Beatles vs. Led Zeppelin
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
Forum Description: Discuss bands and albums classified as Proto-Prog and Prog-Related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=54181
Printed Date: June 10 2025 at 17:06
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Beatles vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted By: J-Man
Subject: Beatles vs. Led Zeppelin
Date Posted: December 20 2008 at 10:01
|
I love both bands dearly, and it seems many prog fans do too. This is a really tough poll in my mind. I voted for Beatles, but it was a tough choice. So, Beatles or Led Zep? ------------- 
Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime |
Replies:
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: December 20 2008 at 10:40
|
While Beatles may have been more important for the music scene, Led Zeppelin is much better. |
Posted By: crimson87
Date Posted: December 20 2008 at 10:42
| I think this should be in General music discussions or the prog related lounge. Anyway , I can't decide for one because both were very important on my road towards prog. |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: December 20 2008 at 12:19
| I refuse to vote. No way Jose. |
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: December 20 2008 at 12:30
|
I'm not that of a big fan of both bands, but have some very loved albums from each: Abbey Road and Revolver from The Beatles; and I and II from Led. It depends on my mood actually. If I wanna rock, Zep is the obvious choice. If I wanna chill or listen some rock music but without burning my ears, Beatles are. No vote. |
Posted By: J-Man
Date Posted: December 20 2008 at 12:46
I was going to put it there, but I really wanted this to be a poll, so I put it in prog polls. -------------
Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime |
crimson87 wrote:Posted By: Chelsea
Date Posted: December 20 2008 at 14:10
|
The Beatles are the best Progressive Pop band and best at really putting anything with pop music/rock together. Led Zeppelin is the greatest mainstream hard rock band. I would put Abbey Road over Led Zeppelin II. Led Zeppelin loses points for their blatant plagiarisms on much of the first two albums. Some of the songs they did not even bother giving credit for the original artists. Even when the Beatles based something from another artist they would change the chord progressions or notes for example "I Feel Fine" based on "Watch Your Step". "Moby Dick" is an almost note for note copy of a riff which appears in Bobby Parker's 1961 single, "Watch Your Step" |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: December 20 2008 at 14:13
hahahha... damn right Chelsea... 
------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: J-Man
Date Posted: December 20 2008 at 15:08
I fully agree. Led-Zep's copying on the first two albums was really retarded, but somehow I can stand up for Zeppelin because they did get sued for that and had to pay tons of money...  -------------
Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime |
Posted By: topofsm
Date Posted: December 20 2008 at 16:37
|
Objectively AND subjectively I find it hard to choose. Zeppelin always sounded a tad dry and repetitive for me, though their high points were some good high points. However, The Beatles were always capable of creating some good sing along tracks along with some great intelligent music. They have a couple albums that are overall really good, but they did make some overly sugary pop music that I don't care to listen to ever again. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: December 20 2008 at 18:14
|
Zeppelin put on a barnburner of a show even when they stumbled, were technically superior, recorded possibly the single most influential album in rock history [Zep II], didn't steal anything every other blues-rock artist hadn't already stolen, produced a catalog from day one of consistently brilliant and powerful albums that no one could match but everyone wanted to copy, revolutionized the way rock bands tour, perform, record, and release music. the Beatles were good too. |
Posted By: ZowieZiggy
Date Posted: December 20 2008 at 18:42
|
I don't really understand the goal of putting The Beatles and Led Zep in competition. Both are great bands, none is prog and they all belong to my teens. No vote of course. ------------- ZowieZiggy |
Posted By: J-Man
Date Posted: December 22 2008 at 18:59
I beg to differ... -------------
Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: December 24 2008 at 00:11
|
Huh. I'm very surprised at the way this poll is going. Pleased, though. Beatles get my vote. :) |
Posted By: PROGMONSTER2008
Date Posted: December 24 2008 at 00:51
|
Neither would be in my top 20 bands, I'm mainly into 70s prog. But the Zeps would have more cool tunes which don't sound ancient or too simplistic ------------- Jazz/Classical Rock(70's style prog/fusion). Lots of prog keys and melodies(all original ideas) http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008" rel="nofollow - http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008 |
Posted By: jplanet
Date Posted: December 24 2008 at 00:59
|
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... ------------- https://www.facebook.com/ShadowCircus/" rel="nofollow - ..::welcome to the shadow circus::.. |
Posted By: J-Man
Date Posted: December 24 2008 at 08:59
Gee I wonder who would win Beatles vs. Stones... -------------
Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: December 24 2008 at 09:11
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.
 |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: December 24 2008 at 12:54
|
Not voting!
They meant different things to me ... albeit as I get older they seem only to differ ... in the sense that I am having a much easier time remembering and appreciating Led Zeppelin 1 or 2 ... than I am any of the Beatles albums other than the WHITE ALBUM and ABBEY ROAD.
The Beatles, if they did anything, from my days in Brazil and later in America (arrived in '66) ... was that they elevated the realm of Popular music ... up until then a lot of it was not considered important or well written and often easily dismissed by more intelectual types that knew a bit more about music. In general, all of a sudden you were seeing musical conventions changed and structured quite differently (if not just personal and eccentric, really) ... you should have seen the article duplicated thousands of times about talking about the Beatles and Mozart and how there were so many similarities in their compositional structures ... it was ... getting boring after a while ... and it helped the Beatles go their different ways and into here, there and everywhere for more inspiration.
