The Beatles & Led Zeppelin

[DirtyDeeds]

The Beatles were an overrated pop band. I don't know why everyone thinks they're so great.

They have ears.

Anyway, in terms of influence, longevity, and just about everything else, The Rolling Stones are greater than Led Zeppelin ever were.

Wrong. Longevity: Only because Zeppelin doesn't replace members after they die. But they're still kind of around in various forms over the years.

Influence: Just... wrong. At best, the Rolling Stones are equal to Zeppelin.

Creativity: Ha. Ha.

Songwriting: See above.

On-stage: When they come on stage they have an aura. They don't have to do much. They are Gods. The Rolling Stones have to fight to have their stage presence.

I can't even believe I'm saying this because I love the Rolling Stones.

Edited August 2, 2006 by DirtyDeeds

[Buckets of Rain]

Were you around when The Rolling Stones emerged? They jumped on the Brit-pop sensation sparked by The Beatles. They were marketed by their label as a counter-part to The Beatles: one critic described them as "the bad Beatles." Tom Wolfe wrote in 1965 a summary that "The Beatles want to hold your hand, but The Stones want to burn your thumb". If they were not similar, they would never have been counter-marketed or compared in any way, shape or form. And Paul McCartney's quote still stands, unless you want to discredit a Beatle with decades of musical experience under his belt. This quote, by the way, was said before the Rolling Stones performed at the Superbowl this year.

That's bullshit, they were entirely different from The Beatles.

http://www.rollingstonesnet.com/Beatles.html

http://www.artistfacts.com/getArtistfacts....olling%20Stones

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_stones

The Rolling Stones invented Hard Rock, they made it into a riff-based music.

http://www.scaruffi.com/history/cpt27.html

Do you know what longevity even means?

Yes. Do you?

The Rolling Stones have been going strong for over 40 years, throughout lineup changes and all.

And many, many critics and listeners have labeled them as "sell-outs" within the past twenty years or so. Longevity is not just a matter of how many years one can go without collapsing - it's a matter of quality. It doesn't matter if The Rolling Stones could go another twenty years - their albums haven't been up to par.

How could there be a Led Zeppelin without The Stones?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Led_Zeppelin

Formed in 1968, Led Zeppelin were innovators who never lost their mainstream appeal. While the band are perhaps best known as pioneers of hard rock and heavy metal, their music also included disparate elements from an eclectic spectrum, including blues, rockabilly, soul, funk, Celtic, Indian, Arabic, and Latin music.

Very simple: Like I said they invented Hard Rock. Popularity? Fuck Popularity. I don't even care about that. The Rolling Stones didn't make bad records.

That may very well be your opinion, but it is not one shared by many. General critical and public reaction to their records throughout the 1980s and 1990s was dire.

Take a look at the section "Mixed emotions: 1981-1999" on Wikipedia. Or look up some album reviews of theirs from the archives. Not only did the album sales plummet, so did the critical praise.

A Bigger Bang has been their best-reviewed album in years - and would you even begin to compare it to any of their work from the '60s or '70s?

They're a good rock n' roll band that helped pave the way for future bands of their kind - but they didn't "invent" hard rock and certainly haven't stumbled along the way. Furthermore, the general public and critics alike would rank The Beatles higher on any given day - the Beatles are inarguably more influential - widely regarded as the most popular and influental band ever.

The Stones are a cool band and you're free to consider them YOUR favorite band, but please don't exaggerate how much of an impact they had.

That's bullshit, they were entirely different from The Beatles. The Rolling Stones invented Hard Rock, they made it into a riff-based music. Do you know what longevity even means? The Rolling Stones have been going strong for over 40 years, throughout lineup changes and all. How could there be a Led Zeppelin without The Stones? Like I said they invented Hard Rock. Popularity? Fuck Popularity. I don't even care about that. The Rolling Stones didn't make bad records.

The Rolling Stones are better than Led Zeppelin in terms of creativity, musicianship, songwriting, and on stage performance.

That is fact, and Buckets of Rain is wrong.

I do believe taste is subjective, my dear friend. And I do believe judging by the way history has been written, most music historians would disagree with you. And judging purely by their critical reaction, Led Zeppelin always garnered stronger reviews for their work whereas The Stones first got mixed reviews in the '60s, then got HORRIBLE reviews in the '80s and '90s. And I do believe Led Zeppelin was always acknowledged as a far more "creative" band than the Stones. And one need only do a bit of research on the Internet to realize this....

Edited August 2, 2006 by Buckets of Rain

[Guest Ohdistortedsmile1789]

The Rolling Stones had a sound entirely different from The Beatles, and no webpage can prove against it. The rest comes to opinion, like always. I really don't fucking like Led Zeppelin anymore so it's a sore spot for me. The way I see it we had The Stones, and then Sabbath. Those were the two major innovators in my mind (up to that point).

