Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
ZoSo88

Led Zeppelin, just a cut above the rest!

Recommended Posts

Often people hate comparisons, for after all, music is something to be appreciated by the masses, enjoyed in whatever form or context you find most appealing. That is why often fans of music, and rock particularly will why away from comparisons. After all, it does not change the music right? Well thats true. I do believe their is something to be said of enjoying that one band who you believe is truely the greatest, music is music but its human instinct to compete, evolve, and when its all said and done, the fans are the ones who benefit with a wide variety of good music. So why being this up? Because I have seen many on the forum often under-estimate Led Zeppelin in some respects, please keep in mind however, i have nothing against anyone on here, anyone who disagrees with me, or any other legendary rock band, im just looking for an interesting conversation, not a war, music is subjective after all, we often agree to disagree. That being said, I'm going to put LZ in perspective to everyone, and in compare them to others thought to be of their caliber, and see where each band might stand.

Greatness is a term losely applied to a great many things in music, after all, there is no set definition. So often using that term as a gage of overall musical brilliance, achievement, intracasy, ect.. can sometimes be quite vague. So I'm going to try to break it down into various categories that might help review any good rock band.

The Music: This is the most subjective area of the conversation. Who am I or anyone else so say so in so is better then someone else. Or to say one song is better then another, etc.. Its subjective. But in all fairness, especially from a Rock perspective, I concider their music the best. They had the greatest lineup of overall talent in the band (Page, Plant, Bonham, Jones), and they made beautiful music.

Success: They have sold a little over 300 Million albums world-wide, 109.5 of those sales coming from the US. The only band to sell more has been the Beatles however, they released far more albums, contemplations, and singles. On a per-album basis, LZ would be ahead of them and every other band. They have the best selling Rock album both in the US and Worldwide which is their untitled 4th album, which is tied with Pink Floyd's "The Wall" in the US (Eagles GH is not a studio album). They have the highest concert attendance average in the history of the US. They broke the Bealtes world record for attendance to any event by playing for 56,000 at Tampa Stadium. By the time they hit Knebworth in 1979, they were playing crowds as big as 140,000! All this done without ever hiring a publicist or using many marketing gimics, the music sold itself. The reunion sparked 120 million people registering, thats not even taking into account the people who don't use the internet or have not heard of it. Now thats more then baby boomer nostalgia!

Impact/Influence: People talk about the Beatles. One of my favorite bands actually. They sold more albums, but that is where the superiority ends. They made one of if not the largest political and social impacts ever, surpassing that of LZ...but why? Not to knock the Beatles but they sung on a more down to earth level. Their lyrical content was far easier for the average person to understand, didn't take the analysis like what we are still doing today with "Stairway". It was usually clean cut stuff, often (and in Lennon's case) intentionally created to start a buzz umong the average people. LZ was (no offense) more sophisticated overall, both in lyrical content and musical composition. The Beatles were pop rock idols, LZ were rock and roll gods. They sung from somewhere else and overall, they are far to ahead of most people. Anyone can rock out to Custard Pie, it takes an educated fan an analyze something like Ten Years Gone (and i believe us on the forum are those educated fans). Take the Beatles "Revolution" and compare it to "The Rover". Which one is easier to understand? And the average person listening to "The Rover" ways WTF does that mean? But LZ had a mix of music that appealed to a wider range of demographic, although I like anyone else see something of a perverted sophistication in songs like Custard Pie, done with a dash of eliquance.

LZ vs. Rolling Stones: LZ certainly more successful with not nearly as many years active or as many albums released. Stronger music to begin with, and the Stones who i also like alot, tarnish their legacy with non stop tours and countless singles..few of which we can actually name.

LZ vs Black Sabbath: The tried to emulate LZ's mystique and presence (pick up this months issue of Guitar World) but failed to reach that level, and was usually more strongly geared towards..stoners.

