Jump to content

Zep and the Beatles

pagemccartney95

Recommended Posts

MisterMcLov1n

MisterMcLov1n

Posted
Posted
Haha Evster you are cracking me up. You made such great posts in this thread the last couple of days.

Good one.

I'm gobsmacked that a Beatles fan would say LZ wore silly clothes. What next? An Elton John fan saying LZ were too fancy with their attire? :o

I never said The Beatles didn't wear silly clothes either. And I'm a LZ fan too. I just don't blindly defend them and refuse to accept any shortcomings they had. :)

"groove" isn't everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mangani

Mangani

Posted
Posted
I never said The Beatles didn't wear silly clothes either. And I'm a LZ fan too. I just don't blindly defend them and refuse to accept any shortcomings they had. :)

Nor do I. In fact only recently I was arguing that PG was their peak and that they were never quite as great after, to the disagreement of many others here.

Your points about their 'shortcomings' weren't really points at all and actually were incorrect. You went way overboard in exaggerating whatever 'shortcomings' you think they had.

"groove" isn't everything.

For a "rhythm" section, having astonishing groove (which Bonzo had) is a damn site better than not having it as much (Moonie).

Bonzo was famous for his swing, his groove and his timing. That's why Led Zeppelin (with the addition of a superb bass player and his incredible telepathy with Bonzo) had the best rhythm section ever. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Evster2012

Evster2012

Posted
Posted
I just don't blindly defend them and refuse to accept any shortcomings they had. :)

"groove" isn't everything.

Upon revisiting this post. I don't deny any shortcomings. What's happened here is that the difference between their image and their music is getting blurred. I certainly don't "blindly defend" Jimmy's choice of underage hotel companions, for example. Or the wasting of the band's talents by drugs. Certainly Bonham's death by alcoholic misadventure isn't something I "blindly defend" or justify or rationalize.

And I have to disagree. In rock music, groove is everything. That's why it's called rock and roll. If the groove wasn't everything, why would they be called the BEATles? It was called "beat" music. Mersey"beat". It was all about the groove. You can bring up Entwhistle and Moon, but the fact is that they played behind Townsend. Bonham and Jones provided a foundation for Page to build upon. There is a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MisterMcLov1n

MisterMcLov1n

Posted
Posted
Nor do I. In fact only recently I was arguing that PG was their peak and that they were never quite as great after, to the disagreement of many others here.

Your points about their 'shortcomings' weren't really points at all and actually were incorrect. You went way overboard in exaggerating whatever 'shortcomings' you think they had.

They were my opinions supported by my personal thoughts on the band, just like your opinion is that they have the best rhythm section ever. It is simply your opinion, as mine is mine (and by shortcomings I meant musical shortcomings, not for their personality or whatever. I am in no place to criticize that).

I'd be glad to explain anything you thought was "incorrect."

You can bring up Entwhistle and Moon, but the fact is that they played behind Townsend.

Yeah, that's why it's called a rhythm section. :slapface:

To me it really doesn't matter if a song is groovy or not. It needs to have more than just that to make a good song.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Evster2012

Evster2012

Posted
Posted
Yeah, that's why it's called a rhythm section. :slapface:

Thanks for missing my point completely. You took it totally out of context from my statement. Your sarcasm leaves my confidence in our ability to have a simple discussion in grave doubt.

Not that I give a shit. I was just hoping for a more constructive dialog, not face smacking and rolleyes.

I'll try it again. Page played OVER Bonham and Jones' groove. Townsend played while Entwhistle and Moon followed.

Nevermind. It's a lesson in subtetly you obviously don't get. Bonham and Jones grooved. Entwhistle and Moon jammed.

That's fine. But I'll be exiting the conversation at this point. I can see when it's going nowhere.

We agree to disagree. Cheers. :beer:

FWIW, I would have thrown Can You See the Real Me in for best groove by the Who's rhythm section but...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MisterMcLov1n

MisterMcLov1n

Posted
Posted
Thanks for missing my point completely. You took it totally out of context from my statement. Your sarcasm leaves my confidence in our ability to have a simple discussion in grave doubt.

Not that I give a shit. I was just hoping for a more constructive dialog, not face smacking and rolleyes.

I'll try it again. Page played OVER Bonham and Jones' groove. Townsend played while Entwhistle and Moon followed.

