GetTheLedOut Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 First part lol. But i not comparing aerosmith to led zeppelin. I 'm not stupid to say aerosmith is better than led zepp. We all know zepp is better. I know Jahfin beat me to it but again, as this is a subjective matter there's no right or wrong answer. I would recommend to you that you branch out and listen to some new things that aren't similar to Zep, Aerosmith, or the other few artists you listed. You'll develop a much larger pallet that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengoalie21ledzepp Posted December 18, 2007 Author Share Posted December 18, 2007 I only like 1 pink floyd songs because the other s are eto soft. I listen to lots of varities just that those two are my favs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 Sorry, but I have no use for Aerosmith post-1989. Talk about your safe, formula-driven, radio friendly corporate rock. Don't even get me started on all those fucking ballads. They are probably in the top five all-time AMERICAN rocks bands, but second only to Zeppelin? No way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dawg Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 I must concur with SAJ and Can'tquit they are on a par with sub par bands Styx and Boston are good choices to rate them among as equals. The are as was said earlier a formula driven radio friendly hype band with very little substance. All of these bands stuck with a safe sound taking very little chances and not risking their safe radio plays. As mediocre as these bands are, they are least better then the police who set the 2007 standard for live tour receipts. Bands that would rank above this c level class are U2, The Doors and The Who. Zep, Floyd, The Beatles and The Stones are my top 4 without question. But it is hard even to rank them because each of these bands has a unique quality, staying power, and wide range of musical diversity that helped influence the scene around them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 I can't say I think of either Rush or The Police as "sub par" as each were highly influential in their own way and most definitely aren't guilty of producing formula-driven material aimed solely at radio airplay, especially Rush. Again, it comes down to personal opinion, there's no hard and fast rules saying one artist is any better than another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puck Slapping Maple Sucker Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 I like the first album;but I can't help but wonder how much better it would have been with Jack Douglas producing;like on........ Get Your Wings; which is fuckin' GREAT..As far as I'm concerned,"Train Kept A Rollin'" is an Aerosmith song. I like the first album, too. Get Your Wings was a huge step from that. I feel that Wings is right up there with Rocks. I would go as far as saying it's flawless as Rocks. It's such a strong album that has geniune lyrics, a slick beat and some great dirty guitar playing with class. As for Draw the Line, a good album overall, but kind of messy and not much homework done on the lyrics. Listening to this album after reading Walk this Way gave me a different outlook, because you can feel what they went through while making this as you're listening to it. Ruts was okay, but all the work that came after (with the exception of Honkin')...... At least they still have what it takes to put on a good show, I would see em performing in present day rather in '77. and I have my Wings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 Most of their 70's albums are great. First album, Get Your Wings, Toys In The Attic, Rocks are all classics. But I have to agree with Jahfin and GetTheLedOut, why bother compare different bands to each other? It's a total useless discussion. It all comes down to personal taste and opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icantquityoubabe Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 I must concur with SAJ and Can'tquit they are on a par with sub par bands Styx and Boston are good choices to rate them among as equals. The are as was said earlier a formula driven radio friendly hype band with very little substance. All of these bands stuck with a safe sound taking very little chances and not risking their safe radio plays. As mediocre as these bands are, they are least better then the police who set the 2007 standard for live tour receipts. Bands that would rank above this c level class are U2, The Doors and The Who. Zep, Floyd, The Beatles and The Stones are my top 4 without question. But it is hard even to rank them because each of these bands has a unique quality, staying power, and wide range of musical diversity that helped influence the scene around them. I agree with your top 4 except you have to put the Who in with these. I believe Zeppelin and the Beatles are probably the top 2 if you had to pick. Then a two way tie for second with Stones and Who. I would rate Pink Floyd next. As great as Pink floyd were, and I respect them very much, and love their music, they didnt have as many good albums/ songs as the Stones or the Who in my opinion. Led Zepp and the Beatles are in a league of their own. But Zeppelin is the best because Page is the best musician in Rock history in my opinion. Lets give Townshend a little credit too as he plays 7 instruments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achilleslaststand77 Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 I agree with your