LZ vs. Pink Floyd: No disrespect to Floyd, but their music is so flip flop, some great, some very over-rated and some humiliating (listen to "bike" from piper at the gates of dawn). Even they themselves admit to not living the spotlight live and prefer to let their excellent light shows become as much a part of their experience. And often they sung with political innuendo on a more high school level ("we don't need no education!) and appealed to a large group of against the establishment types. Although often filled with great meaning, they failed to capture the wise/spritual/hard rock edge LZ personified.

LZ vs. The Who: the who usually being more of an aquired taste, i can't really knock them too much, i like them also. Just overall and in almost every aspect the were below LZ's brilliance, although their live performances were to die for.

LZ vs. The Countless wanna be's: Many of the future rock bands idolize and try to copy Zep. But I'll tell you what I read in Guitar World that made perfect sense. Why have all the bands failed to accomplish and become as big as Led Zeppelin? They would try to focus and copy one aspect of their music (Deep Purple with catchy riffs, Black Sabbath with mysticisim, Whitesnake with sexuality, KISS with over the top characters, Floyd with stoner psycedilia, etc..) as where Led Zeppelin was ever changing and mastered all the various relms, simply putitng your own spin and trying to copy one aspect might make you very successfull...but not quite Led Zeppelin...who are a cut above the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LZ vs. The Beatles comes down to two most basic aspects which I think make a great song:

The riffs of Page and Jones versus the melodies of Lennon, McCartney & (late-Beatle-era) Harrison.

You usually have one or the other in a great song, rarely do you have both. In the rare instance you have neither (i.e. "songwriter" music a.k.a Bruce, Dylan, most folk music - all of which I can't stand)

The greatest thing about LZ & The Beatles and what separates them from the all bands past, present and future is that they knew (to a certain extent) what material was "up to par". Yes Pink Floyd (71-79) and The Stones (68-72) also had some great 'eras' but LZ and the Beatles stand above the rest if for only the quality of work during their ENTIRE period as a band.

... too drunk to write more concise material, maybe later. I need to sleep.

Edited by mdecav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoso88, with complete respect, you must have a lot of time to kill with your consistently verbose writing style. I really can't allow myself that much time for this, but want to comment. One can go about detailing all the reason why or why not this or that with whatever sophistry or reasoning, and I don't personally think that your assertions are well grounded.

The bottom line is that without Elvis (and Scotty Moore) there would be no Led Zeppelin, no Beatles and none of the myriad Blues-Rock greats of '60s - '70s England and America.

Now the Beatles are indeed more about Melody and Harmony, while Zeppelin is much more about atmopshere, swing and groove. The Beatles clearly come out on top from a strictly melodic and harmonic standpoint in the long tradition of Western music, as well as, a much broader scope of influence on others than Led Zeppelin.

Led Zeppelin's song writing is sometimes highly creative, but that is not what makes them great. It's Zeppelin's execution and feel that put so much effect into the music, not the song craft, for Whole Lotta Love is as great or greater than songs like Ten Years Gone, Achilles Last Stand, etc. Further, great music has nothing to do with complexity and absolutely nothing to do with analysis and cognition, but rather intuitive emotive impact. Jimmy Page knows this - all his songs came out of emotion and not theory. The greatest music has to do with transendental simplicity. Anyone can write complicated music and mysterious lyrics - there's nothing to it. However, write a simple theme like Bach's Air in G or Hey Jude - timeless melodies that impact every listener profoundly - that is true musical artistry.

Each of these acts is sublime, of course, but with all things considered, it has to go as follows still for me. With each act following down the list being an ever so slight cut below the rest...