It does seem however, that you put a little too much stock in criticism, sales, and marketing. It doesn't really amount to shit in my mind. So keep on arguing it.

[Buckets of Rain]

The Rolling Stones had a sound entirely different from The Beatles, and no webpage can prove against it. The rest comes to opinion, like always. I really don't fucking like Led Zeppelin anymore so it's a sore spot for me. The way I see it we had The Stones, and then Sabbath. Those were the two major innovators in my mind (up to that point).

It does seem however, that you put a little too much stock in criticism, sales, and marketing. It doesn't really amount to shit in my mind. So keep on arguing it.

I don't like Led Zeppelin all that much anyway. I prefer The Rolling Stones.

It does seem however, that you put a little too much stock in criticism, sales, and marketing.

Only to elaborate the point that they were initially marketed as a counter-part to The Beatles: a "bad boy" version. So whether or not their sound eventually differed vastly from The Beatles, their early work is more pop oriented (such as their self-titled album) and they were cashing in on the Brit-pop movement begun by the Beatles. Even Mick and Keith would admit this. If The Beatles hadn't existed, Rolling Stones never would have had an impact in the US, because teenagers back then were fascinated with British bands BECAUSE of the Beatles.

I also prefer Stones to the Beatles in many regards. But when the Beatles had great songs they had great fucking songs. Come Together and While My Guitar Gently Weeps are both top favorites of mine.

[Yamisonic]

You'd be amazed at how many people - particularly the younger generation - that think the Beatles only recorded songs like 'I Wanna Hold Your Hand'..

They're completely oblivious to Sgt. Pepper, Abbey Road, Revolver and the White Album..

Both bands were great.. but I've always connected with Lennon as a solo artist more than either

-Kickingthehabit

Yeah, most people don't have the slightest idea that Paul McCartney actually created the first heavy metal track, waay back in 1968.

Yeah, the two best bands ever, with the Stones.

[The Volitan]

The Rolling Stones had a sound entirely different from The Beatles, and no webpage can prove against it. The rest comes to opinion, like always. I really don't fucking like Led Zeppelin anymore so it's a sore spot for me. The way I see it we had The Stones, and then Sabbath. Those were the two major innovators in my mind (up to that point).

How do you not like Zepp? I thought you were we Mr. Bluesman over here.

[highvoltage]

The Rolling Stones had a sound entirely different from The Beatles, and no webpage can prove against it. The rest comes to opinion, like always. I really don't fucking like Led Zeppelin anymore so it's a sore spot for me. The way I see it we had The Stones, and then Sabbath. Those were the two major innovators in my mind (up to that point).

How do you not like Zepp? I thought you were we Mr. Bluesman over here.

Because Zeppelin ripped off half their back catalogue. Doesn't diminish their appeal for me, but I think that's part of the reason they leave a bitter taste in ODS' mouth.

[metalgroupie]

no offense but isnt this a gnr forum....? but i guess you can post whatever you want to if you feel like doin it........

[The Volitan]

The Rolling Stones had a sound entirely different from The Beatles, and no webpage can prove against it. The rest comes to opinion, like always. I really don't fucking like Led Zeppelin anymore so it's a sore spot for me. The way I see it we had The Stones, and then Sabbath. Those were the two major innovators in my mind (up to that point).

How do you not like Zepp? I thought you were we Mr. Bluesman over here.

Because Zeppelin ripped off half their back catalogue. Doesn't diminish their appeal for me, but I think that's part of the reason they leave a bitter taste in ODS' mouth.

So did every other blues artist. Every blues player, has "ripped" or "borrowed" (or whatever you wanna call it) stuff from other blues players. Zeppeln just made more money off of it, so people get their panties in a twist and call them cons.

[Lithium]

no offense but isnt this a gnr forum....? but i guess you can post whatever you want to if you feel like doin it........

Have you even bothered to read what the description of this section says?

MY WORLD

Music discussion about bands in your world

[Serg]

i was watching this show on much more music about the history of metal and it said that zeppelin and black sabbath are the roots of metal and influenced many bands. so yes i would say zeppelin is one of the greatest bands because without them we wouldnt have lots of the music we have now.

[The Third Man]

i was watching this show on much more music about the history of metal and it said that zeppelin and black sabbath are the roots of metal and influenced many bands. so yes i would say zeppelin is one of the greatest bands because without them we wouldnt have lots of the music we have now.

