| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Abrawang 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 29 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 112
|
 Posted: February 19 2009 at 22:50 |
Count me in The Beatles camp. I came of age listeneing to them. Every new album was an event. Anyone interested popular music made a point of listening to them and they morphed into something new and unpredicvtable practically every time out. Someone else pointed out how they went from I Wanna Hold Your hand and She Loved You to Tomorrow never Knows and Love to You in 3 years with stops on the way including Things We Said Today, Norwegian Wood and In My Life.
It's just an impression so I can't prove it but it seemed to me that other bands were inspried to try something new to emulate the Beatles' musical growth. The quotes from Richards, Townsend and Fripp illuminate this point.
Finally, on being prolific, I'd say if you take Zep's best hour or so of music, it rates with any band's. If you take the Beatles 3rd or 4th best hour of music, it's still great. For me, Zep falls off very fast after that first great hour.
|
|
Casting doubt on all I have to say...
|
 |
uduwudu
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 17 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2601
|
Posted: June 23 2009 at 04:00 |
|
I do think the novelty of the early Beatles and the emotional impact they had on mainly youthful persons has some valivity. They were in movies, on tour, on telly, on charts. They were regarded as innovative (some say then as opposed to now).
Led Zeppelin in their existence were the opposite. Hardly heard away from the turnatables, the concert arean (assuming they were touring) Zeppelin had their mystique ascend in the imaginations of youth then from their absence.
Led Zeppelin could tour and were easily superior musos to the Beatles. I did findf their not touring a little suspect reasoning wise. probably the Beatles in concert would have been as good as any comparable Brit pop band from that era in the 90s.
I do think that the Beatles' influence was more easily assimilated by the bands that most resembled them or could be more closely associated - art rock side of prog Supertrmap, even ELO (sued for miming live once),
There were two Beatles really. The pop group . And the one that most regard as influenced later innovative rock - Sgt Pepper Beatles.
Zeppelin plagiarism. Well easy to see now. Plant wasn't credited on their first album. The business in those days was even more cut throat and twisted than now. Who knows what deals had to be cut? Page should have dedicated Stairway to Randy California but frankly who would have heard of all the influences had Zeppelin not been sio successful? Humble Pie were not sued for appropriating You Need Love but Zeppelin were, despite the interesting variation on writing credits.
No excuses for anyone really but Zeppelin made great albums and saw their concert performances as ways of making their money rather than album sales.
Influnces? Any rock band Zeppelin influenced sounds it straight away - often to their detriment. A beratles influence seems more general and open. Another band Beatles influenced could sound open and fresh and progressive (Yes, KC) or banal, derivative and annoying (Oasis). Do we thank the Beatles for Yes and KC? No, they are a product of their OWN ideas unlike Oasis who were balatnt copyists (and not very good ones.)
Zeppelin were mostre abstract musically and way more demanding of an audience than the more cloying nature of chart oriented pop.
I voted Zeppelin. I admit that the Beatles puzzle and irritate the hell out of me but I am trying to be objective depsite this bias. ;) I have sat through the White Album, I nearly tried Revolver but easily settled for ornette Coleman instead... one day I'll grit my teeth and sit through the mainly acclaimed Abbey Road.
For 'tis true, the Beatles are big for many reasons. But Genesis did not get to be popular based on hairstyles. But give them their due the Beatles were progressive on their own - and finally - musical, terms.
Progressive rock would have happened anyway. Frankly the music owes more to Baroque, classical, romantic and modern classical, jazz and psychedelia than to pop.
led Zeppelin did play some prog in their progressive music but were mainly a heavy rock band that were not like any other heavy rock band. Or acoustic band but they were just joining in rather than dominating the Fairports and Pentagles of this world.
Oh, and as for the Beatles vs Stones argument? That was raised in 1973 by Lisa Robinson, Creem (or was it Circus?) after reviewing the Zeppelin New Orleans gig that year (pretty good now i have a copy and know what she heard). The answer - Led Zeppelin won.
|
|
mr.cub
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 06 2009
Location: Lexington, VA
Status: Offline
Points: 971
|
Posted: June 23 2009 at 12:25 |
The Beatles finished in their prime, Abbey Road being one of their finest albums and on par with Revolver, Rubber Soul and The Beatles as landmarks in music. Led Zeppelin however, seemed to have lost it a full 4 or 5 years before Bonham's death. To me, Physical Graffiti is the beginning of the end (the newer music on it wasn't anywhere near the level of older tunes from III and Houses sessions). The Beatles never had this dropoff
Edited by mr.cub - June 23 2009 at 12:26
|
|
|
|
Chelsea
Forum Groupie
Joined: December 10 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 44
|
Posted: June 23 2009 at 13:07 |
 uduwudu wrote:
I do think the novelty of the early Beatles and the emotional impact they had on mainly youthful persons has some valivity. They were in movies, on tour, on telly, on charts. They were regarded as innovative (some say then as opposed to now).