1) Elvis Presley (mainly '54-'56)

2) The Beatles

3) Led Zeppelin

Edited by In The Light

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys all make some good points, but in all honesty, Zeppelin have always been, and continue to be, WAY more influential among musicians and up-and-coming aspiring bands than any other band, including the Beatles. Zep is more relevant than the Beatles in that regard (and that's a big regard). Everybody copies Zeppelin for a reason. Kids now are learning from Zeppelin, not the Beatles, for their woodshedding, I see it every day with my nephews, their friends, kids at the music stores etc learning drums, guitar, etc...There is something to be said for that. The kids are NOT jamming on "I wanna hold Your hand" or "The Ballad of John and Yoko", they are jamming on "Heartbreaker", "Immigrant Song", "Rock and Roll", and of course STH, to learn and inspire them. The kids love Bonzo, Zep, Neil Peart and Rush too, as do I, they are the second most influential band among musicians to Zeppelin. They are buying Zep CD's and DVD's. And I can see why, the wide musical range is literally a musical textbook to teach anyone something new, even top pro musicians.

Also the fact that Zep had no filler, the same could not be said of the Beatles (or any other band to Zep's degree). I'm not bashing the Beatles and comparisons are of course subjective, but let's face reality here. Zep had higher compositional, musical, and production quality control than any other band. Ask any professional producer, engineer, or musician that's worth anything and they'll say the same. Try listening to the Beatles White Album all the way through, you can't, unless you want to slash your wrists. Zeppelin seems to get better with every listen and I always notice new stuff everytime. You can listen to any Zeppelin album all the way through as a cohesive album, the same is nowhere near true for the Beatles (or any other band to Zep's degree). For example, compare the Beatles top 20 songs to Zeppelin's 20 best songs. The Beatles start sounding really, really weak really fast. In many regards. Kashmir, Achilles Last Stand, Rain Song, Ten Years Gone, TSRTS, No Quarter, In The Light, In My Time Of Dying, Tangerine, That's The Way, etc.. are just way beyond anything by the Beatles (on so many levels), and that's coming from a big Beatles fan. Plus, all Zep's creativity came from within the band itself, with the music also being produced by guitarist and songwriter Page, whereas the Beatles needed an outside source in George Martin to make alot of the musical calls. Zep was truly self-sufficient, an often overlooked fact. Zeppelin is head and shoulders above. If I have to explain why then the point is already being missed.

Also, of course, part of being a great composer had to do with live improvisational abilities too, an area where Zeppelin has no equal, certainly not the Beatles, Floyd, or The Stones. Page and Zep came up with (and threw away) more timeless, classic riffs every night live ON THE FLY than 99% of other bands base their entire careers on. Add in the Zep's breakthrough sonic production values (by Jimmy Page), arrangements, excitement, showmanship, and superior acoustic compositions, and you've got a band in Led Zeppelin that'll send any band (including the Beatles) wimpering back to their practice rooms.

Edited by Tea41

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You guys all make some good points, but in all honesty, Zeppelin have always been WAY more influential among musicians and up-and-coming aspiring bands and kids nowadays and are undoubtedly more relevant than the Beatles in that regard (and that's a big regard). Kids now are learning from Zeppelin, not the Beatles, I see it every day with my nephews, their friends, kids at the music stores etc learning drums, guitar, etc...There is something to be said for that. The kids are not jamming on "I wanna hold Your hand" or "The Ballad of John and Yoko", they are jamming on "Heartbreaker", "Immigrant Song", "Rock and Roll", and of course STH, to learn and inspire them. The kids love Bonzo, Zep, Neil Peart and Rush too, as do I, they are the second most influential band among musicians to Zeppelin. They are buying Zep CD's and DVD's. And I can see why, the wide musical range is literally a musical textbook to teach anyone something new. Also the fact that Zep had no filler, Beatles had lots of filler. I'm not bashing the Beatles and comparisons are of course subjective, but let's face reality here. Zep had higher compositional, musical, and production quality control than any other band. Ask any professional producer, engineer, or musician that's worth anything and they'll say the same. Try listening to the Beatles White Album all the way through, you can't, unless you want to slash your wrists. Zeppelin seems to get better with every listen and I always notice new stuff everytime. You can listen to any Zeppelin album all the way through as a cohesive album, the same is nowhere near true for the Beatles (or any other band to Zep's degree). For example, compare the Beatles top 20 songs to Zeppelin's 20 best songs. The Beatles start sounding really, really weak really fast. In many regards. Kashmir, Achilles Last Stand, Rain Song, Ten Years Gone, TSRTS, No Quarter, In The Light, In My Time Of Dying, Tangerine, That's The Way, etc.. are just way beyond anything by the Beatles (on so many levels), and that's coming from a big Beatles fan. Zeppelin is head and shoulders above. If I have to explain why then the point is already being missed.

