Beatles vs. Led Zeppelin

Zeppelin wins for me. The Beatles may have been more important in rock history, but I prefer Led Zep. But I do really love the Beatles later proggy stuff. I really enjoy The White Album in particular.

uduwudu wrote: I do think the novelty of the early Beatles and the emotional impact they had on mainly youthful persons has some valivity. They were in movies, on tour, on telly, on charts. They were regarded as innovative (some say then as opposed to now). Led Zeppelin in their existence were the opposite. Hardly heard away from the turnatables, the concert arean (assuming they were touring) Zeppelin had their mystique ascend in the imaginations of youth then from their absence. Led Zeppelin could tour and were easily superior musos to the Beatles. I did findf their not touring a little suspect reasoning wise. probably the Beatles in concert would have been as good as any comparable Brit pop band from that era in the 90s. I do think that the Beatles' influence was more easily assimilated by the bands that most resembled them or could be more closely associated - art rock side of prog Supertrmap, even ELO (sued for miming live once), There were two Beatles really. The pop group . And the one that most regard as influenced later innovative rock - Sgt Pepper Beatles. Zeppelin plagiarism. Well easy to see now. Plant wasn't credited on their first album. The business in those days was even more cut throat and twisted than now. Who knows what deals had to be cut? Page should have dedicated Stairway to Randy California but frankly who would have heard of all the influences had Zeppelin not been sio successful? Humble Pie were not sued for appropriating You Need Love but Zeppelin were, despite the interesting variation on writing credits. No excuses for anyone really but Zeppelin made great albums and saw their concert performances as ways of making their money rather than album sales. Influnces? Any rock band Zeppelin influenced sounds it straight away - often to their detriment. A beratles influence seems more general and open. Another band Beatles influenced could sound open and fresh and progressive (Yes, KC) or banal, derivative and annoying (Oasis). Do we thank the Beatles for Yes and KC? No, they are a product of their OWN ideas unlike Oasis who were balatnt copyists (and not very good ones.) Zeppelin were mostre abstract musically and way more demanding of an audience than the more cloying nature of chart oriented pop. I voted Zeppelin. I admit that the Beatles puzzle and irritate the hell out of me but I am trying to be objective depsite this bias. ;)  I have sat through the White Album, I nearly tried Revolver but easily settled for ornette Coleman instead... one day I'll grit my teeth and sit through the mainly acclaimed Abbey Road. For 'tis true, the Beatles are big for many reasons. But Genesis did not get to be popular based on hairstyles. But give them their due the Beatles were progressive on their own - and finally - musical, terms. Progressive rock would have happened anyway. Frankly the music owes more to Baroque, classical, romantic and modern classical, jazz and psychedelia  than to pop. led Zeppelin did play some prog in their progressive music but were mainly a heavy rock band that were not like any other heavy rock band. Or acoustic band but they were just joining in rather than dominating the Fairports and Pentagles of this world. Oh, and as for the Beatles vs Stones argument? That was raised in 1973 by Lisa Robinson, Creem (or was it Circus?) after reviewing the Zeppelin New Orleans gig that year (pretty good now i have a copy and know what she heard). The answer - Led Zeppelin won.

I do think the novelty of the early Beatles and the emotional impact they had on mainly youthful persons has some valivity. They were in movies, on tour, on telly, on charts. They were regarded as innovative (some say then as opposed to now).

Led Zeppelin in their existence were the opposite. Hardly heard away from the turnatables, the concert arean (assuming they were touring) Zeppelin had their mystique ascend in the imaginations of youth then from their absence.

Led Zeppelin could tour and were easily superior musos to the Beatles. I did findf their not touring a little suspect reasoning wise. probably the Beatles in concert would have been as good as any comparable Brit pop band from that era in the 90s.

I do think that the Beatles' influence was more easily assimilated by the bands that most resembled them or could be more closely associated - art rock side of prog Supertrmap, even ELO (sued for miming live once),

There were two Beatles really. The pop group . And the one that most regard as influenced later innovative rock - Sgt Pepper Beatles.

Zeppelin plagiarism. Well easy to see now. Plant wasn't credited on their first album. The business in those days was even more cut throat and twisted than now. Who knows what deals had to be cut? Page should have dedicated Stairway to Randy California but frankly who would have heard of all the influences had Zeppelin not been sio successful? Humble Pie were not sued for appropriating You Need Love but Zeppelin were, despite the interesting variation on writing credits.

