| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
mrcozdude 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 25 2007
Location: Devon,UK.
Status: Offline
Points: 2078
|
 Posted: January 18 2009 at 09:01 |
|
You should change this to who's the better live band,that would be quite intresting.I can't vote for this Beatles are so influential but Zeppelin taught me to improvise for two hours and make horrible sounds and concepts.
|
|
|
 |
TheCaptain
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2009
Location: Ohio, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1335
|
Posted: January 18 2009 at 11:01 |
 p0mt3 wrote:
My old guitar teacher hated The Beatles. Said they were the worst band to ever exist. I the reminded him of crap like My Chemial Romance and Fall Out Boy, to which he responded: "I'd rasther listen to those guys than The Beatles". Give me a break.  |
That is the first time I had ever heard of anyone hating The Beatles. Anyway, my vote goes to The Beatles without question. Led Zeppelin is ok but I love me some Beatles.
|
|
Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal.
|
|
Floydian42
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 13 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 846
|
Posted: January 18 2009 at 15:56 |
|
The Beatles. They just have more songs I enjoy, simple as that.
|
|
visitor2035
Forum Groupie
Joined: December 26 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 61
|
Posted: January 18 2009 at 20:11 |
|
What?....How about Boyzone versus Pink Floyd...at least have them in the same genres.
|
|
Peter
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: January 31 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 9669
|
Posted: January 18 2009 at 21:59 |
|
|
|
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.
|
|
Gustavo Froes
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 06 2008
Location: Rio,Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 385
|
Posted: February 09 2009 at 16:44 |
|
Led Zep,surely.
|
|
Pnoom!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
Posted: February 09 2009 at 16:51 |
|
Beatles, Zep are great, too, though.
Edited by Pnoom! - February 09 2009 at 16:51
|
|
J-Man
Prog Reviewer
Joined: August 07 2008
Location: Philadelphia,PA
Status: Offline
Points: 7826
|
Posted: February 09 2009 at 19:43 |
p0mt3 wrote:
progrocker2244 wrote:
jplanet wrote:
i have to join those who cannot vote - a world without either would be a sadder and bleaker place...
It would be so much easier if it was Zepp vs. Sabbath, or Beatles vs. the Stones...
|
Gee I wonder who would win Beatles vs. Stones...
|
Um, The Beatles would, at least around these parts. Which is a good thing, in my opinion.
My old guitar teacher hated The Beatles. Said they were the worst band to ever exist. I the reminded him of crap like My Chemial Romance and Fall Out Boy, to which he responded: "I'd rasther listen to those guys than The Beatles". Give me a break. |
I sure hope The Beatles would win. Your guitar teacher must not be a real guitarist. I've never met a guitarist without any respect for The Beatles. 
|
|
|
|
tszirmay
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: August 17 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 6673
|
Posted: February 09 2009 at 20:12 |
|
Both 4 man crews! Both amazing, even saw Zep live in 1974 or so...But the Fab Four are hard to beat , they were the vanguard, the turbo-diesel that pushed rock and roll beyond pop and into the volcanic world of rock where the prog element took over so mightily. Zep is more about the blues really (especially the earlier stuff) but No Quarter remains a kick-ass prog tune! Don't ask me about Bonham, I get very nostalgic, he was Zeppelin, there is no doubt.
|
|
I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth.
|
|
Lucent
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 18 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 259
|
Posted: February 09 2009 at 20:51 |
|
Led Zeppelin for better musicianship and for not being as overrated as The Beatles.
|
|
Guzzman
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 21 2004
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 3563
|
Posted: February 10 2009 at 04:28 |
Lucent wrote:
Led Zeppelin for better musicianship and for not being as overrated as The Beatles.
|
Beatles overrated  ? You must be joking. Even if some of their material may sound like easy listening in our ears nowadays, back then they were groundbraking. As were Led Zep !
|
|
"We've got to get in to get out"
|
|
Pnoom!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
Posted: February 10 2009 at 08:21 |
|
It's really not even possible to overrate The Beatles, since personal taste is subjective and, objectively, they are the greatest band ever.