Also, of course, part of being a great composer had to do with live improvisational abilities too, where Zeppelin has no equal, certainly not the Beatles, Floyd, or The Stones. Add in the Zep's breakthrough sonic production values (by Jimmy Page), arrangements, excitement, showmanship, and superior acoustic compositions, and you've got a band in Led Zeppelin that'll send any band (including the Beatles) wimpering back to their practice rooms.

I agree with pretty much everything you just wrote. Very well said! Even made some points that i didn't know how to put into words. And I apologize for my sometimes poor grammar, its just me rushing to type a thousand worse a minute and not looking back to correct anything. But yes, I am not trying to knock any band. In many ways it apples and oranges but i'd take Zep's apples over Beatles oranges anyday, and the beatles are one of my favorites! Keep in mind though, im 19, probably younger then most on here. I've dedicated a great portion of my life (maybe its sad) to listening and evaluating all kinds of music, I'd like to concider rock my specialty. I'm also a bit partial because I play guitar, and true people of my generation are very much emracing heartbreaker, whole lotta love, immigrant song when we rock out, we do some beatles, but from a musicians standpoint, its all in various degrees, Zep is ahead of the rest, thats why i embrace thing first. Rock of old is opening up for an entire new generation, my generation. Those of us who are smart realize and embrace the legends, especially Led Zeppelin. True, there would be no Zeppelin if there wasn't an Elvis Presley, Page got turned onto music by listening to him, and a band would not know how to globaly dominate if it wasn't the the beatles. But when that timeline hit Led Zeppelin, it stumbled onto something so creative and musically brilliant that bands following them have hoped to imitate, but no one as of yet has reached that level...prior or post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the moment I first became a fan, back in 1975 to the present day I have thought Led Zeppelin to be in a league of their own. I am still amazed at the their range and the emotive power of their music. I'd have to say half of this is due to their creative song writing talents and the other half is due to the execution, the way those guys play. The execution is important. Have you ever heard the yardbirds version of dazed and confused with their singer trying to manage jimmy's song? It's just terrible by comparison. Eric Relf stands there like a frozen statue and there is no emotion or vocal range whatsoever. Thank God they found Robert.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5Recd6Us9g

There are other bands that have had good albums that approach some of led zeppelins work. One could look at the Beatles Abbey road, Who's next or Pink Floyd's dark side of the moon. But even their best work maybe reaches the level of the weakest led zeppelin album, say in through the out door or led zeppelin 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Impact/Influence: People talk about the Beatles. One of my favorite bands actually. They sold more albums, but that is where the superiority ends. They made one of if not the largest political and social impacts ever, surpassing that of LZ...but why? Not to knock the Beatles but they sung on a more down to earth level. Their lyrical content was far easier for the average person to understand, didn't take the analysis like what we are still doing today with "Stairway". It was usually clean cut stuff, often (and in Lennon's case) intentionally created to start a buzz umong the average people. LZ was (no offense) more sophisticated overall, both in lyrical content and musical composition. The Beatles were pop rock idols, LZ were rock and roll gods. They sung from somewhere else and overall, they are far to ahead of most people. Anyone can rock out to Custard Pie, it takes an educated fan an analyze something like Ten Years Gone (and i believe us on the forum are those educated fans). Take the Beatles "Revolution" and compare it to "The Rover". Which one is easier to understand? And the average person listening to "The Rover" ways WTF does that mean? But LZ had a mix of music that appealed to a wider range of demographic, although I like anyone else see something of a perverted sophistication in songs like Custard Pie, done with a dash of eliquance.