Personally I'd say Deep Purple and Sabbath were the foundations of metal

[Chuckle-Bros]

1. Kraftwerk
   
2. Captain Beefheart
   

[keenly]

I though Zeppelin were amazing when i first got into them; THEN I FOUND OUT MOST OF THE MUSIC ISN'T CREATED BY THEM!!!!!

ZEPPELIN 1 HAS NO COMPLETELY ORIGINAL SONGS!

ZEPPELIN 2 HAS ONLOY 20% ORIGINAL MATERIAL

ZEPPELIN 3 HAS ABOUT 40% ORIGINAL MATERIAL

THE REST OF THEIR ALBUMS CONTAIN AT LEAST 12 SONGS THEY STOLE THAT WEREN'T THIERS.

[kevdo242]

To be honest, I can't name another band (other than The Beatles) that are more influential than Led Zeppelin.

The Rolling Stones?

Thats debatable.

And its worth keeping in mind that Led Zeppelin did not release many singles, did not do much interviews or television appearances. I find it quite impressive for a band with little media attention (and the critics apparently hated them) could get as big as they did.

[Lithium]

To be honest, I can't name another band (other than The Beatles) that are more influential than Led Zeppelin.

The Rolling Stones?

Thats debatable.

And its worth keeping in mind that Led Zeppelin did not release many singles, did not do much interviews or television appearances. I find it quite impressive for a band with little media attention (and the critics apparently hated them) could get as big as they did.

The media only hated them at the start. The good reviews started coming with Led Zeppelin III.

[moreblack]

But even III met with some backlash for not being Whole Lotta Love part 2...

"acoustic? what the fuck is this?" People wanted to rock, and all they got was Tangerine.

[adnan]

The Rolling Stones had a sound entirely different from The Beatles, and no webpage can prove against it. The rest comes to opinion, like always. I really don't fucking like Led Zeppelin anymore so it's a sore spot for me. The way I see it we had The Stones, and then Sabbath. Those were the two major innovators in my mind (up to that point).

How do you not like Zepp? I thought you were we Mr. Bluesman over here.

Led Zepp are boring, pretentious, and overbearing, that's my opinion.

I agree with ODS. The Stones invented hard rock, Zeppelin just made it heavier, then Sabbath came along and pioneered heavy metal.

[Guest Ohdistortedsmile1789]

There was a time when I loved Led Zeppelin, but now I see that in the greater scheme of things they aren't worth so much. Eventually, being a Blues fan, I didn't get turned off by their thievery (something that was commonplace in Blues), but by their lack of originality. I just don't see why Led Zeppelin deserves the accolades they recieve when their take on things wasn't that interesting (to me atleast). I still love albums like Houses of the Holy, but I don't agree with anyone who thinks Led Zeppelin II is a groundbreaking masterpiece. I just don't care for their Blues-based material. "Bring It On Home" for example is just plain embarassing. Robert Plant is not capable of sounding black, and it's like a terrible parody.

[Calm Like A Bomb]

The Whie album and Led Zeppelin IV although it didn't techinically have a name are the two greatest albums i've ever listened to. Dear Prudence by The Beatles and When The Levee Breaks by Led Zeppelin are my favourite songs from each album.

The Rolling Stones had a sound entirely different from The Beatles, and no webpage can prove against it. The rest comes to opinion, like always. I really don't fucking like Led Zeppelin anymore so it's a sore spot for me. The way I see it we had The Stones, and then Sabbath. Those were the two major innovators in my mind (up to that point).

How do you not like Zepp? I thought you were we Mr. Bluesman over here.

Led Zepp are boring, pretentious, and overbearing, that's my opinion.

I agree with ODS. The Stones invented hard rock, Zeppelin just made it heavier, then Sabbath came along and pioneered heavy metal.

I think The Stones are great but they didn't have the so called mystique that Led Zeppelin brought with their songs. Led Zeppelin's sound can mesmerize me and take me to a whole new place. The Stones are more rocking and more heavier but that doesn't mean they are better. Zeppelin had a quality i don't think any band other than The Beatles could produce.

[Guest Ohdistortedsmile1789]

Listen to Robert Johnson or Skip James, you'll find a whole lot more mystique than Led Zeppelin has.

[Calm Like A Bomb]

Listen to Robert Johnson or Skip James, you'll find a whole lot more mystique than Led Zeppelin has.

Thanks ODS i'll check them out

[moreblack]

Mystique?

I wanna rock.

[Calm Like A Bomb]

Mystique?

I wanna rock.

Oh come on moreblack everyone wants to rock but there's a time when you want to listen to rock music and get a different feel from it otherwise Poison, KISS and Motley Crue would be constantly in our cd players, no disrespect to those bands of course.

[Guest Ohdistortedsmile1789]

For me, music is about the songs.