Jump to content

Why does Zep seem cooler againt other bands


McSeven

Recommended Posts

Gee Mangani, I guess I should be flattered that you apparently are so taken with my opinion that you chose to completely mis-read what I said. No, I didn't state anything as fact. Just because I don't put "IMO" before something I say doesn't mean I am then in turn, telling people it's a fact. If you read between the lines, the intent of the statement should be pretty clear.

In any event, when I said "Pink Floyd did things musically and lyrically that Led Zeppelin could never dream of" I meant "Pink Floyd did things that Led Zeppelin could not dream of because they weren't that kind of band." They didn't have the kind of fan base who wanted to hear those things. Which I thought was pretty obvious, but I guess not. Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin had two different bands, two different audiences, two different levels of expectations. When I say Led Zeppelin was a good time arena rock band, that's exactly what they were. When you saw them in concert, you were there for a good time. There was lots of energy on stage, in the audience....that sort of thing. Not so much with the Floyd. Even through their own words, they talked about how they basically stood still, stared at the floor, sang and went off stage. Not a whole lot of energy and until the Animals Tour, the audience reflected that. You went to see Pink Floyd to get an experience, a soundscape. You sat there, you listened, you watched, you went home. With Zeppelin, you were going there for a party and to get crazy and have fun. That's not Floyd, that's not even in the realm of Floyd.

There's no way that Robert Plant could have written something like Welcome To The Machine and there's no way Roger Waters could have written anything like Stairway To Heaven. THAT is what I meant. Just because I said Pink Floyd did something Led Zeppelin couldn't doesn't mean I think Zeppelin sucks or something.

Couldn't you have said, "hey.....what did you mean?" instead of going off on a diatribe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee Mangani, I guess I should be flattered that you apparently are so taken with my opinion that you chose to completely mis-read what I said. No, I didn't state anything as fact. Just because I don't put "IMO" before something I say doesn't mean I am then in turn, telling people it's a fact. If you read between the lines, the intent of the statement should be pretty clear.

In any event, when I said "Pink Floyd did things musically and lyrically that Led Zeppelin could never dream of" I meant "Pink Floyd did things that Led Zeppelin could not dream of because they weren't that kind of band." They didn't have the kind of fan base who wanted to hear those things. Which I thought was pretty obvious, but I guess not. Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin had two different bands, two different audiences, two different levels of expectations. When I say Led Zeppelin was a good time arena rock band, that's exactly what they were. When you saw them in concert, you were there for a good time. There was lots of energy on stage, in the audience....that sort of thing. Not so much with the Floyd. Even through their own words, they talked about how they basically stood still, stared at the floor, sang and went off stage. Not a whole lot of energy and until the Animals Tour, the audience reflected that. You went to see Pink Floyd to get an experience, a soundscape. You sat there, you listened, you watched, you went home. With Zeppelin, you were going there for a party and to get crazy and have fun. That's not Floyd, that's not even in the realm of Floyd.

There's no way that Robert Plant could have written something like Welcome To The Machine and there's no way Roger Waters could have written anything like Stairway To Heaven. THAT is what I meant. Just because I said Pink Floyd did something Led Zeppelin couldn't doesn't mean I think Zeppelin sucks or something.

Couldn't you have said, "hey.....what did you mean?" instead of going off on a diatribe?

thank-you.gif Like with the debate of Beatles vs. Led Zeppelin, we're comparing Apples and Oranges(pardon the pun!). Both bands put out different music and put on different shows. We shouldn't be arguing like this, people!

:peace:,

Jo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee Mangani, I guess I should be flattered that you apparently are so taken with my opinion that you chose to completely mis-read what I said. No, I didn't state anything as fact. Just because I don't put "IMO" before something I say doesn't mean I am then in turn, telling people it's a fact. If you read between the lines, the intent of the statement should be pretty clear.

