GoSydneySwans said:
The Who and the Stones I can understand you saying were better live, but Led Zeppelin were definitely a studio band. Quite dull live, particularly in comparison to their brilliant studio recordings.

The Beatles were as good live as in the studio before they stopped performing live to focus on studio stuff. So although they made themselves become a studio band, they weren't too bad before then, and they went on to write their best albums after they stopped performing, so I imagine they would've done pretty well had they had the opportunity to perform some of those songs.
Click to expand...

Zeppelin suffered for a long time due to Song Remains the Same being the only live footage that was around. It's an ok show, but not their best. But I urge you to look at the DVD that came out a few years back. It's awesome. The Earl's Court stuff is off the charts.

I think the Beatles themselves said their live peak was Hamburg, for the very logical reason they were playing every night. They wouldn't have got where they were without being a good live band. I just don't think they were as good as the others (on stage that is).
 
Partridge said:
Zeppelin suffered for a long time due to Song Remains the Same being the only live footage that was around. It's an ok show, but not their best. But I urge you to look at the DVD that came out a few years back. It's awesome. The Earl's Court stuff is off the charts.

I think the Beatles themselves said their live peak was Hamburg, for the very logical reason they were playing every night. They wouldn't have got where they were without being a good live band. I just don't think they were as good as the others (on stage that is).
Click to expand...
They probably weren't. But lets see Zepplin or the Stones playing where they're physically unable to hear themselves and then we'll see how they go.
 
ManWithNoName said:
They probably weren't. But lets see Zepplin or the Stones playing where they're physically unable to hear themselves and then we'll see how they go.
Click to expand...

The Stones went through all that just like the Beatles. I've heard bootlegs of their live stuff around '65-'66 and they rock. Even before Mick Taylor joined, I just think they were a better live band.
 
Partridge said:
But I urge you to look at the DVD that came out a few years back. It's awesome. The Earl's Court stuff is off the charts.
Click to expand...

Yeah, i just watched it again last night. The Immigrant Song at the Sydney Show grounds is one of the best live performances ive ever seen.

Royal Albert Hall, Madison Square Garden and Earls Court are mad. Then 6 years they played at Knebworth, Plant looks so much different after those 6 years lol.

Zep were definitely a live band.
 
ShepBoy said:
Just picking up on some of the latter points made, The Beatles were ahead of LZ as they we renot as self-indulgent.

Ringo Starr and George Harrsion both said at some time respectively that the found long drum solos and long guitar solos, boring.

Ditto.
Click to expand...
Do you find the Stairway solo boring as well? Thats probably my favorite part.
 
scooterb said:
Do you find the Stairway solo boring as well? Thats probably my favorite part.
Click to expand...
Ditto, awesome moment in music that. It's disappointing the Beatles weren't a fan of long solos, because they would have enhanced songs like Back in the USSR and Helter Skelter - if they got to perform those songs live maybe we would have had 30-40 second solos, compared to the 10-15 second ones on record.
 

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
222
Brian Oblivion
B
G
WHO THE HELL IS BILLY STRINGS?!
Replies
12
Views
572
moto748
moto748
FreoGirl
OMD and The Jesus and Mary Chain are coming!!
Replies
0
Views
343
FreoGirl
FreoGirl
footy75
Which live performances ever are considered the greatest concerts of all time?
Replies
5
Views
877
the_interloper
the_interloper
raskolnikov
  • Poll
Rank these Aussie bands.
Replies
15
Views
892
Purple7x08_24
Purple7x08_24

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top