Jump to content

Zep vs the Beatles part 2


McSeven

Recommended Posts

I know that this has been discussed in the past. I was wondering what you all think of Zep vs The Bealtes contribution to rock.

What things did they change in Rock and Roll. What each band was better at certain things than the other.

Feel free to take the post anywhere you want.

I will make a brief statement and then go into comparisons and differnces on another post when I check in later.

The Beatles were able to take melodic vocals and make songs that others could reinterpret and stretch out.

Led Zeppelin were able to take there own songs, short 3 min or long epics and stretch them out.

I would say that the Beatles vocal melodys are the main focus for them. Zeps riffs and grooves were their focal point.

Zep were better live than the Beatles. I saw a You tube of The Beatles at Shea Stadium. It just seemed shakey. Were as Zep even in the early days seemed so solid. I have heard a lot of bootlegs, they has a strong sense of thier songs and what they could do as musicians.

More later.

Mc7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if -the beatles put out an ep of zeppelin songs and -led zep covered some beatles songs on an ep or whatever...that would be interesting. i think to hear -john lennon singing a few led zep songs could be cool. otherwise i dont know what to say, such different bands. i think jpj could have wrote with the beatles in regards to arrangements and these days jimmy page and paul mccartney could put together a good record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Beatles did change Rock & Roll/Popular music by adding Eastern elements to their music which bands like Zeppelin & others followed with later. To hear a song like "Tomorrow Never Knows" for the first time in 66' must have been an experience, particularly to American fans where Indian music & culture must have seemed like it came from Mars.

As far as the Beatles at Shea compared to a Zeppelin show, it's not really a fair comparison. The Beatles didn't have monitors, stacks of Marshalls, & had 20,000 non-stop screaming fans throughout their whole set... they could not hear themselves play. If you listen to "The Beatles Live At The BBC", watch their show at Budokon in 66', or watch their rooftop gig in "Let It Be" they were a tight, tight very concise band. Also, jam bands were not even in existance when the Beatles were an active touring band, that came later with Cream, Hendrix & Floyd. The Beatles as a touring band ended just as that new era started. They became a studio band with the advent of multi-track recording, exploring what sounds that could be done in the studio before just about anyone else. They were never going to pull off tracks like "A Day In The Life" or "I Am The Walrus" at that time in a live situation unless they took an orchestra on the road with them.

I am a bigger Zeppelin fan, but the Beatles trump Zeppelin as far as changing the direction of popular music as a whole. I don't think any band comes close, no matter what one prefers over them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok..... :blink:

Of course the Beatles' harmonies were their main focal point! That was what was popular when they hit. By the time Zep rolled around, harder rock was getting really popular. Can you imagine "Good Times, Bad Times" coming out in 1965, at the same time as "Mrs. Brown, You've Got a Lovely Daughter", by Herman's Hermits was out? That simply wasn't the trend at that time.

The reason why the Beatles' concerts weren't that great was because of all the freakish screaming! Yeah, Zep concerts got loud, but Beatles concerts were flat out insane! I gotta tell you, some of those girls were complete nuts! But not everyone screamed: Linda Eastman(later McCartney)saw the Fabs at Shea Stadium, and said she was irritated with all the screaming.

My opine. :whistling:

:peace:

Jo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok..... :blink:

Of course the Beatles' harmonies were their main focal point! That was what was popular when they hit. By the time Zep rolled around, harder rock was getting really popular. Can you imagine "Good Times, Bad Times" coming out in 1965, at the same time as "Mrs. Brown, You've Got a Lovely Daughter", by Herman's Hermits was out? That simply wasn't the trend at that time.

The reason why the Beatles' concerts weren't that great was because of all the freakish screaming! Yeah, Zep concerts got loud, but Beatles concerts were flat out insane! I gotta tell you, some of those girls were complete nuts! But not everyone screamed: Linda Eastman(later McCartney)saw the Fabs at Shea Stadium, and said she was irritated with all the screaming.

My opine. :whistling:

:peace:

Jo

Hi Jo! You are absolutely right my dear! I would also like to add that the reason why THE BEATLES' live concerts were not that good live was because there were no feedback speakers on stage in order for them to hear what they were playing. The most important reason why THE BEATLES live recordings never sounded good live was because the recording technology of live shows in 1965 were not very good. At the moment, there is an original Internal Line Feed Recording of the Shea Stadium 15 August 1965 show that exists. This is the genuine original master tape that was recorded from the stage onto tape. This is by far, the best sounding recording ever of the Shea Stadium show. However, there was no equalization, no input level adjusting for live recordings or remixing that was available at that time and some of the songs have a lot of distortion. However, with today's technology, that problem can be fixed. The results of the Shea stadium performance can be brought back to life if someone in the studio decides to either remix or remaster it for a future release. George Martin did a decent remix with the Hollywood Bowl performances before it was released on Vinyl/LP or Cassette in 1977. Thanks Jo, I enjoyed reading your comment. Take care and ROCK ON FOREVER!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've wondered from time to time how much more the Beatles would have contributed to the rock sound had they continued touring as sound technology progressed instead of just becoming a studio band. LZ loved the live touring and were constantly growing and experimenting with their sounds in that process. No doubt that both bands were major influences in their own style of music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've wondered from time to time how much more the Beatles would have contributed to the rock sound had they continued touring as sound technology progressed instead of just becoming a studio band. LZ loved the live touring and were constantly growing and experimenting with their sounds in that process. No doubt that both bands were major influences in their own style of music.

Hi "ledzepfvr!" In my opinion, THE BEATLES' sound would have improved greatly, the rooftop concert in the movie LET IT BE proves that. George Harrison's as well as John Lennon's guitar riffs and licks were improving very much by 1970. And lets not forget George's songwriting, he blossomed into a brilliant songwriter. But being in the shadow of Lennon/McCartney, George did not get the songwriting credit that he truly deserved.

In my opinion, LED ZEPPELIN was by far, a better live band than THE BEATLES. LED ZEPPELIN had 4 very accomplished and polished musicians that were the best in their field. THE BEATLES may not have been better live musicians than LED ZEPPELIN, but when the 4 BEATLES played together, it was pure magic! Take care and ROCK ON FOREVER my friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that this has been discussed in the past. I was wondering what you all think of Zep vs The Bealtes contribution to rock.

What things did they change in Rock and Roll. What each band was better at certain things than the other.

Feel free to take the post anywhere you want.

I will make a brief statement and then go into comparisons and differnces on another post when I check in later.

The Beatles were able to take melodic vocals and make songs that others could reinterpret and stretch out.

Led Zeppelin were able to take there own songs, short 3 min or long epics and stretch them out.

I would say that the Beatles vocal melodys are the main focus for them. Zeps riffs and grooves were their focal point.

Zep were better live than the Beatles. I saw a You tube of The Beatles at Shea Stadium. It just seemed shakey. Were as Zep even in the early days seemed so solid. I have heard a lot of bootlegs, they has a strong sense of thier songs and what they could do as musicians.

More later.

Mc7

Nice- Excellent description of both bands i couldn't have said it better myself!

I think the Beatles, having sold more albums and being one of the first (certainly not the first four-member rock band), probably left a bigger impact on rock history.

However, in my opinion, Led Zeppelin has much better music. Not to say I don't like the Beatles, they're easily in my top ten favorite bands, but IMO Led Zeppelin will always be the greatest band.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More of today's music is reminiscent of Led Zeppelin than it is the Beatles.

That's a notable factor. I don't hear any rap or Hip Hop with Starresque drum beats and sounds.

Hi "Mangani!" How's it going? The reason for that is because THE BEATLES' and ZEPPELIN'S music is pure and real!

In my opinion "Mangani," it is hard for me to compare both THE BEATLES and LED ZEPPELIN because their music are two different styles. They are both the greatest at what they did and they have forever left their mark in music history because of it. ROCK ON FOREVER my friend!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to singer songwriters, i think -the beatles are more of an influence today, but my radio listening is limited. i think the hair metal days and the warp on the zeppelin sound are over. i've heard good influences and approaches in regards to riffs and sounds which sound like a good zeppelin influences, but it done in an original way now...in respect to being a true influence and thats cool.

anyway, i cant help but thinking of led zeppelin covering -tomorrow never knows and john bonham blowing up that drum riff and the band going into some mid section take off. then again, i'd love to hear -the beatles doing stairway to heaven, would be cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think the hair metal days and the warp on the zeppelin sound are over.

The hair metal sound is gone that's true but there are far more aspects of music that nod to Zeppelin than hair metal.

The Zeppelin I hear in today's music isn't hair metal. It's John Bonham drum beats and sounds in rap and hip hop (Wyclef Jean recently said that ALL rap and hiphop producers know Led Zeppelin and sample them) it's the Zeppelin groove in bands that AREN'T metal, it's even commercials on t.v etc. Jeff Buckley wasn't hair metal.

I really don't hear too much that even remotely sounds like the Beatles in today's music.Seriously, I don't. But I do hear a LOT of bands trying to get that powerful epic massivness in their music (that Zeppelin basically invented and no The Who or Cream got nowhere clsoe to it previous) with crunching guitar riffs, heavy drumming and powerful vocals etc etc. Led Zeppelin made rock music big and thunderous and bands today are still trying to recapture that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...