In any event, when I said "Pink Floyd did things musically and lyrically that Led Zeppelin could never dream of" I meant "Pink Floyd did things that Led Zeppelin could not dream of because they weren't that kind of band." They didn't have the kind of fan base who wanted to hear those things. Which I thought was pretty obvious, but I guess not. Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin had two different bands, two different audiences, two different levels of expectations. When I say Led Zeppelin was a good time arena rock band, that's exactly what they were. When you saw them in concert, you were there for a good time. There was lots of energy on stage, in the audience....that sort of thing. Not so much with the Floyd. Even through their own words, they talked about how they basically stood still, stared at the floor, sang and went off stage. Not a whole lot of energy and until the Animals Tour, the audience reflected that. You went to see Pink Floyd to get an experience, a soundscape. You sat there, you listened, you watched, you went home. With Zeppelin, you were going there for a party and to get crazy and have fun. That's not Floyd, that's not even in the realm of Floyd.

There's no way that Robert Plant could have written something like Welcome To The Machine and there's no way Roger Waters could have written anything like Stairway To Heaven. THAT is what I meant. Just because I said Pink Floyd did something Led Zeppelin couldn't doesn't mean I think Zeppelin sucks or something.

Couldn't you have said, "hey.....what did you mean?" instead of going off on a diatribe?

So it seems there's actually no misunderstanding on my part? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee Mangani, I guess I should be flattered that you apparently are so taken with my opinion that you chose to completely mis-read what I said.

I didn't misread it luv. I read EXACTLY what you wrote. It was as clear as night and day:P

No, I didn't state anything as fact.

Yes you did.

You clearly wrote ""They (Pink Floyd) did things musically and lyrically Zeppelin could never dream of"".

That's a statement of fact if ever there was one. :)

I meant "Pink Floyd did things that Led Zeppelin could not dream of because they weren't that kind of band." They didn't have the kind of fan base who wanted to hear those things. Which I thought was pretty obvious,

Then why didn't you say that? You are saying it now but you didn't say it before. I don't believe you meant it that way at all. I believe you meant EXACTLY what you wrote initially. Elevating Floyd and somewhat downgrading Zep. Fine an all, but at least be honest about it.

There's no way that Robert Plant could have written something like Welcome To The Machine and there's no way Roger Waters could have written anything like Stairway To Heaven. THAT is what I meant. Just because I said Pink Floyd did something Led Zeppelin couldn't doesn't mean I think Zeppelin sucks or something.

I didn't say you said Zeppelin 'sucks'. I didn't even infere it. But you did write "could never dream of". You didn't write "were not interesting in".

Your point about Zeppelin "could never dream blah blah blah" is an irrelevant one because I very much doubt they ever had those dreams to begin with....so why even make that analogy????

We all know they were two different bands with different ideas and spectrums.

Couldn't you have said, "hey.....what did you mean?" instead of going off on a diatribe?

Diatribe? What, you mean like the sarcastic catty mocking you had when a relative newbie with few posts mentioned feeling sick at the result of a poll?

You could have clarified what you now say you meant earlier. After all you found the time to be sarcastic and mocking TWICE at newbie for her comment about feeling sick because of a poll result. But rather than clarify what you claim you meant you prefered to have a second pop at newbie instead. Go figure. :rolleyes:

Nothing wrong with diatribes actually but the pot calling the kettle black certainly has some irony to it. That's like a fat kid calling somebody else chubby. :slapface:

You don't like my posts about your comments, but it's ok for you to mock a relative newbie? Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay. :rolleyes:

You like to dish it out, but don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot. I have noticed this. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it seems there's actually no misunderstanding on my part? ;)

Sure, that's if you actually believe her long winded shuffle about what she claims she meant. It doesn't surprise me. There have always been little cliques here and folks tend to back up those they like, whether they are right or wrong.

The way it goes I guess. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, that's if you actually believe her long winded shuffle about what she claims she meant. It doesn't surprise me. There have always been little cliques here and folks tend to back up those they like, whether they are right or wrong.