Led Zeppelin, specially when it appeared (my junior and senior year in high school) was, like The Doors, Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin ... a whole new world ... it was an expression that we could relate to and understand. The Beatles had gone a bit far off ... too hard to relate to. But all of a sudden you saw on a guitar the virtuosity that they used to apply to Paganini's and Mozart's ... not "popular musicians" ... and the music they did became what helped define what they did.
I really think that what broke The Beatles down was that they were stuck in a "song" and there was no freedom to get out of it. The newer ones didn't care about "songs" and wanted to get "into the vibes of the music" (as the drug guru used to say) ... and few EVER ... did so any more than these 3. The rest were just sellers of nice music.
One gave her voice and died for it.
One played his guitar and died for it ... he was not allowed to free float on it in other forms and get it recorded.
The other had the visionary poetry for his film-centric music ... but he could not grow past his own addiction for a non-existant dream!
But in the meantime, they gave us their soul. And .. to my heart an expression that makes sense and defines a lot of us ... not an idea, mind you ... a real expression that in many ways we have glorified, and are not capable of expressing day to day with our loved ones or work.
It's all about an inner honesty and care ... that seems like is not politically correct anymore ... it seems ok to use rap and a basssynth and say a 4 letter word ... but not ok to writhe on the stage and sing about every bit of my love ... or perhaps they took it so literally that they lost their own source ... I don't think so ... but they lost the one person that made their music shine more than they did individually ... Bonzo!
Making a comparison of the two ... only matters to those counting dollars in heaven ... but if I have to tell you which I appreciated more with a girlfriend at home having some sexy fun ... I can easily tell you that Led Zepellin wins ... and one lady I was with always said that there was something about the beat that had sex spelled all over it ... and it died when Bonzo died. The Beatles were nice, but they are way more mental for me than they are "physical" ...
Unffortunately, the majority of the Led Zep fans only know one song ...
|
Posted By: Avantgardehead
Date Posted: December 24 2008 at 13:54
|
The Beatles have about 10x as many songs I enjoy compared to Led Zeppelin.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Avantgardian |
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: December 24 2008 at 15:56
|
It appears I voted on this one a while ago, since "You have already voted in this poll" is the message. I would assume I voted for The Beatles. If you want the answer to the chicken/egg conundrum, the answer is The Beatles. Let me say it loudly: WITHOUT THE BEATLES NOTHING THAT CAME AFTER WOULD EXIST. Phil Spector would still be trotting out wall-of-sound girl groups, the Beach Boys would still be in love with their cars and surfing, The Who would still be doing James Brown covers, and the Rolling Stones would still be an obscure R&B wanna-be. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: December 24 2008 at 16:46
Utter nonsense, and a real slap in the face to all those innovative bands.. without everything that came before the Beatles, they might not have existed, and in fact there's a much stronger case for that. |
Posted By: Mandrakeroot
Date Posted: December 26 2008 at 11:09
L Z... LE ZE... LED ZEP... LED ZEPP... LED ZEPPE... LED ZEPPELI... LED ZEPPELIN!
 ------------- 
|
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: December 26 2008 at 14:44
I'm not trying to dis any of the other bands. I'm speaking from the business point of view. It was The Beatles who were the original goose that laid the golden egg. I have my doubts that record companies would have fallen over themselves to sign all the other bands had the economic incentive not existed. Think about it: after The Beatles' success, just about any British band with a pulse suddenly had a record contract and a global audience. I don't think that would have happened without The Beatles is all I'm saying.
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: December 26 2008 at 15:38
|
I hear you and it may be the case but I doubt it; the psychedelic rock movement started in the U.S., not Britain (though it was close and the two scenes certainly influenced each other) -- we know Prog was born mainly of psych [the Doors, Jefferson Airplane, Byrds, Big Brother&the Holding Co. and in England the Nice and Pink Floyd ] as it began incorporating all sorts of musics into the mostly spaced-out scene , so it follows that the biggest early influence on the development of what later would be termed 'Art' or 'Progressive' rock was in fact an American one. That leaves the Beatles largely out of the Underground Rock equation as these bands began rejecting the simple and melodious drivel of the Fab Four. Just because George Martin was an arranger who knew how to score for an orchestra doesn't make the Beatles the biggest influence on Prog. The Beatles may have been the goose that used the golden egg to their advantage as master songsmiths, but you can't tell me the Beatles were responsible for Prog, it just doesn't add up. Responsible for much in rock's evolution during the 1960s, perhaps as you say even providing a platform for many acts, but not Prog which was almost the antithesis of the Beatles' rudimentary music. |
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: December 26 2008 at 16:32
|
Again, I don't argue the musical side of it. I just saying that following The Beatles economic success, the record company execs were falling all over themselves to sign any rock band that might be able to produce even 10% of the revenue The Beatles were generating. It's funny you mention a couple of San Francisco bands, which let's face it no one outside of Northern California had ever heard of until said record company execs began signing any SF band with a pulse because they (execs) thought they could make some big-time money. For every Jefferson Airplane there was a Blue Cheer. Same thing happened with grunge. It was a regional thing until Nirvana (and record company) struck pay dirt with Nevermind, at which point the execs moved in and, yes, signed any Seattle band with a pulse. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: December 26 2008 at 17:10
|
OK |
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: December 26 2008 at 20:35
|
OK. However, not being one to ever let a sleeping dog lie, here are the Billboard Top 5 from December of '63 and '64.
