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

EASY ANSWER TO THIS POST;

LED ZEPPELIN WERE BETTER, THAN ANYONE, IF ANYONE CARES TO ARGUE, I AM THE BLOND STANDING OUTSIDE THE PUB EWITH A LARGE GLASS OF RED WINE, WEARING FISHNETS, AND A BLACK SEXY MINI DRESSS, AND WHITE FUR JACKET, NO NEED TO ARGUE FURTHER RIGHT NOW>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spencer's right on. And so is Zoso88. Page excels above all, not only playing quality but stage showmanship, just watch him move and how cool he looks and sounds on "Celebration Day" and "The Ocean" from the new TRSTS DVD. Listen to how good his playing is. That's rock and roll! Check it out in DTS, then flip on the violin bow section in Dazed the way it whips around your head in DTS 5.1 surround, it's STELLAR boys! STELLAR I tell you!!

I like the Who but forget about comparing them to Zeppelin. Zeppelin is a special case, sort like Wayne Gretzky was in hockey. Everyone knew he was the best and accepted it. Same thing here. Led Zeppelin. Special case. All the rules go out the window.

Edited by Tea41

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

I'll put it this way, if you asked Clapton, Beck, Townshend, Gilmour, or any legendary guitar player of the era who was the best, Jimmy Page wouldn't be the answer. Certainly in the top 5, but not the best. (Not the best showman either, not by a long shot)

SBW680823-VX.jpg

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.

The reason that The Beatles were able to write so much can be attributed to the fact that they weren't touring so much as Led Zeppelin. In fact, if memory serves correct they stopped touring altogether early on. They had time to sit down and crank out progression after progression of short to not short enough songs. Think about the musicianship and the grasp of Led Zeppelin. Don't you think if they could sit at home and get fat off tea and custard pie they would have time to make more Physical Graffitis?

And as some side notes I HATE when people put A Day In The Life or Yesterday up to STH. No comparison even if they were combined. A day in the life begins as any generic, plain song would about normal things that few find interest in and then goes into orchestral chaos. Yesterday is just ok but nowhere near epic. And that bull crap about Helter Skelter making metal. Dazed and Confused was recorded before the White Album was released. Ask any metal player if Helter Skelter "did it for them." They say "bop bop bop" in it. Pretty much everywhere you turn in Beatles there are elements of pop everywhere.

+ In The Light I know you're trying to place respect for The Beatles but the variety and innovation really is on Zep's side. I respect the band as a whole though I wish you would play Carouselambra ;) .

Edited by Laughter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason that The Beatles were able to write so much can be attributed to the fact that they weren't touring so much as Led Zeppelin. In fact, if memory serves correct they stopped touring altogether early on. They had time to sit down and crank out progression after progression of short to not short enough songs. Think about the musicianship and the grasp of Led Zeppelin. Don't you think if they could sit at home and get fat off tea and custard pie they would have time to make more Physical Graffitis?

And as some side notes I HATE when people put A Day In The Life or Yesterday up to STH. No comparison even if they were combined. A day in the life begins as any generic, plain song would about normal things that few find interest in and then goes into orchestral chaos. Yesterday is just ok but nowhere near epic. And that bull crap about Helter Skelter making metal. Dazed and Confused was recorded before the White Album was released. Ask any metal player if Helter Skelter "did it for them." They say "bop bop bop" in it. Pretty much everywhere you turn in Beatles there are elements of pop everywhere.

+ In The Light I know you're trying to place respect for The Beatles but the variety and innovation really is on Zep's side. I respect the band as a whole though I wish you would play Carouselambra ;) .

I see the argument you are trying to make but still, you don't have ALL the facts. The Beatles stopped touring in about 1966. The band broke up in 1969. After they stopped touring they produced about 5 albums. From 1963-1966, they produced about 8 albums! So they actually produced the majority of their body of work while they were still an active touring band. Besides, don't you think that the reason for the large amount of great songs comes from the fact that they had 2 guys by the name of John Lennon and Paul McCartney wrting songs?? Its quite possible... They weren't bad songwriters from what I hear :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason that The Beatles were able to write so much can be attributed to the fact that they weren't touring so much as Led Zeppelin. In fact, if memory serves correct they stopped touring altogether early on. They had time to sit down and crank out progression after progression of short to not short enough songs. Think about the musicianship and the grasp of Led Zeppelin. Don't you think if they could sit at home and get fat off tea and custard pie they would have time to make more Physical Graffitis?