The way it goes I guess. ;)

Now wait a minute here. So what are you saying here? Implying that I back her up here because we are in a "little clique"? During my about one year stay here on this board, I don't remember being familiar with Electrophile, if you have the interest and the time, you can check my posts to see how many times our paths have crossed, I certainly don't remember many myself.

And what the "if you actually believe her long winded shuffle about what she claims she meant?" What I said was MY interpretation of her words. And I expressed my own opinion BEFORE her explanation, if you have noticed that, it's not about me believing her. And I've said several times I think Zeppelin is cooler, I just don't want to persuade her around. Of course you can keep doing that if you want, not my business anyway.

Are you satisfied with my answer? I probably should excuse in advance for my English, you seem to have a way of analysing every single word and sentence to "make sense". It could be too complicated for me as a non-native speaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mangani - this is not coming from any sort of "clique" but I think electrophile's statement about Floyd doing things Zep never dreamed of she explained and I get what she means. They are two completely different bands, style wise. Floyd went in a direction Zep never would have gone because that wasn't what they were about. It wasn't meant as a judgement call. She also said Floyd wouldn't have gone where Zep went for the same reasons. There's really no reason here to argue IMO when the whole discussion has been a sharing of people's individual opinions. No one is claiming right or wrong :beer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Floyd's cool was a different kind of cool than what Zeppelin had. If rock and roll in the 70s was a high school, Led Zeppelin would be the captain of the football team. Pink Floyd would be that really smart kid in your creative writing class who wrote amazing stuff and never got into trouble. They were the "under the radar" cool. They did things musically and lyrically Zeppelin could never dream of and Zeppelin got away with the debauchery and good time arena rock that Floyd was miles away from.

Much like Frank Sinatra and Elvis were both cool. One was rebel cool, the other was suave cool.

"They did things musically and lyrically Zeppelin could never dream of ":I'm sorry but I totally disagree with that,besides Stairway or other well-known songs, just listen to songs like"Down by the seaside","I 'm gonna crawl", or "Tangerine" and you will notice the refine structure of these songs, LZ had an extraordinary musical intelligence.

Led Zep was much more than a band of "good time arena rock".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"They did things musically and lyrically Zeppelin could never dream of ":I'm sorry but I totally disagree with that,besides Stairway or other well-known songs, just listen to songs like"Down by the seaside","I 'm gonna crawl", or "Tangerine" and you will notice the refine structure of these songs, LZ had an extraordinary musical intelligence.

Led Zep was much more than a band of "good time arena rock".

Read my follow-up post. Kthnx.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two completely different bands who I happen to love (and there are others too many to mention), for that very reason.

Zep - Blues / Rock / etc.

Pink Floyd - Alternate Pop / Rock (with Syd) / Prog Rock (Post Syd)

Floyd never attempted anything that comes near Zeppelin's Rock sound, conversely Zep got awful close to Prog with No Quarter and In The Light on record and any number of their "song jams" performed live, IMO.

That's why Zep are in front of Floyd.

"By the way, which one is Pink?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple way to decide who's better:

Who would you rather hang out and pary with?

We hear all the outrageous stories about Zep, but ive never actually heard any groupie, party, or drunken stories about Pink Floyd. Led Zeppelin were wilder, musically sensed and otherwise. They have a power that attracts people right away. Pink Floyd, you know it could take a few songs to really like them. If the only Pink Floyd song you knew was If, Free Four, or Pow R. Toc H just for example, would you really like them at first? Pretty much every Zep song just has the great ability to suck you in and make you wanna hear more. Even though i love those 3 Floyd songs, if i only heard one of those id just be left with "what?"..Well i dont know if thats actually true because Astronomy Domine was the first Pink Floyd song that really got me into them, but for anyone else it could be like that..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple way to decide who's better:

Who would you rather hang out and pary with?