Here's my argument for the Beatles.The Beatles are the most diverse group in history. Just listen to their first few albums then Revolver and Rubber Soul, and then listen to Peppers and the White Album! Although Zeppelin is close when it comes to diversity, the Beatles are superior. And you are not seeing the whole picture as far as the sophistcation of Beatles songs. The beatles have songs just as sophisticated as Zeppelin. Of course the songs from their earlier albums are simple but look at some of their later stuff. "Strawberry Fields Forever", "Across the Universe", "Happiness is a Warm Gun", "I am the Walrus", "Lucy In The Sky with Diamonds", "A DAY IN THE LIFE!!", "Helter Skelter" and I could list more. But anyway, sometimes the genius of a song or melody lies in its simplicity. And thats another thing I think the Beatles have Zeppelin beat on. Melody. The Beatles have the greatest melodies and so many of them. Zeppelin rocks harder and may be better musicians but the Beatles ability to write songs was uncany. And your argument about the Beatles releasing more albums therefor they have more album sales. Well, sure.. thats because they wrote a hell of a lot of songs and great ones. Shouldn't the ability to write so many great songs and albums count for something??

When it comes down to it, the Beatles and Zeppelin are my 2 favorite bands. And it actually is kind of hard to compare them. I agree that Zeppelin are rock n roll gods as you said. But I think the Beatles deserve more than "pop idols". No, the Beatles should be refered to as "musical geniuses" in my opinion.

Edited by spencer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You guys all make some good points, but in all honesty, Zeppelin have always been, and continue to be, WAY more influential among musicians and up-and-coming aspiring bands than any other band, including the Beatles. Zep is more relevant than the Beatles in that regard (and that's a big regard). Everybody copies Zeppelin for a reason. Kids now are learning from Zeppelin, not the Beatles, for their woodshedding, I see it every day with my nephews, their friends, kids at the music stores etc learning drums, guitar, etc...There is something to be said for that. The kids are NOT jamming on "I wanna hold Your hand" or "The Ballad of John and Yoko", they are jamming on "Heartbreaker", "Immigrant Song", "Rock and Roll", and of course STH, to learn and inspire them. The kids love Bonzo, Zep, Neil Peart and Rush too, as do I, they are the second most influential band among musicians to Zeppelin. They are buying Zep CD's and DVD's. And I can see why, the wide musical range is literally a musical textbook to teach anyone something new, even top pro musicians.

Also the fact that Zep had no filler, the same could not be said of the Beatles (or any other band to Zep's degree). I'm not bashing the Beatles and comparisons are of course subjective, but let's face reality here. Zep had higher compositional, musical, and production quality control than any other band. Ask any professional producer, engineer, or musician that's worth anything and they'll say the same. Try listening to the Beatles White Album all the way through, you can't, unless you want to slash your wrists. Zeppelin seems to get better with every listen and I always notice new stuff everytime. You can listen to any Zeppelin album all the way through as a cohesive album, the same is nowhere near true for the Beatles (or any other band to Zep's degree). For example, compare the Beatles top 20 songs to Zeppelin's 20 best songs. The Beatles start sounding really, really weak really fast. In many regards. Kashmir, Achilles Last Stand, Rain Song, Ten Years Gone, TSRTS, No Quarter, In The Light, In My Time Of Dying, Tangerine, That's The Way, etc.. are just way beyond anything by the Beatles (on so many levels), and that's coming from a big Beatles fan. Plus, all Zep's creativity came from within the band itself, with the music also being produced by guitarist and songwriter Page, whereas the Beatles needed an outside source in George Martin to make alot of the musical calls. Zep was truly self-sufficient, an often overlooked fact. Zeppelin is head and shoulders above. If I have to explain why then the point is already being missed.