And as some side notes I HATE when people put A Day In The Life or Yesterday up to STH. No comparison even if they were combined. A day in the life begins as any generic, plain song would about normal things that few find interest in and then goes into orchestral chaos. Yesterday is just ok but nowhere near epic. And that bull crap about Helter Skelter making metal. Dazed and Confused was recorded before the White Album was released. Ask any metal player if Helter Skelter "did it for them." They say "bop bop bop" in it. Pretty much everywhere you turn in Beatles there are elements of pop everywhere.

+ In The Light I know you're trying to place respect for The Beatles but the variety and innovation really is on Zep's side. I respect the band as a whole though I wish you would play Carouselambra ;) .

A Day in the Life is one of my favorite Beatles songs and I like it as much as STH. Its got a beautiful melody and was executed to a tee. Helter Skelter is not metal. Its punk... And who cares if there is an element of pop in every beatles song?? They were damn catchy and they sold millions!

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.

Disagree with that completely. You rarely hear a Beatles song where you think "that doesn't sound a thing like them". You do with Zeppelin.

Just listen to their first few albums then Revolver and Rubber Soul, and then listen to Peppers and the White Album!

Listen to Led Zeppelin 1 then In Throught The Out Door. World's apart. Communication Breakdown to Fool In The Rain??? If you were to play those two songs back to back to anybody not familiar with them, they would NOT think it was the same band. Even Plant's voice is totally changed.

Although Zeppelin is close when it comes to diversity, the Beatles are superior.

Again, I disagree strongly. Zeppelin were more diverse within a single album. Since I've Been Loving You to Bron-y-Aur Stomp?? Does that sound like the same band? Whole Lotta Love to Thank You???

Zeppelin rocked harder than the Beatles.......but they were also more gentle and delicate.

Now I love the Beatles and I can't say who was 'greater' becuase that's just too tough but I won't have it that the Beatles were more diverse than Zeppelin because that's just not true. I mean, from Going To California to When The Levee Breaks? That a five gear shift in the space of the next track. The Beatles never did anything like that on any of their albums.

Edited by Mangani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry, but Pete Townshend is second to no one when it comes to songwriting.

I'm guessing you are talking lyrically.

Townshend did not come up with as many great MUSICAL compositions as Page. Nowhere near. Zeppelin have so many more great songs than the Who and nowhere near as many weak ones as the Who.

I don't think you can seriously deny that. In general and on average, Zeppelin's albums are full of much more consistently stronger material than the Who's albums.

Edited by Mangani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Oh yes, what a crazy thing to value one's ability to play the damn guitar. It's about SOUL! <_<

Did Jimi Hendrix have any "technical skills'? Hell no, he played the damn guitar upside down BUT he played from his SOUL.

This is the most laughable statement ever. Clearly you don't play/know much about the guitar. His guitar is upside down because he was left handed, and it is strung upside down so when he flips the guitar the strings are in the normal positions. Left hand guitars weren't common in those days, so this is what lefties did. His technical skill is through the roof, buddy. It's not even close.

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....

Well I never said Townshend was better or worse, but I can tell you haven't seen him play. If you had, you wouldn't question his ability. I would wager that Page is better, but Page can't do some of the things Townshend can. And if you think this makes me less credible, may I remind you that you thought Hendrix played the guitar upside down because he was "less technical."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Beatles are most certainly more influential and 'greater' than Zeppelin, no question. The Beatles was the bedrock of all popular music today- they took experimentation to a unprecedented fearless stage, innovated and practically created the rock and roll sound for the generations to come. Without the beatles, there would be no rock as we know it and we would still be mostly playing boogie woogie with Chuck berry and Elvis. Aside from that, Beatles songs are among the world's most popular, next to the obvious tunes everyone knows by Mozart and Beethoven and bach blah blah. Beatles' melodies are enduring and endless... music is melody. Zeppelin has great jives and head banging material that spawned so much to hard rock. The Beatles are accessible to practicably anyone who wants a good listen, while I can definitely see how Zeppelin can scare away a listener with particularly delicate tastes (like my sister, HATES zeppelin).

I'll put it succintly: Led Zeppelin changed hard rock forever. The Beatles changed music forever.

Good night everyone :)

Edited by Timboh56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm guessing you are talking lyrically.

Lyrically and musically

Townshend did not come up with as many great MUSICAL compositions as Page. Nowhere near. Zeppelin have so many more great songs than the Who and nowhere near as many weak ones as the Who.