01. Sugar Shack » Jimmy Gilmer & The Fireballs
02. Surfin' U.S.A. » Beach Boys 03. The End Of The World » Skeeter Davis 04. Rhythm Of The Rain » Cascades 05. He's So Fine » Chiffons 01. I Want To Hold Your Hand » Beatles 02. She Loves You » Beatles 03. Hello, Dolly! » Louis Armstrong 04. Oh, Pretty Woman » Roy Orbison 05. I Get Around » Beach Boys I'm assuming we'd agree on the most influential??
Edited:
Keith Moon was a huge surf music kinda guy. If the Beatles hadn't got there first (to number one) I'm guessing it would've been The Who.
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: December 26 2008 at 21:00
|
but you're assuming chart position equals most influential; the top 3 Billboard albums for '64 is the Hello Dolly soundtrack, a Peter, Paul & Mary record, and a release by jazz trumpeter Al Hirt... what do we derive from this? Not a lot. The pop market is what it is, and represents how many units were sold that year, no more no less. BTW, Blue Cheer hardly road the coattails of Airplane, they were one of the early true heavy rock bands - "The band's sound was something of a departure from the music that had been coming out of the Bay Area: Blue Cheer's three musicians played heavy blues-rock, and played it very loud." |
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: December 26 2008 at 21:31
|
I have no respect for chart position, else I would never have heard prog (maybe Lucky Man and Roundabout excepted, ok), except to possibly make a point Sad really, the business side of it, but that goes back to my original statement. It's all changed now of course, the AM radio in a car isn't the assumed playback device. But I can assure you, as a budding teenage consumer of music in 1963, had it not been for The Beatles I would not have heard a single note of prog. That's just history. Or I think it is. I'm just thinking about how it happened.
We can construct an alternate version where the Stones or Kinks or Yardbirds or some other band broke through, but history says it was The Beatles who showed up and changed the course of music, from what it was to what it is.
As an droll side note, Hermans Hermit's recorded a pretty good version of The End of the World.
|
Posted By: Chelsea
Date Posted: December 26 2008 at 21:43
Wow I don't agree with anything you said.
The Beatles in mixing pop and classical techniques, and cross-fertilising them with Indian and electronic music, the Beatles refreshed and revitalised western harmony. They also transformed the recording studio from a dull box where you recaptured your live sound, into a musical laboratory, of exciting and completely new sounds.
Jefferson Airplane, Byrds, Big Brother&the Holding Co. and in England the Nice and Pink Floyd all were influenced by the Beatles. The Beatles broke the boundaries in Pop Music and Rock Music with the groundbreaking "Tomorrow Never Knows" and the first pop song to emulate non western form in structure in instrumentation and structure in "Love You To". This in April of 1966 recorded predates all the bands mentioned above. All those bands in 1966 were still using drums and guitars. The Beatles went further they were using Classical Indian Music and using classical avant techniques. Exept for the Byrds all those bands made their mark in 1967. The Beatles tracks in 1966 were early Art-Rock songs. The Beatles from Rubber Soul to Abbey Road were hardly rudimentary music. Go listen to time signatures the Beatles were using on tracks like "Happiness is a Warm Gun". So not to be harsh get your facts straight |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: December 26 2008 at 21:52
I don't quite understand your reasoning: if you hadn't been exposed to the Beatles you would never had noticed Yes, ELP or Jethro Tull? Well that's fine, but those bands still would have existed and been heard by many others, Beatles or not. Beatles may have been the 'leaders' of the British Invasion but they weren't the cause of it, and certainly not the impetus for Prog becoming a pop medium (which it did briefly in the early 70s). It's like saying without Jackson Pollock you wouldn't have modern abstract art, but it was a gradual evolution, one artist influencing another and so on. |
Posted By: Chelsea
Date Posted: December 26 2008 at 21:58
The Beatles did start the British Invasion in America. Where do you get your information? Have you heard of albums like Sgt Pepper and Abbey Road certainly helped the impetus for Prog becoming a pop medium (which it did briefly in the early 70s).
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: December 26 2008 at 22:02
'Tomorrow Never Knows' gets far too much credit, it's one song - barely a song, really - and shows no aspects of what Prog musicians would later do.. in fact it would appear to have had virtually no influence on the music the prog artist would later create, getting as far away from the hallucinogenic drone of such a cut as possible. Facts? How about musicologic evidence? I see very little of any of the Beatles material in Prog other than an obvious general impact on the earliest versions of it, as Yes's early work or pre-Crims GG&F. But Yes and KC went on very soon to reject that influence in favor of something that would turn the Beatle sound inside out -- I'll say it again: Prog was a rebellion against and movement away form the pop/psych malaise that had engulfed popular music. If anything, the Beatles were a prime example of what to dismantle and completely change. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: December 26 2008 at 22:09
of course, I hear it all the time and it's both unlikely and tiresome. Do we know how music history would've gone without any band? No. But to say unequivocally that the Prog era was due to the Beatles is not only suspect, but also shortsighted. |
Posted By: Chelsea
Date Posted: December 26 2008 at 22:13
Let me lay some hard core facts for you and not some revisionist history. Let's get this straight no one is giving all the credit to the Beatles but not giving any credit to the Beatles now is showing ignorance.