Also, of course, part of being a great composer had to do with live improvisational abilities too, an area where Zeppelin has no equal, certainly not the Beatles, Floyd, or The Stones. Page and Zep came up with (and threw away) more timeless, classic riffs every night live ON THE FLY than 99% of other bands base their entire careers on. Add in the Zep's breakthrough sonic production values (by Jimmy Page), arrangements, excitement, showmanship, and superior acoustic compositions, and you've got a band in Led Zeppelin that'll send any band (including the Beatles) wimpering back to their practice rooms.

Dude..are you crazy? If the White Album makes you want to slash your wrist then be my guest! And you can't say that kids today aren't jamming to the Beatles. thats BS. I am 22 and I have many friends who love the beatles. The Beatles are my girlfriends favorite group. I play guitar and I know just as man Beatles songs as Zeppelin songs. Besides, the Beatles have the numbers to back it up. They are the highest selling band in history!! Give them some respect. geez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dude..are you crazy? If the White Album makes you want to slash your wrist then be my guest! And you can't say that kids today aren't jamming to the Beatles. thats BS. I am 22 and I have many friends who love the beatles. The Beatles are my girlfriends favorite group. I play guitar and I know just as man Beatles songs as Zeppelin songs. Besides, the Beatles have the numbers to back it up. They are the highest selling band in history!! Give them some respect. geez

+100

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's my argument for the Beatles.The Beatles are the most diverse group in history. Just listen to their first few albums then Revolver and Rubber Soul, and then listen to Peppers and the White Album! Although Zeppelin is close when it comes to diversity, the Beatles are superior. And you are not seeing the whole picture as far as the sophistcation of Beatles songs. The beatles have songs just as sophisticated as Zeppelin. Of course the songs from their earlier albums are simple but look at some of their later stuff. "Strawberry Fields Forever", "Across the Universe", "Happiness is a Warm Gun", "I am the Walrus", "Lucy In The Sky with Diamonds", "A DAY IN THE LIFE!!", "Helter Skelter" and I could list more. But anyway, sometimes the genius of a song or melody lies in its simplicity. And thats another thing I think the Beatles have Zeppelin beat on. Melody. The Beatles have the greatest melodies and so many of them. Zeppelin rocks harder and may be better musicians but the Beatles ability to write songs was uncany. And your argument about the Beatles releasing more albums therefor they have more album sales. Well, sure.. thats because they wrote a hell of a lot of songs and great ones. Shouldn't the ability to write so many great songs and albums count for something??

When it comes down to it, the Beatles and Zeppelin are my 2 favorite bands. And it actually is kind of hard to compare them. I agree that Zeppelin are rock n roll gods as you said. But I think the Beatles deserve more than "pop idols". No, the Beatles should be refered to as "musical geniuses" in my opinion.

Well said, Spencer - I need add no more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LZ vs. The Who: the who usually being more of an aquired taste, i can't really knock them too much, i like them also. Just overall and in almost every aspect the were below LZ's brilliance, although their live performances were to die for.

I was willing to ignore this until I read this bit about the Who.

I'm sorry, but Pete Townshend is second to no one when it comes to songwriting.

Oh, and perhaps this wasn't true back in the early 60s, but when I saw the Who this past March he was doing things I've never even seen Page do. His two hand tapping was terrific. Page is the better guitarist, but I'm sorry, you can't say that the Who are "below LZ's brilliance." That's just ignorant. Same goes for many of the other ones you listed, but this one hit the closest to home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, and again, certainly not meaning to knock these other bands, especially The Beatles and The Who. Perhaps this thread has yet to give the fab four their due. They were the most successful (and yes, even though they had more albums, there is something to be said of having made alot of great music), but also keep in mind that LZ played together as long as they could, and were so loyal as to not continue without Bonzo. They could have kept going and sold alot more! But anyways, The Beatles deserve a higher title then pop idols, certainly. Although I believe they were overexposed, they were brilliant, make no mistake about it. But I personally do not concider their great melody making to be on par with Zeppelin's ruthless rock agression and rythm. Beatles music makes you want to move, maybe dance, sing along, be happy, and think...LZ's music possesses you, its from somewhere else. As far as Pete, yes he is awsome, and here's where we agree to disagree, he can double tap all he wants, and he's a HOF'er so no one can deny his talent, but again, Page with this double necks, violin bows, ruthless playing style, stage presence, etc...can not be matched. The man was a master of the craft on a different level of other players. Like Robert once said...Jimmy plays from somewhere else...A little left of heaven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

Great posts everyone!!!