Townshend came up with just as many, and I take offense to you crediting all of Zep's compositions to Page, most of them were just as much created by JPJ as Page. The Who had mostly strong material until after Moon, but at that point they had already had a recording career longer than Zep's, so it's very comparable.

I don't think you can seriously deny that. In general and on average, Zeppelin's albums are full of much more consistently stronger material than the Who's albums.

Uhm, no. The Who and Led Zeppelin were pretty close to each other in terms of strength of material. The Who's a bit more of an acquired taste, but their material is as strong as they come. I know this is a Zep forum so you'll get people who can't accept the idea that Zep isn't number one, but their material, as good as it is, isn't on a different playing field as everyone else's. I can't imagine going through life without both of their catalogs.

Oh and for the record, in case anyone assumed otherwise, I'm a Zep fan first, Who second, but that doesn't mean I have to pretend Zep are superior to all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lyrically and musically

Lyrically I can see but musically? Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat???

Townshend came up with just as many,

:o:blink::o:blink:

and I take offense to you crediting all of Zep's compositions to Page,

Please quote me as doing that. Ta.

The Who had mostly strong material until after Moon, but at that point they had already had a recording career longer than Zep's, so it's very comparable.

Longer career, but not as much truely great stuff. The Who, on average had more weaker filler songs on their albums than Zeppelin.

Uhm, no. The Who and Led Zeppelin were pretty close to each other in terms of strength of material.

Uhm no. Led Zeppelin and The Beatles were pretty close to each other in terms of strength of material

The Who's a bit more of an acquired taste,

And Zeppelin aren't an aquired taste??? Jimmy Page once said it takes people about a year to REALLY catch up with their albums and I would agree with that.

I know this is a Zep forum so you'll get people who can't accept the idea that Zep isn't number one,

Huh? Earlier in this thread I didn't even claim Zeppelin were greater than the Beatles. It's too tough to say. I don't think the Who are quite 'up there' with Zep and The Beatles though. Sorry, I don't. Their material just isn't as consistently strong. You can roll off your tongue song after song of great things Zep did. You'd run out quicker with Who songs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zeppelin has great jives and head banging material that spawned so much to hard rock.

You obviously haven't listened to half of their other stuff.

while I can definitely see how Zeppelin can scare away a listener with particularly delicate tastes (like my sister, HATES zeppelin).

So you have never played your sister That's The Way, Thank You, Tangerine, Bron-y-Aur Stomp, All Of My Love, Hey Hey What Can I do, Down By The Seaside, Going To California, Battle Of Evermore etc etc etc????????

I'll put it succintly: Led Zeppelin changed hard rock forever. The Beatles changed music forever.

Good night everyone :)

Shame you didn't listen to the recent BBC radio documentary. Diverse musicians from dance, rap and rock all cited Zeppelin as a huge influence.

If you think Zeppelin only ever inspired hard rockers then you have a lot to learn. That Tori Amos. Real hard rock she was. :rolleyes:

Edited by Mangani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brilliant, I love that post and agree 100%

I am not as big a fan of the Bealtes, some stuff is decent, but I don't consider getting high and writing lyrics quite a talent, "Yellow Submarine" is that a joke?

Edited by Soccerzubs

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.

Zeppelin has many melodies, sure they arent 5 year old kids tv show melodies that get stuck in your head like that, but all day long I get Moby Dick, Achilles Last Stand, and Kashmir melodies stuck in my head. Bealtes songs are pretty simple, 2 or 3 listens and I got the meaning down, to analyze a song like The Battle Of Evermore you have to research into the bands past and read about each member and what they liked, also going into Celtic Mythology and Tolkien just to understand why Robert decided to choose those lyrics. Pop Idols do seem a fitting time, I don't think they are geniuses, getting high and writing lyrics is no genius to me. Few songs did have depth, but very limited, they were not consistent enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Oh well, that's wikipedia for you! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lyrically I can see but musically? Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat???

Yes, they were. There's a reason why there's only three bands who get the phrase "One of the greatest bands of all time" and one of those bands is the Who (Beatles and Stones are the other two).

Please quote me as doing that. Ta.

I was actually referring to the board as a whole, but while we're at it:

Townshend did not come up with as many great MUSICAL compositions as Page.

Longer career, but not as much truely great stuff. The Who, on average had more weaker filler songs on their albums than Zeppelin.

I disagree entirely.

Uhm no. Led Zeppelin and The Beatles were pretty close to each other in terms of strength of material

The Beatles were as well, but the Who were ever bit as great as those two bands.