I don't care who did what first it's about influence. Since you want to go there let me bring some points The Beatles dabbled in a lot of things and that's why they are influential to many bands because they translated it with Pop music which by the way is a form of music like Jazz or Rock Music. They did not stick to one sound. The Beatles "Tomorrow Never Knows" backward collages, drone, looping, distorted voices through leslie speakers, mellotron with a upfront bass and drum what predates the Silver Apples and Nick Drake by two years. A good ten years before Kraftwerk got into high gear. I don't care if you think the Silver Apples were more interesting. That is based on opinion not fact. This is about influence. "Tomorrow Never Knows" or "Strawberry Fields Forever" is a lot more influential than some unknown band that came out two years after the fact. I like King Crimson and being into jazz music I hear it. King Crimson formed in part after hearing Sgt Pepper which contains a couple of so-called fusions that were never heard in pop music namely unique fusion of classical Indian music with western string arrangement on "Within You Without You" or the Avant Orchestration and Psychedelia of "A Day in the Life". The Beatles were not a derititive blues band. It must be a coincidence what six months after "Taxman" was released that your hear that distorted dominant 7 # 9 chord on "Purple Haze". Everone started using guitars through leslie speakers after the Beatles used it. I hear backward guitars and drums on "Are You Experienced" after the Beatles used it on Revolver. Then Hendrix would pair "Tomorrow Never Knows" with "Uranus Rock". Then Hendrix would play the title track of Sgt Pepper three day after it came out in nod to the Beatles adopting his style. The Beatles were certainly a progressive band. They tied it with melody driven music. Like so what. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is oft cited as a critical moment in prog's evolution, The Beatles had already moved into progressive territory with Revolver's “Tomorrow Never Knows” and by incorporating Eastern influences into their music, though, of course, the pairing of McCartney's vocal with strings in “Yesterday” preceded those developments too. Obviously “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds,” “Strawberry Fields Forever,” and “A Day in the Life” exerted a profound influence on The Beatles' contemporaries and the next wave of progressive rock artists. the Beatles already were recording Progressive Rock with songs like "Strawberry Fields Forever", "A Day in the Life" and "Within You Without You" all recorded before Procol Harum. The Beatles were to varied to be classed as one genre. Some that are Proto-Prog IMO the early Art-Rock of "Tomorrow Never Knows" , "Eleanor Rigby" and "Love You To" off Revolver. Strawberry Fields Forever" is at least Proto-Prog. With its use of mellotron, Indian scales and two separate versions of one song into one. Strawberry Fields Forever" uses diminished chords that are common with jazz music. It changes time signatures often 4/4, 6/8, 3/4, 2/4. Hardly simple stuff.. "Happiness Is a Warm Gun" for example include a Balkan rhythm and a polyrhythm in different sections. Were they influenced by jazz? "A Day in the Life", "I am the Walrus", "Within You, Without You", Strawberry Fields"... They were able to draw from diverse sources, like Indian classical music "Within You" uses a raga-like form that contains major and minor thirds in different octaves, kind of a combination of mixolydian and Dorian modalities. Mind you I never said the Beatles invented Progressive Rock. We are talking about influence. Well, that's answering "The Sex Pistols created Punk" when the thread is about Iggy Pop and the Stooges... Really now you are getting absurd with your comments. Keith Richards said we would have never made it without the Beatles. There would be no bands like us without the Beatles. Jimmy Page
|
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: December 26 2008 at 22:14
Sorry that this is difficult to express. What I am saying, is that if The Beatles had not happened (as a huge $ generating for their record company, let's forgo the music side of it for now), the other bands yes would have existed but would not have had any takers, record company-wise, or if they did, it would have been purely regional, i.e., do you think anyone in the U.S., which is where the huge sales were, would have ever heard JT without the Beatles providing the impetus for some record company to take a risk on JT?
|
Posted By: Chelsea
Date Posted: December 26 2008 at 22:25
Wow they were many bands influenced just by the Beatles Ed Sullivan Show like King Crimson Adrian Belew and in England like Pink Floyd, Phill Collins and Brian May of Queen. There would be no King Crimson without the Beatles being progressive.
Robert Fripp on hearing the Beatles Sgt Pepper
Robert Fripp- When I was 20, I worked at a hotel in a dance orchestra, playing weddings, bar-mitzvahs, dancing, cabaret. I drove home and I was also at college at the time. Then I put on the radio (Radio Luxemburg) and I heard this music. It was terrifying. I had no idea what it was. Then it kept going. Then there was this enormous whine note of strings. Then there was this colossal piano chord. I discovered later that I'd come in half-way through Sgt. Pepper, played continuously. My life was never the same again. Anyone who knows King Crimson Adrian Belew's favorite band is "The Beatles" Robert Fripp- wanted King Crimson to emulate the Beatles' proclivity for packing many strands of meaning into a song, so that a record could stand up to repeated listening: "The Beatles achieve probably better than anyone the ability to make you tap your foot first time round, dig the words sixth time round, and get into the guitar slowly panning the twentieth time." Fripp wished Crimson could "achieve entertainment on as many levels as that. ] |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: December 26 2008 at 22:28
no I fundamentally disagree.. "Keith Richards said it" ? Well if a player as influential to Prog as Keith Richards said it than it must be true. |
Posted By: Chelsea
Date Posted: December 26 2008 at 22:34
Keith Richards said it. Well I was talking about the British Invasion not Progressive Rock in that comment. If you don't think the Beatles were not progressive at times then my friend what else can I say. This is more of a dislike for the Beatles for you if you really can't see the difference between "Love You To" and "Strawberry Fields Forever" compared to the Doors doing "The End' in breaking boundaries in Rock Music.