We hear all the outrageous stories about Zep, but ive never actually heard any groupie, party, or drunken stories about Pink Floyd. Led Zeppelin were wilder, musically sensed and otherwise. They have a power that attracts people right away. Pink Floyd, you know it could take a few songs to really like them. If the only Pink Floyd song you knew was If, Free Four, or Pow R. Toc H just for example, would you really like them at first? Pretty much every Zep song just has the great ability to suck you in and make you wanna hear more. Even though i love those 3 Floyd songs, if i only heard one of those id just be left with "what?"..Well i dont know if thats actually true because Astronomy Domine was the first Pink Floyd song that really got me into them, but for anyone else it could be like that..

Deciding who's better by deciding who you'd rather party with? :blink: You're kidding right? :huh:

Yes, Pink Floyd is more on the odd side, whereas Led Zeppelin is more rockin', but I know people who like several Pink Floyd songs, but aren't fans of the group; same goes with Led Zeppelin. For me, it took hearing almost all of Dark Side ofthe Moon to start liking Pink Floyd; with Led Zeppelin, it took hearing several popular album cuts. I guess it just depends on what your musical tastes are and what you like. I don't know. :unsure:

:peace:,

Jo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the thread has officially changed to why does Zeppelin seem especially cool to who's better Zeppelin or Pink Floyd? Okay.

Well, first you have to define cool.

Some people would define cool as laid back. Mellow. Unaffected. Relaxed. Hip. Groovy. Pink Floyd is definitely more laid back than Led Zeppelin. Almost reclining!

Others would define cool as awesome in a rebellious way, like James Dean. Fucking radical. Badass. Kickass. Bad boy cool. Led Zeppelin would qualify by this definition.

IMO :beer:

Anyway, I loves em both, so yay! B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Cool" to me is doing whatever the fuck you want to,whenever the fuck you want,however the fuck you want,without giving a fuck what anyone else thinks.

It's also not getting too worked up about anything......

I'm of the opinion that both bands qualify...

....except nobody is cooler than Keith Richards.

....with a close second going to Joe-Fuckin'-Perry.

B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This wasn't supposed to turn into a "Who's Better?" thread, but a bunch of people decided to take an off-handed remark about how there's different kinds of cool and turn into it exactly that. Don't ask me why.

I know Liz, I've seen how it unfolded. I was just trying to put it back on topic.

Personally, I think Zep and Floyd are equally cool and equally vital, in their respective ways. Leastwise for me. I can't imagine living life without either one! They've both been so integral in my life experience. To choose one would be like deciding which eye to gouge out. :beer:

I'll put the Grateful Dead on that list, too. Life is the journey we each take individually, and these bands were the soundtracks and inspirations for some of my most profound moments and experiences. You can't walk away from your history! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This wasn't supposed to turn into a "Who's Better?" thread, but a bunch of people decided to take an off-handed remark about how there's different kinds of cool and turn into it exactly that. Don't ask me why.

Honestly, I only started watching this thread just yesterday. I thought that this was a "who's better?" thread. :mellow: Here's my opinion of the debate:

Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin are both cool in their own rights, Zeppelin as the more rebellious cool, Floyd as the more laidback, clean cool. Both bands put out different music that was very popular. Floyd mastered prog rock, while Zep worked the blues-rock genre.

Only my opinion. B)

:peace:,

Jo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deciding who's better by deciding who you'd rather party with? :blink: You're kidding right? :huh:

Yes, Pink Floyd is more on the odd side, whereas Led Zeppelin is more rockin', but I know people who like several Pink Floyd songs, but aren't fans of the group; same goes with Led Zeppelin. For me, it took hearing almost all of Dark Side ofthe Moon to start liking Pink Floyd; with Led Zeppelin, it took hearing several popular album cuts. I guess it just depends on what your musical tastes are and what you like. I don't know. :unsure:

:peace:,

Jo

...Of course i was kidding. Omg you have too many colors in there lol, i was trying to read it while replying.. And no this isnt a who's better topic but i looked through the thread and what i saw made it seem that way so i just felt like giving my opinion. :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...