Greatest 5-Year Creative Output: Zep vs Beatles vs Stones

[Gainsbarre]

It's The Beatles way above the others.

That period for The Beatles, from 1965 to 1969, was the same period that saw the biggest shift in direction and quality of popular music in the world.

Just compare an album like Help to Abbey Road, the scope there is enourmous. Not only in songwriting direction and style, but also in the art of studio recording itself.

Help was one of the first pop stereo albums, when vocals and lead guitar would be mixed to the left channel and everything else would be mixed to the right. By Abbey Road that had completely changed, Stereo mixing, because of The Beatles, had achieved a new hight and level.

Sticking with the technological aspect, don't forget at this time, because of The Beatles technical needs and explorations, this period saw the incredible technical creativy of the Abbey Road staff responding to their needs by inventing such things as automatic double tracking (ADT).

All you have to do is listen to Revolver, and compare it to any other album recorded in 1966 (with the possible exception of Pet Sounds) and you can hear The Beatles were far and away ahead of everyone else.

In that 5 year period, The Beatles gave us the first pop album to use Sitar, the first pop album to use backwards recordings, the first pop album to use higher bass levels, the first pop concept album, the first pop album to use atonal music, the first pop album to contain a full Indian-instrument backing track, The first pop album to use musique concrète...the list gones on...

I mean yes you may prefer Led Zep's music to The Beatles or even The Stones, to each their own, but in the history of popular music and the impact it had on the international music scene, audio recording techniques and the influence of future generations, nothing compares to that 5 year period of The Beatles.

[The Bomber]

I just find something irritating about the music.

[jimmie ray]

I don't get alot of music fans' insistence that being rebellious adds to a group's status. I guess if the Who or the Clash were in this contest, they would win by a landslide?

[Gainsbarre]

I don't get alot of music fans' insistence that being rebellious adds to a group's status. I guess if the Who or the Clash were in this contest, they would win by a landslide?

Well, it's why I never really cared for Punk at all, although I did enjoy the New York Dolls. Punk never spoke to me because it was more about attitude than music

[Mattmc1973]

It's The Beatles way above the others.

That period for The Beatles, from 1965 to 1969, was the same period that saw the biggest shift in direction and quality of popular music in the world.

Just compare an album like Help to Abbey Road, the scope there is enourmous. Not only in songwriting direction and style, but also in the art of studio recording itself.

Help was one of the first pop stereo albums, when vocals and lead guitar would be mixed to the left channel and everything else would be mixed to the right. By Abbey Road that had completely changed, Stereo mixing, because of The Beatles, had achieved a new hight and level.

Sticking with the technological aspect, don't forget at this time, because of The Beatles technical needs and explorations, this period saw the incredible technical creativy of the Abbey Road staff responding to their needs by inventing such things as automatic double tracking (ADT).

All you have to do is listen to Revolver, and compare it to any other album recorded in 1966 (with the possible exception of Pet Sounds) and you can hear The Beatles were far and away ahead of everyone else.

In that 5 year period, The Beatles gave us the first pop album to use Sitar, the first pop album to use backwards recordings, the first pop album to use higher bass levels, the first pop concept album, the first pop album to use atonal music, the first pop album to contain a full Indian-instrument backing track, The first pop album to use musique concrète...the list gones on...

I mean yes you may prefer Led Zep's music to The Beatles or even The Stones, to each their own, but in the history of popular music and the impact it had on the international music scene, audio recording techniques and the influence of future generations, nothing compares to that 5 year period of The Beatles.

And the Beatles retiring from the road has everything to do with that. With girls screaming so loud they couldn't hear themselves play, they quit touring, and focused on the studio. Free from having to worry about replicating their records onstage, they were able to focus on experimentation and innovation in the studio. If they had continued touring, you probably never would have had something like Sgt Pepper.

[Gainsbarre]

And the Beatles retiring from the road has everything to do with that. With girls screaming so loud they couldn't hear themselves play, they quit touring, and focused on the studio. Free from having to worry about replicating their records onstage, they were able to focus on experimentation and innovation in the studio. If they had continued touring, you probably never would have had something like Sgt Pepper.

That's exactly right, or if they hadn't had been as successful, they wouldn't have been allowed such free reign and length of time in the studio.