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: December 26 2008 at 22:35
|
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: December 26 2008 at 22:36
If Keith Richards said it, it may as well be gospel. Hasn't it been scientfically established that only Keith Richards and cockroaches will survive a nuclear war
 |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: December 26 2008 at 22:38
and fruitcake  |
Posted By: Gooner
Date Posted: December 26 2008 at 22:38
My vote is for THE ZOMBIES and DEEP PURPLE. 
|
Posted By: Chelsea
Date Posted: December 26 2008 at 22:39
Again Keith Richards said it. Well I was talking about the British Invasion not Progressive Rock in that comment. If you don't think the Beatles were not progressive at times then my friend what else can I say. This is more of a dislike for the Beatles for you if you really can't see the difference between "Love You To" and "Strawberry Fields Forever" compared to the Doors doing "The End' in breaking boundaries in Rock Music
|
Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: December 26 2008 at 22:40
|
I never could get into the Beatles. Led Zeppelin, on the other hand, are pretty good. I sparingly listen to them anymore though. ------------- 
|
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: December 26 2008 at 22:40
Yes, forgot the fruitcake, which fortunately I saw none of this year
|
Posted By: Chelsea
Date Posted: December 26 2008 at 22:44
You have made no valid points just utter disregard for the influence the Beatles had on music. The Beatles being able to be progressive was the reason why Robert Fripp went into Rock Music. I know it hurts you but give credit where it's due. Ozzy Osbourne favorite Beatles tracks were songs like "I Want You (She's So Heavy).
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: December 26 2008 at 22:47
on the contrary, and it has nothing to do with like or dislike, does it? And I don't see your point about the Doors-- the Doors had an equal 'influence' on Psych rock progressing in a more theatrical direction, and were equally non-influential to Prog as the Beatles. Do you not think it's possible the early proggers were doing something wholly unique in its musicianship and modern fusions, something the Beatles could never have done? Do you think it's possible it was their unique background in music? That it was Fripp's, Emerson's and Banks' firm foundation in classical, jazz and other musics that led to Prog, and much less to do with the artificial novelty of what the Beatles were doing? |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: December 26 2008 at 22:53
|
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: December 26 2008 at 23:05
|
I apologize. My original statement regarding this was pretty vague and perhaps harsh and prone to misinterpretation. My point was that The Beatles established a new economic viability of rock and roll ( the previous establish-ator, i.e., Elvis, was making sh*tty movies at the time). The record companies jumped on-board with those Mop Tops willy-nilly, for better and worse. There are undoubtedly countless threads on the forum here regarding the good points/bad points of pret' much every Beatles song save Anna (just one more thing girl). Call me a Marxist, i was just trying to say that econonmically there was a whole lotta good music that I don't think would have heard the light of day had it not been for those Liverpudlians.
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: December 26 2008 at 23:11
|
^ no apologies necessary, jammun, I think you handled it rather well |
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: December 26 2008 at 23:45
Thanks, Atavachron, I mean no harm. I am only exploring my life here. And my life is the music that has been its soundtrack..
Now the other side of this poll is Zep, which is whole 'nother story, and not a bad one altogether.
|
Posted By: ModernRocker79
Date Posted: December 27 2008 at 07:41
Just before the Beatles broke in the US in 1964, the number one album in the US was "The Singing Nun." Music was very regimented, predictible, etc. Within a couple of years, we had Jimi Hendrix, the Doors, and all the great music of the late 60's. If you look at the progression of the Beatles albums from Please Please Me in 1963, which reflected early 60's music but with some hints of complexity to come (e.g. the song Please Please Me), all the way through Rubber Soul in late 65 up to Revolver in 1966, the increase in complexity and the level of innovation in just three years is absoloutely amazing, and I don't think has been duplicated since. Think about music today - has it really changed in the past three years? Ten years? Fifteen years? Not really IMHO. The last real seismic shift in rock music at least was when Nirvana broke in 1991. Listen to the Beatles songs Misery and Tomorrow Never Knows and you can't believe that they are even from the same band, and yet they were recorded just three years apart.
Jagger admits the Beatles were the reason they started writing their songs and Pet Sounds would never have happened without Rubber Soul. Pete Townsend admits the Beatles admits every rock band had to write their music because the of the Beatles success.
|
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: December 27 2008 at 07:50
| Led Zeppelin please. |
Posted By: ModernRocker79
Date Posted: December 27 2008 at 08:40
|
Led Zeppelin was a band that copied many of their hit songs from other bands because Jimmy Page stole a bunch of songs.