Nevermind. It's a lesson in subtetly you obviously don't get. Bonham and Jones grooved. Entwhistle and Moon jammed.

That's fine. But I'll be exiting the conversation at this point. I can see when it's going nowhere.

We agree to disagree. Cheers. :beer:

FWIW, I would have thrown Can You See the Real Me in for best groove by the Who's rhythm section but...

I completely got the point. I was pointing out that's basically what a rhythm section does in the first place. I see how it is. If we don't see eye-to-eye I am insulted and told I can't carry a conversation. That's nice.

Agree to disagree. Fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BonzoLikeDrumer

BonzoLikeDrumer

Posted
Posted

I think, (from looking at there respective live show's) that Entwhistle and Moon were jamming as where Jone's and Bonzo. It's just that Moon was all twisted up in the lip-syncing they had to do on a lot of there TV show appearances. The only exception (I've seen) is with the 1965 "Shindig" finale show, when they did "Can't Explain". Moon is clearly letting it all out of the bag in this performance! He is playing it real! No hype and no faddy bull ether! This is the movie clip that, when I first saw it in the 1980's made me respect Moon as a drummer of drummer's! Daltrey, Townshand and Entwistle are having to stand right in front of there microphone's and scream to even be audible! I truly believe, if The Who had been able to play like that on every show they would have been a much better group all and all technically and sonically.

Jone's and Bonzo are jamming there ass off with the same love of rock and blues as Moon and Entwistle but, Bonzo is leading Jone's! Entwhistle was the "stand there and perform guy" who was not giving much attention to anything at all. Page and Townshand where very much alike in there position in there own group, but as I stated earlier Page was far more technical a guitar player! The Beatles where just a tightly fit group of guy's (for the most part) that where popular as heck! They did have some technical sound's but nothing like The Who or Led Zeppelin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Evster2012

Evster2012

Posted
Posted
I completely got the point. I was pointing out that's basically what a rhythm section does in the first place. I see how it is. If we don't see eye-to-eye I am insulted and told I can't carry a conversation. That's nice.

Agree to disagree. Fine.

I found your sarcasm no less insulting.

I know what a rhythm section is, thank you very much.

Furthermore, guitar, when not a solo instrument is also a part of the rhythm section. So calling the bassist and drummer the rhythm section in a 3-piece band is erroneous. For the better part of most Zeppelin and Who songs Page and Townsend are playing rhythm guitar.

Regardless, the main difference in dynamic between Zeppelin and The Who is that Townsend, Entwhistle and Moon played their individual parts in synch with the beat, while Bonham, Page and Jones locked into an almost telepathic union. Jones never took his eyes off Bonham, and Bonham never took his eyes off Page. One note from any of them would see the others right there to make the turn. The Who didn't really do this. The played their parts, and they played them well, but they didn't have those kinds of musical conversations where songs changed from night to night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Evster2012

Evster2012

Posted
Posted

^^So what you're saying is that you're sharing your opinion/preference. No wonder we couldn't see eye to eye. I was stating musical facts from the viewpoint of a musician. What I prefer doesn't change them. Zeppelin were spontaneous. That's a fact. The Who played By Numbers, if I might borrow from their album title. Anyway, enjoy Live at Leeds. I've owned and enjoyed it since 1978 when I got my first vinyl copy. However, I "prefer" How the West Was Won. But admittedly that's just my opinion. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MisterMcLov1n

MisterMcLov1n

Posted
Posted
^^So what you're saying is that you're sharing your opinion/preference. No wonder we couldn't see eye to eye. I was stating musical facts from the viewpoint of a musician. What I prefer doesn't change them. Zeppelin were spontaneous. That's a fact. The Who played By Numbers, if I might borrow from their album title. Anyway, enjoy Live at Leeds. I've owned and enjoyed it since 1978 when I got my first vinyl copy. However, I "prefer" How the West Was Won. But admittedly that's just my opinion. ;)

I know the facts. I'm not an idiot just because I don't play an instrument. I draw my opinion from the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Evster2012

Evster2012

Posted
Posted
I know the facts. I'm not an idiot just because I don't play an instrument. I draw my opinion from the facts.

I didn't call you an idiot.

Just like I didn't say you couldn't hold a conversation. The fact that you continued (and continue) to be argumentative instead of actually addressing my point simply casts doubts as to your true motivation. You've repeatedly taken single sentences out of my statements and ingored what doesn't fit your mold. Now you imply I'm calling you an idiot. Well I haven't and I'm not.