No excuses for anyone really but Zeppelin made great albums and saw their concert performances as ways of making their money rather than album sales.

Influnces? Any rock band Zeppelin influenced sounds it straight away - often to their detriment. A beratles influence seems more general and open. Another band Beatles influenced could sound open and fresh and progressive (Yes, KC) or banal, derivative and annoying (Oasis). Do we thank the Beatles for Yes and KC? No, they are a product of their OWN ideas unlike Oasis who were balatnt copyists (and not very good ones.)

Zeppelin were mostre abstract musically and way more demanding of an audience than the more cloying nature of chart oriented pop.

I voted Zeppelin. I admit that the Beatles puzzle and irritate the hell out of me but I am trying to be objective depsite this bias. ;)  I have sat through the White Album, I nearly tried Revolver but easily settled for ornette Coleman instead... one day I'll grit my teeth and sit through the mainly acclaimed Abbey Road.

For 'tis true, the Beatles are big for many reasons. But Genesis did not get to be popular based on hairstyles. But give them their due the Beatles were progressive on their own - and finally - musical, terms.

Progressive rock would have happened anyway. Frankly the music owes more to Baroque, classical, romantic and modern classical, jazz and psychedelia  than to pop.

led Zeppelin did play some prog in their progressive music but were mainly a heavy rock band that were not like any other heavy rock band. Or acoustic band but they were just joining in rather than dominating the Fairports and Pentagles of this world.

Oh, and as for the Beatles vs Stones argument? That was raised in 1973 by Lisa Robinson, Creem (or was it Circus?) after reviewing the Zeppelin New Orleans gig that year (pretty good now i have a copy and know what she heard). The answer - Led Zeppelin won.

edit: oops

Edited by DJPuffyLemon - February 10 2009 at 20:30

Lucent wrote: Pnoom! wrote: Being influential, popular, and breaking new ground is what makes you a great band.  In terms of those three categories combined, nobody can touch The Beatles. I disagree.  I believe music is all about artistic value, nothing else.  Otherwise, you're right about their popularity and influence.

On the subjective end of things, yes, artistic value is all that matters.  But, because it's subjective, it is by definition impossible to honestly "overrate" a band on that front, because your rating presumably reflects how it affects you, and therefore the only way to overrate a band would be to outright lie about how much you like them.

On the objective end of things, it seems we agree that no one can touch The Beatles in which case, again, they're not overrated.

Being influential, popular, and breaking new ground is what makes you a great band.  In terms of those three categories combined, nobody can touch The Beatles.

Lucent wrote: Pnoom! wrote: It's really not even possible to overrate The Beatles, since personal taste is subjective and, objectively, they are the greatest band ever. Way to prove my point ;D

I didn't prove your point at all.  Objectively, no band is as important to rock music as The Beatles.  They are the greatest rock band* there has ever been (and likely ever will be).  Because of that, the only way to possibly overrate them is to claim something that is either factually untrue or that couldn't even conceivably apply to any band (such as "they're the only worthwhile band").  Since very few people do that regarding The Beatles, claiming that they are overrated means nothing.

Perhaps what you meant by overrated is that their legacy outstrips their music?  That's a fine opinion (even if I disagree), but that's not at all the same thing as a band being "overrated."


*should've specified rock earlier, since obviously you can have jazz bands, too

It's really not even possible to overrate The Beatles, since personal taste is subjective and, objectively, they are the greatest band ever.

Led Zeppelin for better musicianship and for not being as overrated as The Beatles.

p0mt3 wrote: progrocker2244 wrote: jplanet wrote: i have to join those who cannot vote - a world without either would be a sadder and bleaker place... It would be so much easier if it was Zepp vs. Sabbath, or Beatles vs. the Stones... Gee I wonder who would win Beatles vs. Stones...   Um, The Beatles would, at least around these parts. Which is a good thing, in my opinion.   My old guitar teacher hated The Beatles. Said they were the worst band to ever exist. I the reminded him of crap like My Chemial Romance and Fall Out Boy, to which he responded: "I'd rasther listen to those guys than The Beatles". Give me a break.

I sure hope The Beatles would win.

Your guitar teacher must not be a real guitarist. I've never met a guitarist without any respect for The Beatles.