|
Posted By: ModernRocker79
Date Posted: December 27 2008 at 09:30
You know Rock Music is just a fusion of music from the past? Really it's your opinion not really a good one claiming artificial novelty of what the Beatles were doing. That is an insult to someone like
Talk about music that is actually what you call modern fusions. '"Tomorrow Never Knows" Musically, it is drone like, with a strongly syncopated, repetitive drum-beat, looping is considered to be among the earliest precursors of Modern Electronica. Much of Modern Music is based on those principles. Ironic that King Crimson basically paid tribute to this song when they based "Tomorrow Never Knew Thela". Another point just because the Beatles were not underground does not mean they were not progressive. In many ways they were more detached in what people were doing in late 1965-1967. Last time I checked The Doors, Jefferson Airplane or basically anyone else in 1966 were not using reverse guitar, processed vocals and looped tape effects. Nor were they using tamboura as a drone instrument, atonal sounding orchestras, using the mellotron in a trippy way, songs with just strings and vocals, using tape loops like sampling as a musical backdrop. I hear strong Classical Influences in Avant ”Tomorrow Never Knows", Indian, "Love You To" and "Within You Without You" and Classical "For No One" and "She Leaving Home". I could be wrong but the time signature changes that are on “Good Morning, Good Morning” were constantly changing another proggy feature. Cut to the chase Maybe the first Art-Rock Song- "Tomorrow Never Knows Progressive Rock - "Sgt Pepper Reprise/ A Day in the Life" |
Posted By: AlbertMond
Date Posted: December 28 2008 at 00:25
| While Led Zeppelin was an amazing band, I have to say that I prefer The Beatles. While Zeppelin helped pioneer heavy metal, hard rock and modern folk, The Beatles did that and more. To The Beatles credit are vast amounts of influence over such genres as Rock, Psychedelic Rock, Avant-Rock, Hard Rock, Folk Rock, Early Heavy Metal, influence on Punk and pretty much every other facet of Rock. |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: December 31 2008 at 13:33
|
Hi,
The Beatles appeared at a time when things were changing ... but they were not immune to the external influences either ... you can listen to the Live in Hamburg stuff (ohh ... you would have to be familier with the bootlegs of the time maybe???) ... and see their influences.
By the time they did Sgt Peppers and Magical Mystery Tour, you can see that they are bored with "pop songs" ... and want to do something else. And the rest of their catalogue reflects that ... an attempt to make music that is much more meaningful to them than just a mere pop song.
You can see this in the movie "Let It Be" ... that needs to be taken off the hands of two jerks and released! You can see the boredom and the desire to do something else ...
That left the door open ... for many other bands ... and the club scene, that Jimmy Page, John Mayall and so many others came out of, simply made it harder and stronger as a statement about what it meant -- not only to them - but others around them as well.
Music, and most arts ... are not accidental ... rarely are they completely out there without an event, or series of events that surround it ... and The Beatles had travelled enough to realize that there was more to music than just what they did. Bands like Led Zeppelin, and I will not trash them as I happen to like them a lot and Bonzo is one of the top 3 rock drummers of all time ... realized and learned early on that it was not about Willie Dixon or Blueberry Hill ... it was about them and their expression ... and this is the difference ... the new music, the new world ... and the old ways ...
It is silly to compare apples and oranges ... they both are good and healthy ... but to say one is better than the other?
|
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: January 04 2009 at 01:54
|
Love 'em both, but they are worlds apart. I see no point in choosing, as I think making such a choice (or poll) is just plain silly. Why the heck would I have to choose either the Beatles or Led Zep? I have both bands' entire output, but the albums suit entirely different musical moods!
You can have some blueberry pie, or some apple pie, or some of both -- with neopolitan ice cream too, if you wish!
 Often in life, kiddywinks, the best answer is "all of the above."
 Now: your right leg, or your left? ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: mrcozdude
Date Posted: January 18 2009 at 09:01
|
You should change this to who's the better live band,that would be quite intresting.I can't vote for this Beatles are so influential but Zeppelin taught me to improvise for two hours and make horrible sounds and concepts. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/cozfunkel/" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: TheCaptain
Date Posted: January 18 2009 at 11:01
That is the first time I had ever heard of anyone hating The Beatles. Anyway, my vote goes to The Beatles without question. Led Zeppelin is ok but I love me some Beatles. ------------- Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal. |
Posted By: Floydian42
Date Posted: January 18 2009 at 15:56
| The Beatles. They just have more songs I enjoy, simple as that. |
Posted By: visitor2035
Date Posted: January 18 2009 at 20:11
| What?....How about Boyzone versus Pink Floyd...at least have them in the same genres. |
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: January 18 2009 at 21:59
I was thinking of doing a "Shakespeare vs Bach" poll, actually....------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: Gustavo Froes
Date Posted: February 09 2009 at 16:44
| Led Zep,surely. |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: February 09 2009 at 16:51
| Beatles, Zep are great, too, though. |
Posted By: J-Man
Date Posted: February 09 2009 at 19:43
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.  -------------
Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime |
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: February 09 2009 at 20:12
|
Both 4 man crews! Both amazing, even saw Zep live in 1974 or so...But the Fab Four are hard to beat , they were the vanguard, the turbo-diesel that pushed rock and roll beyond pop and into the volcanic world of rock where the prog element took over so mightily. Zep is more about the blues really (especially the earlier stuff) but No Quarter remains a kick-ass prog tune! Don't ask me about Bonham, I get very nostalgic, he was Zeppelin, there is no doubt. ------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth. |