This just my 2 cents,.......with NO disrespect to the other bands!

Zep never got the credit for the 'world' music,well in their music.What other band played blues,celtic folk,r&b,rock,c&w,eastern influence,jazz,etc? Yeah maybe now,but in the 70's?

What other band live could blow you ears off for a couple of hours,then sit down and do 'That's the Way'?

Or, right in the middle of a song have their drummer take the lead and go in a completly different direction?

What other band stayed on top on the musical world for that long?

Take care,KB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but also keep in mind that LZ played together as long as they could, and were so loyal as to not continue without Bonzo. They could have kept going and sold alot more!

Just because Zeppelin did that doesn't mean every time a group loses a member they should pack it in.

As far as Pete, yes he is awsome, and here's where we agree to disagree, he can double tap all he wants, and he's a HOF'er so no one can deny his talent, but again, Page with this double necks, violin bows, ruthless playing style, stage presence, etc...can not be matched.

I don't know if anyone told you, but a double neck guitar is not harder to play than a single neck one. And stage presence? Uhm, buddy...

pete-townshend.jpg

The man was a master of the craft on a different level of other players. Like Robert once said...Jimmy plays from somewhere else...A little left of heaven.

Jimmy was great, but as a guitarist I can tell you he's not as far ahead of the competition as you think he is. He's not untouchable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They have the best selling Rock album both in the US and Worldwide which is their untitled 4th album, which is tied with Pink Floyd's "The Wall" in the US (Eagles GH is not a studio album).

The best selling rock album is AC/DC's "Back In Black", which has sold 42 million copies worldwide, making it the second best selling album of all time behind Michael Jackson's "Thriller".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The best selling rock album is AC/DC's "Back In Black", which has sold 42 million copies worldwide, making it the second best selling album of all time behind Michael Jackson's "Thriller".

That number has never been certified and AC/DC managment later backed away from it since there is no international organization to audit these figures.

The figure is more like in the low 30s

21 million in US

2 in Canada

12 million in the rest the world

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay...never said a double neck was harder to play...but to know how to play a 12 string properly, and be able to shift between the 12 and 6 string top and bottom, its not the same difficulty as a normal 6 string. I play guitar too, but i hate it when guitarists think that because they play, they know how to evaluate guitar skill so well, my playing guitar really does not qualify me to judge in that respect. But to knock Jimmy's stage presence? I guess that kind of magic is just lost on some people. And there is a huge difference between a great technical guitarist and a great overall guitarist. Jimmy envoked all kinds of emotions, and im ready to defend him, so who is better then him?

As far as AC/DC, yes they did back off from that statement and is certainly not higher in the US, and we all know that LZ had far more global appeal then AC/DC. I'm not going to even get into Michael Jackson's Thriller...104 Million copies and counting? Thats disgusting, thats about as much as Aerosmiths total catalog, and i love Aerosmith. But Thriller is misunderstood in the sense that people associate the musical content as pop fodder that is loved by many of his crazy fans, but truth be told, that album was great. Regardless, back to Zeppelin..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because Zeppelin did that doesn't mean every time a group loses a member they should pack it in.

I don't know if anyone told you, but a double neck guitar is not harder to play than a single neck one. And stage presence? Uhm, buddy...

pete-townshend.jpg

Jimmy was great, but as a guitarist I can tell you he's not as far ahead of the competition as you think he is. He's not untouchable.

Jimmy Page is as close to untouchable as you can get. He IS the best EVER in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jimmy Page is as close to untouchable as you can get. He IS the best EVER in my opinion.