top 4 except you have to put the Who in with these. I believe Zeppelin and the Beatles are probably the top 2 if you had to pick. Then a two way tie for second with Stones and Who. I would rate Pink Floyd next. As great as Pink floyd were, and I respect them very much, and love their music, they didnt have as many good albums/ songs as the Stones or the Who in my opinion. Led Zepp and the Beatles are in a league of their own. But Zeppelin is the best because Page is the best musician in Rock history in my opinion. Lets give Townshend a little credit too as he plays 7 instruments. I agree except for Zeppelin and the Beatles. I don't think you can say really who was the better group there. As musicians go I'd say that Zeppelin was beyond the Beatles except for possibly McCartney who seems to be able to play any instrument he picks up. Harrison became a very good guitarist in later years but he never was anywhere near Jimmy's league. As far as song writing goes I can't really say there because the Beatles didn't normally do songs longer than 4-5 minutes but I do know they basically wrote and recorded Rubber Soul in a month.... just like how Zeppelin recorded Presence in a very short time... but I think Rubber Soul is recognized as one of the best albums ever while Presence isn't. And for singers I mean you've got three of the best rock singers of all time there..... Plant, Lennon, and McCartney. The Beatles I think harmonized better than any other rock group. So I dunno I don't think you can really find an answer since the Beatles were breaking up as Led Zeppelin was hitting it's stride. Wouldn't it have been interesting to see what would've happened if the Beatles hadn't broken up in 1970? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rover Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 (edited) Right yall. AErosmith is the 2nd best band of all time. Sign if you agree then would come the Rolling stones.! Oooops, I'm in the Comedy thread.... Taken as a whole, I don't count Aerosmith in the top 5. Edited December 19, 2007 by The Rover Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icantquityoubabe Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 I agree except for Zeppelin and the Beatles. I don't think you can say really who was the better group there. As musicians go I'd say that Zeppelin was beyond the Beatles except for possibly McCartney who seems to be able to play any instrument he picks up. Harrison became a very good guitarist in later years but he never was anywhere near Jimmy's league. As far as song writing goes I can't really say there because the Beatles didn't normally do songs longer than 4-5 minutes but I do know they basically wrote and recorded Rubber Soul in a month.... just like how Zeppelin recorded Presence in a very short time... but I think Rubber Soul is recognized as one of the best albums ever while Presence isn't. And for singers I mean you've got three of the best rock singers of all time there..... Plant, Lennon, and McCartney. The Beatles I think harmonized better than any other rock group. So I dunno I don't think you can really find an answer since the Beatles were breaking up as Led Zeppelin was hitting it's stride. Wouldn't it have been interesting to see what would've happened if the Beatles hadn't broken up in 1970? You can certainly make a valid argument for either. But it seems like when its all said and done, these are the two left standing. The Beatles sure could kick out the top 40 hits. That wasnt the kind of band Zeppelin was/are as we all know. Yes the Beatles harmonized great with their vocals. So too did the Beach Boys and the Eagles. (Im sure the Eagle haters will chime in soon). The one thing Zeppelin had over all these bands in my opinion was there pure musical skill. The one thing the Beatles had over Zepp was their ability to reach all age groups, including the older generation of our time (me being 50). Which means, getting the Sinatra crowd to listen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achilleslaststand77 Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 You can certainly make a valid argument for either. But it seems like when its all said and done, these are the two left standing. The Beatles sure could kick out the top 40 hits. That wasnt the kind of band Zeppelin was/are as we all know. Yes the Beatles harmonized great with their vocals. So too did the Beach Boys and the Eagles. (Im sure the Eagle haters will chime in soon). The one thing Zeppelin had over all these bands in my opinion was there pure musical skill. The one thing the Beatles had over Zepp was their ability to reach all age groups, including the older generation of our time (me being 50). Which means, getting the Sinatra crowd to listen. Yeah the Beatles were a great singles band but they were doing more album oriented rock as well by the time they broke up. I left out the Beach Boys cause I think they got too "poppy" but yes they are amazing harmonizing. I forgot about the Eagles. Yes Zeppelin was far and away the group with the best musicians.... I don't think any other group really comes close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GetTheLedOut Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 You can certainly make a valid argument for either. But it seems like when its all said and done, these are the two left standing. The Beatles sure could kick out the top 40 hits. That wasnt the kind of band Zeppelin was/are as we all know. Yes the Beatles harmonized great with