On an audio level, compare Sgt Pepper to Piper At The Gates of Dawn, Pink Floyds' debut. Both those albums were recorded at exactly the same time and in exactly the same studios: Abbey Road. The Beatles would be in studio 2, and Pink Floyd would be right next door in studio 3. Pink Floyd's album was even produced by the Beatles previous Engineer (who left the group after Rubber Soul).

But the difference in sound quality between those two albums is enormous. The Beatles, because of their huge success and the amount of money they could spend on an album, were far better recorded, better mixed and mastered, the over-all product on an audio level is just so far above Pink Floyd's album.

[Mattmc1973]

^ Yep, Floyd's first couple of albums are very muddy sounding, with the master volume too low. They later became audiophiles and made great sounding albums, but at first, you listen to something like "See Saw" from Saucerful Of Secrets, and it's so faint and muddy sounding.

[Mr.Kite]

I voted in Beatles, maybe they didn't were so "rock" as most, but they surely opened the doors to all other bands of rock... And I love them too...

[Charles_Obscure]

The Beatles for me too.

[Angel With A Broken Wing]

I was going to vote Zep but had a change of heart and am giving the Beatles a sympathy vote after reading someone up above say that they HATE the Beatles. Oh my, I can't believe that, it makes me want to cry......

[bigstickbonzo]

All 3 bands have completely different influences on rock and roll and popular music for me to distinguish one better than the other.

You certainly nailed each band's creative peak.

Beatles - late 66

Zeppelin - 70

Stones - 70

Rock and roll itself peaked right as the Beatles broke up. With the deaths of Hendrix, Joplin and Morrison, it began to slowly show its downslide.

[DSG]

This poll is very unfair. Can't I just pick all? lol If you had a gun to my head I'll go with Zeppelin. Each of those albums were perfect while I wasn't big into Exile on Main Street or Abbey Road. So yeah Zep wins.

[Walter]

^ Yep, Floyd's first couple of albums are very muddy sounding, with the master volume too low. They later became audiophiles and made great sounding albums, but at first, you listen to something like "See Saw" from Saucerful Of Secrets, and it's so faint and muddy sounding.

Speaking of Floyd, how about '72-'77 - Obscured By Clouds, Dark Side..., Wish You Were Here, Animals? Now there is another great 5 year run.

I still like Zep's 5 year run the most.

[Gainsbarre]

Speaking of Floyd, how about '72-'77 - Obscured By Clouds, Dark Side..., Wish You Were Here, Animals? Now there is another great 5 year run.

I still like Zep's 5 year run the most.

As much as I love Pink Floyd, Obscured By Clouds, Wish You Were Here and most of Animals (excluding Sheep, of course) were clunkers for me. Umma Gumma, Meddle, Dark Side and The Wall were the great albums. I never really got into the Syd Barret stuff.

[Walter]

You really think Wish You Were Here is not a great album? I agree with the others that you love, Ummagumma is a very Barrett-esque set, so why don't you like Piper...?

Floyd was awesome though!

[Gainsbarre]

You really think Wish You Were Here is not a great album? I agree with the others that you love, Ummagumma is a very Barrett-esque set, so why don't you like Piper...?

Floyd was awesome though!

I disagree, I don't think Umma Gumma was very Barrettesque at all...to me that was the real Pink Floyd Psychedelic period.

Wish You Were Here, I probably just haven't given it much of a chance. I found it harder to get into than The Wall. Animals could've been great but we sorted of ended up at the arse-end of some of Roger's more dull numbers...

I don't mind parts of Atom Heart Mother, though.

[Robert's Plant]

Excuse me! I do like Revolver and Rubber Soul, I have the albums but not even they came at par with Led Zeppelin and Houses of the Holy. If there was a Beatles album that I dare compare with even Led Zeppelin - be it Let it Be. All other albums of the Beatles, it's just not the same genre for me. For the most part of the 60's The Beatles were just cute, poignant, none of their albums had the same raw musicality of Led Zep. Rolling Stones don't even go there, Led Zep is out of their league. Rolling Stones follows trends, Led Zep had set it.

Chuck Berry as they say is the Father of Rock and Roll.

Led Zep the Gold Standard.

The Golden Gods of Rock.

[Robert's Plant]

The Beatles were the best of their decade whereas LZ were the best of theirs.

Fair enough?

Right.

[040879]

Not either, all, or any of the above at all. Ever.