|
|
Lucent
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 18 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 259
|
Posted: February 10 2009 at 17:27 |
Pnoom! wrote:
It's really not even possible to overrate The Beatles, since personal taste is subjective and, objectively, they are the greatest band ever.
|
Way to prove my point ;D
|
|
Pnoom!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
Posted: February 10 2009 at 17:35 |
Lucent wrote:
Pnoom! wrote:
It's really not even possible to overrate The Beatles, since personal taste is subjective and, objectively, they are the greatest band ever.
|
Way to prove my point ;D |
I didn't prove your point at all. Objectively, no band is as important to rock music as The Beatles. They are the greatest rock band* there has ever been (and likely ever will be). Because of that, the only way to possibly overrate them is to claim something that is either factually untrue or that couldn't even conceivably apply to any band (such as "they're the only worthwhile band"). Since very few people do that regarding The Beatles, claiming that they are overrated means nothing. Perhaps what you meant by overrated is that their legacy outstrips their music? That's a fine opinion (even if I disagree), but that's not at all the same thing as a band being "overrated." *should've specified rock earlier, since obviously you can have jazz bands, too
|
|
Lucent
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 18 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 259
|
Posted: February 10 2009 at 18:17 |
Pnoom! wrote:
Objective influence theory
|
It isn't objective because the whole popularity is based on a source of opinion, making it subjective, making them overrated. It isn't downright fact. If it were fact, then I would think the same thing, by scientific proof backing it up. Although The Beatles influenced those bands, it doesn't make them the greatest rock band ever, it only makes them the most influential.
|
|
Pnoom!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
Posted: February 10 2009 at 18:27 |
|
Being influential, popular, and breaking new ground is what makes you a great band. In terms of those three categories combined, nobody can touch The Beatles.
|
|
Lucent
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 18 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 259
|
Posted: February 10 2009 at 18:31 |
Pnoom! wrote:
Being influential, popular, and breaking new ground is what makes you a great band. In terms of those three categories combined, nobody can touch The Beatles.
|
I disagree. I believe music is all about artistic value, nothing else. Otherwise, you're right about their popularity and influence.
|
|
Pnoom!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
Posted: February 10 2009 at 19:02 |
Lucent wrote:
Pnoom! wrote:
Being influential, popular, and breaking new ground is what makes you a great band. In terms of those three categories combined, nobody can touch The Beatles.
|
I disagree. I believe music is all about artistic value, nothing else. Otherwise, you're right about their popularity and influence. |
On the subjective end of things, yes, artistic value is all that matters. But, because it's subjective, it is by definition impossible to honestly "overrate" a band on that front, because your rating presumably reflects how it affects you, and therefore the only way to overrate a band would be to outright lie about how much you like them. On the objective end of things, it seems we agree that no one can touch The Beatles in which case, again, they're not overrated.
|
|
DJPuffyLemon
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 18 2008
Location: L
Status: Offline
Points: 520
|
Posted: February 10 2009 at 20:28 |
Pnoom! wrote:
On the objective end of things, it seems we agree that no one can touch The Beatles in which case, again, they're not overrated.
|
The beatles helped develop pop, art rock, and psychedelic rock, however other bands also developed the same, though perhaps not at the same time.... there were other bands which were important in developing pop, art rock, and psychedelia, but the Beatles get most of the popular credit...though admittedly perhaps because they did it the best, but just saying that is already subjective. I'm not really disproving you but I guess I would like actual evidence backing up your statement, such as what they did to forward those named sub-genres...but also including what other bands did to forward those particular parts of music.
|
|
DJPuffyLemon
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 18 2008
Location: L
Status: Offline
Points: 520
|
Posted: February 10 2009 at 20:30 |
edit: oops
Edited by DJPuffyLemon - February 10 2009 at 20:30
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Beatles vs. Led Zeppelin
I was thinking of doing a "Shakespeare vs Bach" poll, actually....