their vocals. So too did the Beach Boys and the Eagles. (Im sure the Eagle haters will chime in soon). The one thing Zeppelin had over all these bands in my opinion was there pure musical skill. The one thing the Beatles had over Zepp was their ability to reach all age groups, including the older generation of our time (me being 50). Which means, getting the Sinatra crowd to listen. "John [Entwistle] and I were listening to a stereo L.P. of The Beatles in which the voices come out of one side, and the backing track comes out of the other. And when you actually hear the backing tracks of The Beatles without their voices, they're flippin' lousy." - Pete Townshend Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achilleslaststand77 Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 "John [Entwistle] and I were listening to a stereo L.P. of The Beatles in which the voices come out of one side, and the backing track comes out of the other. And when you actually hear the backing tracks of The Beatles without their voices, they're flippin' lousy." - Pete Townshend I'm guessing that quote was perhaps from earlier in the Beatles career? Circa mid sixties? Cause I think they were very, very good by Abbey Road..... but still not on Zep's level. Oh and as a worthless and unrelated side note .... until late in their career they took no interest in stereo mixes. All they cared about was mono. Help! was the last album they didn't participate in for mixing. When they made Rubber Soul they began to mix the songs themselves...... the mono mixes. The task of stereo fell back into George Martin and Geoff Emerick. Pepper was the same way. From The White Album onward however, the Beatles (or rather whoever wrote the song) mixed both mono and stereo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwizard03 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Well i like Aerosmith but best band not in my opion they are a really good band about # 25 in my top bands which include LED ZEPPELIN BLACK SABBATH LYNYRD SKYNYRD ALLMAN BROTHERS PINK FLOYD CREAM ROLLING STONES DEEP PURPLE J GIELS EAGLES TEN YEARS AFTER ZZ TOP FLEETWOOD MAC VAN HALEN EDGAR WINTER THE WHO WISHBONE ASH THE KINKS CROSBY STILLS NASH AND YOUNG BAD COMPANY AC/DC ELP YES METALLICA AEROSMITH NAZERETH UFO URIAH HEEP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs. Plant Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 I have seen Aerosmith 8 times in concert, and everytime they are insanely good. They are the greatest american rock and roll band. and while not all their albums are great, they have kept rock and roll going, and that is what matters. they have done so much for rock and roll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joelmon Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 EXACTLY!!! The same guy who helped Bon Jovi write "Livin' On A Prayer" helped Aerosmith write "Dude Looks Like A Lady", "I was Made For Loving You" by Kiss and "Livin La Vida Loca" for Ricky Martin. What a nauseating set of tunes..... Best one of the lot up there is Livin La Vida Loca !! I put that on my 'guilty pleasures' list... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragster Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 I remember seeing Steve and the boys live at Monza Speedway some years ago.....what a fun 3 days that was. Steve had brought his sexy daughter along for the ride AND the rest of the family I think too!! . Lenny Kravitz was on the same bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ledzepmanic Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 love the old aerosmith...toys in the attic..favorite tune is seasons of wither...not much of a fan of stuff after permanent vacation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragster Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 A great artist and a TRUE American!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryo Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but some bands just seem to lose their edge when they get clean and sober. I really want to like today's Aerosmith, but for some reason I'm still waiting for a good follow-up to 1978's Live Bootleg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragster Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but some bands just seem to lose their edge when they get clean and sober. I really want to like today's Aerosmith, but for some reason I'm still waiting for a good follow-up to 1978's Live Bootleg. Steve and Joe DID have some probs at getting sober at that too...! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but some bands just seem to lose their edge when they get clean and sober. Their studio craft may have suffered but they're still a kickass live band. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryo Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Their studio craft may have suffered but they're still a kickass live band. 10-4 on that. My Bro-in-law wants to catch the Harley 105th anniversary festival in Wisconsin at the end of August. It looks like Aerosmith will be on the bill, so maybe I'll get a chance to see them this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryo Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Steve and Joe DID have some probs at getting sober at that too...! Yeah, and they were definately not the only ones. As I recall, the Stones made a string of great albums during the era when Mr. Richards was strung out on H. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.