And Zeppelin aren't an aquired taste??? Jimmy Page once said it takes people about a year to REALLY catch up with their albums and I would agree with that.

They certainly are not in the same way the Who are. Most people can't wrap their heads around the rock operas for quite some time. Zep has a shorter gestation period. Oh and that quote from Jimmy was referring to the critics and other bands, not the fans of Zeppelin.

Huh? Earlier in this thread I didn't even claim Zeppelin were greater than the Beatles. It's too tough to say. I don't think the Who are quite 'up there' with Zep and The Beatles though.

You don't have to, I certainly won't be losing sleep because you don't like a band I do.

Sorry, I don't. Their material just isn't as consistently strong. You can roll off your tongue song after song of great things Zep did. You'd run out quicker with Who songs.

Oh that just isn't true, but again, if you don't like the Who, that's just fine with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My god...I really like the Who. But they were no where near as popular, sold out much smaller venues...sold 40 million albums to LZ's 300 million. They are not on the radio as often and no you could not roll off your tounge with just as many Who classics as Zeppelin classics. Maybe if your a very true and loyal who fan you can, but just naming songs is not the same as naming popular songs. Take it from someone who is a fan of both bands. I have alot of friends who are big rock fans, they are the average rock listeners. They can name alot of Zeppelins songs and bearly any who songs. Its just from what you hear on the radio, and the albums that are bought that this kind of perspective is born. Hell..LZ #4 has sold about as much if not more copies world-wide then the Who's entire catalog. And I say without question that one album is more important to the history of Rock then everything the Who did combined. Im not saying the Who are not important, they very much are. Just not on the same stratosphere as Led Zeppelin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My god...I really like the Who. But they were no where near as popular, sold out much smaller venues...sold 40 million albums to LZ's 300 million. They are not on the radio as often

And that means Zep's better? Sales? Poor argument.

and no you could not roll off your tounge with just as many Who classics as Zeppelin classics. Maybe if your a very true and loyal who fan you can, but just naming songs is not the same as naming popular songs.

They have just as many, I'm sure.

Take it from someone who is a fan of both bands.

:huh:

You think you're the only one?

I have alot of friends who are big rock fans, they are the average rock listeners. They can name alot of Zeppelins songs and bearly any who songs. Its just from what you hear on the radio, and the albums that are bought that this kind of perspective is born. Hell..LZ #4 has sold about as much if not more copies world-wide then the Who's entire catalog. And I say without question that one album is more important to the history of Rock then everything the Who did combined. Im not saying the Who are not important, they very much are. Just not on the same stratosphere as Led Zeppelin.

Well then I'm sorry for you and your friends, they're missing out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not using larger sales as a reason they are greater, im saying that they are greater and as a result, people have picked up on that and bought more albums. Also, the album sales point was to prove that the who does not have as many hits and great music, they have more material, less quality, and less sales because there is not as much for people to enjoy.

Feel bad for my friends if you'd like, they usually only know what most popular, thats there LZ comes in. But dont feel sorry for me, i listen and like the who. They are just not of the high standard that Zep is but then again no one is. I enjoy alot of other great bands, they just don't have quite as much good material and that material they have is not of quite the same caliber. But i can't listen to only LZ because i love classic rock so much..so i listen to most of all the greats, its just that when one has to pick out a favorite and best...in my case those two titles go hand in hand, i picked led zeppelin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was not using larger sales as a reason they are greater, im saying that they are greater and as a result, people have picked up on that and bought more albums. Also, the album sales point was to prove that the who does not have as many hits and great music, they have more material, less quality, and less sales because there is not as much for people to enjoy.

If you think their music is of less quality that's your opinion, but the rest of what you said about the Who is factually incorrect. As far as hits go, they have more. Zep really only has a handful of actual hits, but that's a result of their "single" practices.

Feel bad for my friends if you'd like, they usually only know what most popular, thats there LZ comes in. But dont feel sorry for me, i listen and like the who. They are just not of the high standard that Zep is but then again no one is. I enjoy alot of other great bands, they just don't have quite as much good material and that material they have is not of quite the same caliber. But i can't listen to only LZ because i love classic rock so much..so i listen to most of all the greats, its just that when one has to pick out a favorite and best...in my case those two titles go hand in hand, i picked led zeppelin.

Well if that's your opinion then fine, but I'd advise you to dive farther into the Who. They are a far deeper band than you give them credit.

Edited by GetTheLedOut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You obviously haven't listened to half of their other stuff.