Agreed. But some people would disagree. I think there are parts of Led Zeppelin that everyone likes, the hard rock tunes, the catch love songs, the acoustic folky stuff, and they have alot of fans because of that. But then their are other parts of the band musically and beyond that are just a little ahead of people, myself included sometimes. Its easier to think of them as the classic rock band with the four symbols, and just rock out to their tunes. But it takes a very open mind and i think you have to be very musically perceptive to fully appreciate all of what they did. They were just so innovative and beyond anything the music industry has seen before or after. No one has the right to question the fact they packed it in "maybe to soon" because they were loyal to each other, they were truely as band, all for four. Replacements would still sell records but it wouldn't be exactly the same. Even Bonzo Jr. isn't the same, but at least its blood and he's a fine drummer. Usually i would oppose a reform, but as i said, the music industry is crippled with fad-filled-fodder, lack of creativity, and lack of progress. Anything LZ can give us is more then we've seen for a long long time, that explains the demand. Its what we want, its what we need...its simply...the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jimmy Page is as close to untouchable as you can get. He IS the best EVER in my opinion.

No, he's not untouchable. And that's not a knock against him, you just aren't giving anyone else enough credit. In terms of stage presence, there were certainly those better than him, Townshend being one of them. The guy not only played great, but he did crazy windmills, jumps, guitar destruction, etc. I'm not saying it makes him a better guitarist (I do think Page has him in terms of technical skill), but it makes him a greater presence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know how when i "knocked" The Who that hit close to home for you? And I said im sorry, again not knocking them but. Page is untouchable as they come. He's not untouchable because i say he is, his presence stands for itself. Now i guess that all varies according to what your preference is. But with Pete for instance who i think is awsome, but jumping around, destryoing equipment, and and going out of control..Who style, is not of the same caliber of the spiritual stage presence of page, the lights, the smoke, the guitar bows, the way he danced around (even thats impressive), and Stairway To Heaven, my god...that stuff is from a different planet. Now if you want to say Pete is the best on earth..he can be concidered for that..but Jimmy played a little left of heaven and a little right of hell, just can not be touched as much as people would like to think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Page is untouchable as they come. He's not untouchable because i say he is, his presence stands for itself.

If that was true we wouldn't be having this argument.

I like Page just as much as you do, but I'm not limiting myself to just him. The fact is there are better guitarists out there, some with better presence and technical skill. That's just a fact. If you want to pretend that Jimmy Page is the best guitarist out there and nobody can touch him fine, but you're missing out on a lot of other great guitar work and live performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If that was true we wouldn't be having this argument.

I like Page just as much as you do, but I'm not limiting myself to just him. The fact is there are better guitarists out there, some with better presence and technical skill. That's just a fact. If you want to pretend that Jimmy Page is the best guitarist out there and nobody can touch him fine, but you're missing out on a lot of other great guitar work and live performance.

Well, YOU say its FACT. I happen to believe its a fact that Jimmy Page is the greatest all around guitarist ever! Looking from a musical standpoint, not just "technical skills" which is so damn overrated it makes me sick. Did Jimi Hendrix have any "technical skills'? Hell no, he played the damn guitar upside down BUT he played from his SOUL. There are several aspects that you have to consider when thinking about who is the greatest. While Jimmy might not be the greatest when it comes to "technical skill" (like Eddie Van Halen, whose solos sounds like one of those little toy guitars you fins in stores that play fake synthesized solos). Page also might not be the best when it comes to "stage presence" (though many think he is), but when you take everything into account, he IS the best all around. Yes, he has speed, a hell of a lot too..but the difference is he has just as much soul as he has speed and thats what separates him from the Van Halens, the Townshends, Slash...everybody!

And lastly, if you're going to make an argument that there are better guitarists than Jimmy page, do yourself a favor and dont mention Pete Townshend, it just makes you seem a little less credible because he is not even in the same league as any of these guys....

Edited by spencer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with pretty much everything, but I do have to point out that Pink Floyd has some VERY meaningful stuff that goes deep, I think you shortchange them a bit there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...