Posted By: Lucent
Date Posted: February 09 2009 at 20:51
| Led Zeppelin for better musicianship and for not being as overrated as The Beatles. |
Posted By: Guzzman
Date Posted: February 10 2009 at 04:28
 ? You must be joking. Even if some of their material may sound like easy listening in our ears nowadays, back then they were groundbraking. As were Led Zep !------------- "We've got to get in to get out" |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: February 10 2009 at 08:21
| It's really not even possible to overrate The Beatles, since personal taste is subjective and, objectively, they are the greatest band ever. |
Posted By: Lucent
Date Posted: February 10 2009 at 17:27
Way to prove my point ;D |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: February 10 2009 at 17:35
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 |
Posted By: Lucent
Date Posted: February 10 2009 at 18:17
It isn't objective because the whole popularity is based on a source of opinion, making it subjective, making them overrated. It isn't downright fact. If it were fact, then I would think the same thing, by scientific proof backing it up. Although The Beatles influenced those bands, it doesn't make them the greatest rock band ever, it only makes them the most influential. |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: February 10 2009 at 18:27
| 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. |
Posted By: Lucent
Date Posted: February 10 2009 at 18:31
I disagree. I believe music is all about artistic value, nothing else. Otherwise, you're right about their popularity and influence. |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: February 10 2009 at 19:02
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. |
Posted By: DJPuffyLemon
Date Posted: February 10 2009 at 20:28
|
Posted By: DJPuffyLemon
Date Posted: February 10 2009 at 20:30
|
edit: oops |
Posted By: Abrawang
Date Posted: February 19 2009 at 22:50
|
Count me in The Beatles camp. I came of age listeneing to them. Every new album was an event. Anyone interested popular music made a point of listening to them and they morphed into something new and unpredicvtable practically every time out. Someone else pointed out how they went from I Wanna Hold Your hand and She Loved You to Tomorrow never Knows and Love to You in 3 years with stops on the way including Things We Said Today, Norwegian Wood and In My Life. It's just an impression so I can't prove it but it seemed to me that other bands were inspried to try something new to emulate the Beatles' musical growth. The quotes from Richards, Townsend and Fripp illuminate this point.
Finally, on being prolific, I'd say if you take Zep's best hour or so of music, it rates with any band's. If you take the Beatles 3rd or 4th best hour of music, it's still great. For me, Zep falls off very fast after that first great hour.
------------- Casting doubt on all I have to say... |
Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 04:00
|
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. |
Posted By: mr.cub
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 12:25
|
The Beatles finished in their prime, Abbey Road being one of their finest albums and on par with Revolver, Rubber Soul and The Beatles as landmarks in music. Led Zeppelin however, seemed to have lost it a full 4 or 5 years before Bonham's death. To me, Physical Graffiti is the beginning of the end (the newer music on it wasn't anywhere near the level of older tunes from III and Houses sessions). The Beatles never had this dropoff ------------- 
|
Posted By: Chelsea
Date Posted: June 23 2009 at 13:07
Revolver was certainly important in opening up a commercial market for psychedelic music. It would have happened anyway maybe but we don't know really, but that doesn't change history. Revolver was a very big record for psychedelic music in '66. "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "Sgt Pepper did the exact thing for progressive rock and it would have happened anyway but that doesn't change history also. While everyone tends to look back at Sgt. Pepper as the monumental Beatles album of the 1960s, when it comes to influence, I would have to say that Revolver was more influential than Sgt. Pepper. When Tomorrow Never Knows was released, it sent ripples throughout the fabric of the musical universe. By the time we got to Sgt. Pepper, the ripples had become waves. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band not their best album, but there's no denying that rock's delusions of grandeur began here. Floyd, Moody Blues, Tull, Queen, Styx, Yes, there are plenty bands that entered by the door The Beatles opened, like Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones. But both made American music (influenced primarily by R&B), as The Who. The Beatles had a strong pop and English influence. It was rock, ok, and rock has American blues to thank, but Revolver and Pepper's were so distant from American roots rock and roll. And both are among the 3 most influent rock albums, changing rock music. |
Posted By: luger7
Date Posted: June 25 2009 at 15:32
|
The Beatles, my favorite band ever, after Queen of course....
------------- Viva .MX cabrones! |
Posted By: Kashmir75
Date Posted: June 25 2009 at 21:58
|
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.
------------- Hello, mirror. So glad to see you, my friend. It's been a while... |
Posted By: Gianthogweed
Date Posted: June 29 2009 at 03:55
|
The Beatles were an unstoppable force for the 7 years they recorded their 16 albums worth of music. They broke up at the top of their game. And had it not been for the squabbles that eventually led to their break up they would have still been making great music well into the 80s.
Led Zeppelin started out very strong making great blues inspired heavy rock albums but very quickly ran out of steam in the mid seventies. They couldn't survive the death of their drummer and broke up after 10 albums worth of music in 12 years.
The Beatles wins this so handily.
|
Posted By: Kazzbaah
Date Posted: June 29 2009 at 16:59
|
Oh, definitely voted for Led Zeppelin. In terms of relative "importance to music" I don't believe in putting the two bands on the same scale. Certainly while the Beatles were/are extremely popular and well-known throughout the world probably more than LZ, they each accomplished a lot in their respective music scenes. The Beatles probably accomplished more for progressive music with their psychedelic/proto-prog music, but LZ was definitely more than instrumentally better than the Beatles, with each member exhibiting great skill with their respective instrument, including vocals.