Zep are my favourite group. The only band that come anywhere near them is//was The Beatles but there's no actual,conclusive, definitive evidence that they were anywhere as good live as Zeppelin. Beatles fans may moan but the evidence just simply doesn't exist. Full stop.No. it doesn't .Don't argue.I want 2 hour concert films of them playing live,improvising and performing their studio creations in concert. Don't bother. They coulnd'nt/wouldn't. Shame .All the accounts [and I've read them.]add up to 'too cool/too lazy. Don't even think about 'too much pressure'. Not an excuse.

DAVID BOWIE 1970-1980...A PROPER CREATIVE DECADE. Maybe 10 studio albums, a pair of live albums and plenty of touring, all whilst PinkFloydzepstones were tuning up.Oh, and the records demonstate real, actual, changes in style, recording techniquea and compositonal approach too.

Ta.

[Robert's Plant]

It's The Beatles way above the others.

Sticking with the technological aspect, don't forget at this time, because of The Beatles technical needs and explorations, this period saw the incredible technical creativy of the Abbey Road staff responding to their needs by inventing such things as automatic double tracking (ADT).

All you have to do is listen to Revolver, and compare it to any other album recorded in 1966 (with the possible exception of Pet Sounds) and you can hear The Beatles were far and away ahead of everyone else.

I also dig The Beatles and truly a matter of preference but their music does not traverse the same radius (magnitude) that Led Zep music transcends.

Led Zep had tambourines, amps, bow/guitar, a voice that at times sounded off the guitar, John Bonham. Not to mention THE lyrics. The Beatles' lyrics told stories, Led Zep's lyrics take you places. Moby Dick, which had not a syllable, takes you as far as you dare imagine. I prefer it to any Eleanor Rigby. Sgt. Pepper's and Yellow Submarine are cartoonish. I am He as You are Me and We are All Together Goo Goo Goo Jube. WTH! Good enough for a Walrus theme park or Cirque de Soleil.

Nothing inventive about the band transforming themselves into semi-hippies in Abbey Road and White Album, before that a rapidly radicalized majority of listeners was already changing the times. 1966 way far way before Led Zep was formed or conceived. It's just as well that The Beatles broke up when they did as I think they would have struggled greatly in the 70's side-by-side Led Zep. Right from the start, Led Zep was as Led Zep can be. They had set the tone of rock music. As many records and albums The Beatles may have produced, none of which have and will ever reach the heights of Stairway to Heaven. 100 years from now this song will still be played in the airwaves.

[Anarchy2Howard]

Lol, if you post this question on a Led Zeppelin forum obviously the majority of people are going to vote for Zeppelin.

[lucyinthesky]

It is the Beatles who did the biggest musical step. Help is high quality pop-rock, Revolver the greatest psychedelic album of all times and abbey road a very quite and wise goodbye.

They are the (second) greatest because they we're the first and their creative output is undenyable more than giant.

Led Zep is the reason why my heart beats but they didn't change as much as the Beatles (in the studio) but on the stage, they're the champions.

And the Stones-no offence ment- never did anything but rocking straight an.

But another question: should there be a competition between these three great bands?

I don't think so, I enjoy all of them.

[LemonSqzr]

That was really hard....I love them all, but I have to stick with our boys. No one's songs make me feel what I feel when I hear Zeppelin.

[Xtazy]

But another question: should there be a competition between these three great bands?

I don't think so.

I second that.

[Fardoche Mavustaholio]

I voted Led Zeppelin, I think they are geniuos, more than that!

The Rolling Stones are great too, but never as great as Zeppelin.

And I don't like the Beatles, I like them more than many other bands, but their music isn't so rocking.

If any of us were to chose which band to hang out with in any of those 5 year periods, the superior beings would chose Led Zeppelin. Hands down. I do not respect people who would chose otherwise.

Same goes for the music.

The Beatles sound like a bunch of private school thugs who hit puberty early and never got beat up and let loose upon creativity.

The Rolling Stones have a strong visceral drive, but little substance to it. Having murder on your conscience doesnt make every mundane gesture you make magical for other people. AND Jimmy Page played on a lot of their tracks, same for JPJ.

Led Zeppelin was, is and is likely to be the best. Comparing Led Zeppelin to the Beatles and the Rolling Stones is like comparing Jesus Christ to the Mormons and George Bush, respectively.