Facts and opinions are mutually exclusive. Facts are statistical. Opinons are empirical.

You don't draw opinions from the facts. You draw conculsions.

Otherwise it's like saying a band is better because they play faster, and you prefer faster. The doesn't in fact make them musically superior or more talented.

Why not quit playing the mental hopscotch and just say you like The Who better based on personal taste and quit trying to prove an empirical feeling as technical fact?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MisterMcLov1n

MisterMcLov1n

Posted
Posted
I didn't call you an idiot.

Just like I didn't say you couldn't hold a conversation. The fact that you continued (and continue) to be argumentative instead of actually addressing my point simply casts doubts as to your true motivation. You've repeatedly taken single sentences out of my statements and ingored what doesn't fit your mold. Now you imply I'm calling you an idiot. Well I haven't and I'm not.

Facts and opinions are mutually exclusive. Facts are statistical. Opinons are empirical.

You don't draw opinions from the facts. You draw conculsions.

Otherwise it's like saying a band is better because they play faster, and you prefer faster. The doesn't in fact make them musically superior or more talented.

Why not quit playing the mental hopscotch and just say you like The Who better based on personal taste and quit trying to prove an empirical feeling as technical fact?

Wha? I never called my feelings or opinions a fact or tried to justify them as such.

here's what I was trying to say:

fact: (something you pointed out and I agreed with and anyone with ears could say as well) The Who and Led Zeppelin have stylistically different live sounds

my opinion- I like The Who's sound better.

is that enough for you or are we going to keep up with this pissing contest? Arguments over musical preference rarely go anywhere. You obviously are a lifelong fan of Zeppelin and I just don't think they're the best and that probably won't change within the pages of this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Evster2012

Evster2012

Posted
Posted
Wha? I never called my feelings or opinions a fact or tried to justify them as such.

Guess I misunderstood this one:

I draw my opinion from the facts.

here's what I was trying to say:

fact: (something you pointed out and I agreed with and anyone with ears could say as well) The Who and Led Zeppelin have stylistically different live sounds

my opinion- I like The Who's sound better.

is that enough for you or are we going to keep up with this pissing contest? Arguments over musical preference rarely go anywhere. You obviously are a lifelong fan of Zeppelin and I just don't think they're the best and that probably won't change within the pages of this thread.

That was precisely my point. I wasn't arguing preference. Neither was Mangani. We were talking styles from the aspect of musical technique.

Now that you've made the actual statement that you just happen to prefer the Who, and aren't trying to prove something about rhythm sections and groove, stage attire, lyrical content, love versus sex, and their respective merits as applied to musical skill, we can move on.

And one last dig about costumes:

I give you Bonham:

75JimmyBonzo.jpg

And Townsend ;)

eg-pete-townsend.jpg

Peace. :beer:

So, back to the Beatles anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BonzoLikeDrumer

BonzoLikeDrumer

Posted
Posted

Beatles, we could compare Lennon and Harrison as being a rhythm section and Page being a technical all in one player. What about there approach to the Blue's? I see Lennon as more a blue's influence on the Beatle's and Paul as a pop star R&B type. Page is the blue's man for sure and Bonzo is a Jazzy, sometimes progressive heavy hitter. Ringo was as solid and in the pocket as you can get.

The Beatle's where about doing it in the studio as they would in a live show, I see Zeppelin doing this to but, not as a strict rule.

Zeppelin was mostly a single singer group (I compare to the like's of the old Country Blues) with Robert screaming like a banshee.

The Beatle's were again all about doing it in a more standard way, sorta like the vocal group's of the late 1950's and early 1960's. Lennon (so could Paul) did do some thing's that where more of a "one man one guitar" style of the Country Blue's but, I don't think that was there strong point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ninelives

ninelives

Posted
Posted
THE BEATLES ARE MY ALL TIME FAVORITE BAND AND NO ONE ( not even the mighty zep) IS BETTER OR WILL EVER BE BETTER THAN THEM!!!

That's fine you think that but can you not type in upcaps - it's the equivalent of yelling at people :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

LEDZEPPELIN.com

Site Navigation

  • LedZeppelin.com Home
  • News
  • Discography
  • Merchandise
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy

    • Led Zeppelin Timeline

  • Concert Timeline / Database
  • Events
  • Photos
  • Video
    • ×
    ×
    • Create New...