But eh, the poll isn't really about which one was a greater influence, it's about which one you prefer over the other, and to me that's LZ, simply because the Beatles to me are very played out and just so over-done, it kinda makes me sick of 'em. George and John were cool though.
|
Posted By: terransage
Date Posted: July 26 2009 at 03:09
|
I voted Beatles, but Led Zeppelin is a close second for me. The Beatles were my first "favorite" band, in the late '60's. It was my dad, a classically trained bebop jazz musician, who brought home Abbey Road from one of his students. He excitedly put it on the record player and had our whole family listen to it. I still have a clear memory of that day. I don't know what it was that drew us in, but there was a "magic" in the music that got us all excited. Before that, my parents hated rock music. After that, my dad started buying more Beatles albums, Santana, Rare Earth, Blood, Sweat and Tears, Bob Dylan. One thing that impressed me was that each song on Abbey Road had a completely different sound and feel to it. It was like an adventure. My mom, who loved classical music, fell in love with "Because," and my dad raved about "I Want You (She's So Heavy)."
I played trombone and guitar (and sang) in all kinds of ensembles, from concert bands, brass choirs and orchestras, to jazz bands and rock bands. Whether the Beatles were necessary for the development of prog or not (I think it was definitely influential, if not necessary), they fit right in with my own eclectic tastes and eventually led me down a road that included Pink Floyd, Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, King Crimson, Gentle Giant, Pentangle, Soft Machine, Jethro Tull, Genesis, Brand X, Hawkwind, etc.. I never thought of prog as a reaction to the "simple-minded pop" of the Beatles. I'd never heard that before, in any prog histories or interviews. In fact, I'd always heard the opposite, that Yes, Robert Fripp, Phil Collins and other prog folk were influenced by the Beatles. Lol, I don't know what my point is here; I just started rambling. I think it was all the talk about the Beatles' place in prog history that got me going. Anyway, I just joined the forum today. This is my second post....
|
Posted By: progkidjoel
Date Posted: July 26 2009 at 04:16
Make that 1000 times, and we agree ------------- 
|
Posted By: Zargus
Date Posted: July 26 2009 at 07:29
Led Zeppelin > The Beatles, but i love both.  ------------- 
|
Posted By: camilleanne
Date Posted: July 27 2009 at 20:57
|
Beatles...
------------- The planet is fine the people are f**ked. -George Carlin- |
Posted By: SergiUriah
Date Posted: July 27 2009 at 23:03
...for you and for Page, of course. ------------- http://img229.imageshack.us/i/bonfirma.jpg/"> 
|
Posted By: SaltyJon
Date Posted: July 27 2009 at 23:09
|
Zep for me. I'm not a giant fan of either band, though I do like each band. I prefer the slightly heavier sound of Zep though, especially songs like Achilles Last Stand.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Salty_Jon" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: July 27 2009 at 23:31
Bullsh*t. I'll take your points one at a time ; - The Beatles "16 albums worth of music" contained a fair percentage of, let's face it, mediocre songs, both original and covered. I don't begrudge them this, they loved to play and were probably the most prolific rock ensemble ever, but quantity is not quality. - They broke up for numerous reasons, and may very well have split eventually due to the fact they just didn't want to be the Beatles anymore. Besides you can hear what they would've been doing by listening to the best of the solo work. Would they have still been the cutting-edge band of the world? Maybe but I doubt it. It was Prog and Hard-rock's turn, and soon Punk's, and all three trumped the Beatles for newness, innovation and risk-taking. Not to say the boys wouldn't have put out some great records - I'm sure they would have - but artists as Zeppelin, Genesis, Bowie, Zappa, Sabbath, Tull, the Stooges, these were the new leaders of what rock was capable of. The Beatles had mostly run their course as trailblazers. - Your opinion of Zeppelin's mid-70s output is fair and probably shared by some fans (though I hesitate to call anyone who doesn't like their mid-70s stuff a fan) but you don't specify what, i.e. 1975's Physical Graffiti is mostly a hard blues album, was one of their most successful records, and is arguably their finest studio release. That they broke up after Bonham's death just shows their integrity and understanding that without him they would not be the same band. This is a testament to the band's honesty, intelligence and sensitivity. Further, this deep bond and friendship was real and endured, unlike the bitterness sometimes shown between former Beatles. |
Posted By: paragraph7
Date Posted: July 30 2009 at 08:00
|
I love the old Beatles stuff very much, but i have hard time comparing any of Beatles performances or recordings to, lets say "Baby im gonna leave you" 1969 or "Since ive been loving you"(not even mentioning the fourth album" of Led Zeppelin. It may be an "acquired taste" but i personally have never heard anyone sing like Robert Plant in those early years. So Zeppelin for me.
------------- What you cannot speak of, you have to pass on in silence. |
Posted By: Gustavo Froes
Date Posted: July 30 2009 at 13:47
| I don't think people appreciate just how influential was Zeppelin,even compared to the Beatles.As far as musicianship goes,there's no pint in arguing who's best,since both have proven several times to be made of genious musicians(alright maybe not Ringo).The Beatles reinvented rock n'roll,but Led Zep basically set the standard for early 70's music with their first albums,and where the grandfathers of heavy metal. |
Posted By: Gustavo Froes
Date Posted: July 30 2009 at 13:50
|
^by the way,in a Stones vs. Beatles poll,I guess I'd just have to vote for the Stones...just a matter of personal taste,but I do love their 60's stuff,really.
|
Posted By: alanerc
Date Posted: August 03 2009 at 00:16
Lancé una moneda al aire, para decidir, pero esta jamás cayó Can't decide |
Posted By: Tengent
Date Posted: August 03 2009 at 10:42
|
Zeppelin, personally. They never went under any line-up changes, and I am in love with every song but a few. I only like The Beatles after Rubber Soul. |