I am offended to see you say that. I have every one of their albums. THey mostly specialize in the hard rock arena, and if I were to generalize their music in a few words, I think my statement would be quite accurate. They're not known for being a melodic band, they're known for being a hard rock band.

So you have never played your sister That's The Way, Thank You, Tangerine, Bron-y-Aur Stomp, All Of My Love, Hey Hey What Can I do, Down By The Seaside, Going To California, Battle Of Evermore etc etc etc????????

I've played all my love on the keyboard a few times, the other songs are all really good too.

If you think Zeppelin only ever inspired hard rockers then you have a lot to learn. That Tori Amos. Real hard rock she was. :rolleyes:

If you hear an average listener of music talk about zeppelin, one of the first things he may say about zeppelin is that they are a hard rock band which basically created the bedrock of all heavy metal. With no zeppelin, there would be no metal, but there would still be a lot of pop music around. As far as songs aside from the metal format goes, I don't think zeppelin was much of a huge innovation. Of course all of their non-metal songs are amazing though.

So I'm sure that zeppelin has inspired many non-hardrock artists, but if I had to say which arena they mainly innovated and inspired in, it would definitely be in the hard rock genre.

Edited by Timboh56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Disagree with that completely. You rarely hear a Beatles song where you think "that doesn't sound a thing like them". You do with Zeppelin.

Listen to Led Zeppelin 1 then In Throught The Out Door. World's apart. Communication Breakdown to Fool In The Rain??? If you were to play those two songs back to back to anybody not familiar with them, they would NOT think it was the same band. Even Plant's voice is totally changed.

Again, I disagree strongly. Zeppelin were more diverse within a single album. Since I've Been Loving You to Bron-y-Aur Stomp?? Does that sound like the same band? Whole Lotta Love to Thank You???

Zeppelin rocked harder than the Beatles.......but they were also more gentle and delicate.

Now I love the Beatles and I can't say who was 'greater' becuase that's just too tough but I won't have it that the Beatles were more diverse than Zeppelin because that's just not true. I mean, from Going To California to When The Levee Breaks? That a five gear shift in the space of the next track. The Beatles never did anything like that on any of their albums.

Well, I tried to imply that Zeppelin was almost as diverse as the Beatles. I do think Zeppelin is an extremely diverse group but I can't see them being more so than the Beatles. When I talk about diversity, I'm not talking about if it sounds like them. I think its easy ti identify a zeppelin song for a casual fan because of Plan't voice and the sound og Bonzo's drums. When I was younger and only knew STH, I would recognize Zeppelin songs ranging from All My Love to Kashmir to Ramble On. They just have a sound. And thats good, it doen't mean they're not diverse. Its 2 different things. The Beatles are easy to poin out because of they have a distinct sound also. But just like Zeppelin, they are very diverse. Listen to "I wanna hold you hand" and then listen to "I am the Walrus". Listen to Revolution and then listen to Blackbird or Helter Skelter. Listen to any non-pepper song and then listen to a pepper song!

But don't get me wrong. I think Zeppelin is right up there with them; in fact, I guess I could also argue that Zeppelin is more diverse. They're just so damn close IMO.

Edited by spencer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh yes, what a crazy thing to value one's ability to play the damn guitar. It's about SOUL! <_<

This is the most laughable statement ever. Clearly you don't play/know much about the guitar. His guitar is upside down because he was left handed, and it is strung upside down so when he flips the guitar the strings are in the normal positions. Left hand guitars weren't common in those days, so this is what lefties did. His technical skill is through the roof, buddy. It's not even close.

Well I never said Townshend was better or worse, but I can tell you haven't seen him play. If you had, you wouldn't question his ability. I would wager that Page is better, but Page can't do some of the things Townshend can. And if you think this makes me less credible, may I remind you that you thought Hendrix played the guitar upside down because he was "less technical."

Okay. My argument must have completley went over your head. I know that Hendrix played the guitar upside down because he was left handed!!! But my point was that instead of playing a left handed guitar, like Kurt Cobain, he played a right handed guitar backwards. Is that to hard for you to comprehend? And I, for your information, have been playing guitar since I was 13. I am now 22 and I probably understand the guitar a lot more than you do. My point was that "technical skill" is sometimes overrated, he did things his own way(playing a righ handed guitar backwards..that wasnt meant to make a huge point, just threw it in there in the first place..dunno why )I never said he didn't have skill, I know he has a lot! But many consider him sloppy, and not as skilled as others! but my argument was that because he played with passion and soul, he was one of the greatest! Understand??

Edited by spencer

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...