Led Zeppelin in their existence were the opposite. Hardly heard away from the turnatables, the concert arean (assuming they were touring) Zeppelin had their mystique ascend in the imaginations of youth then from their absence.
Led Zeppelin could tour and were easily superior musos to the Beatles. I did findf their not touring a little suspect reasoning wise. probably the Beatles in concert would have been as good as any comparable Brit pop band from that era in the 90s.
I do think that the Beatles' influence was more easily assimilated by the bands that most resembled them or could be more closely associated - art rock side of prog Supertrmap, even ELO (sued for miming live once),
There were two Beatles really. The pop group . And the one that most regard as influenced later innovative rock - Sgt Pepper Beatles.
Zeppelin plagiarism. Well easy to see now. Plant wasn't credited on their first album. The business in those days was even more cut throat and twisted than now. Who knows what deals had to be cut? Page should have dedicated Stairway to Randy California but frankly who would have heard of all the influences had Zeppelin not been sio successful? Humble Pie were not sued for appropriating You Need Love but Zeppelin were, despite the interesting variation on writing credits.
No excuses for anyone really but Zeppelin made great albums and saw their concert performances as ways of making their money rather than album sales.
Influnces? Any rock band Zeppelin influenced sounds it straight away - often to their detriment. A beratles influence seems more general and open. Another band Beatles influenced could sound open and fresh and progressive (Yes, KC) or banal, derivative and annoying (Oasis). Do we thank the Beatles for Yes and KC? No, they are a product of their OWN ideas unlike Oasis who were balatnt copyists (and not very good ones.)
Zeppelin were mostre abstract musically and way more demanding of an audience than the more cloying nature of chart oriented pop.
I voted Zeppelin. I admit that the Beatles puzzle and irritate the hell out of me but I am trying to be objective depsite this bias. ;) I have sat through the White Album, I nearly tried Revolver but easily settled for ornette Coleman instead... one day I'll grit my teeth and sit through the mainly acclaimed Abbey Road.
For 'tis true, the Beatles are big for many reasons. But Genesis did not get to be popular based on hairstyles. But give them their due the Beatles were progressive on their own - and finally - musical, terms.
Progressive rock would have happened anyway. Frankly the music owes more to Baroque, classical, romantic and modern classical, jazz and psychedelia than to pop.
led Zeppelin did play some prog in their progressive music but were mainly a heavy rock band that were not like any other heavy rock band. Or acoustic band but they were just joining in rather than dominating the Fairports and Pentagles of this world.
Oh, and as for the Beatles vs Stones argument? That was raised in 1973 by Lisa Robinson, Creem (or was it Circus?) after reviewing the Zeppelin New Orleans gig that year (pretty good now i have a copy and know what she heard). The answer - Led Zeppelin won.
|
Revolver was certainly important in opening up a commercial market for psychedelic music. It would have happened anyway maybe but we don't know really, but that doesn't change history. Revolver was a very big record for psychedelic music in '66. "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "Sgt Pepper did the exact thing for progressive rock and it would have happened anyway but that doesn't change history also.
While everyone tends to look back at Sgt. Pepper as the monumental Beatles album of the 1960s, when it comes to influence, I would have to say that Revolver was more influential than Sgt. Pepper. When Tomorrow Never Knows was released, it sent ripples throughout the fabric of the musical universe. By the time we got to Sgt. Pepper, the ripples had become waves. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band not their best album, but there's no denying that rock's delusions of grandeur began here. Floyd, Moody Blues, Tull, Queen, Styx, Boston ... as disparate as you might seem, you all owe a big debt to that fateful record.
Yes, there are plenty bands that entered by the door The Beatles opened, like Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones. But both made American music (influenced primarily by R&B), as The Who. The Beatles had a strong pop and English influence. It was rock, ok, and rock has American blues to thank, but Revolver and Pepper's were so distant from American roots rock and roll. And both are among the 3 most influent rock albums, changing rock music.
|
|
luger7
Forum Newbie
Joined: November 30 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 16
|
Posted: June 25 2009 at 15:32 |
|
The Beatles, my favorite band ever, after Queen of course....
Edited by luger7 - June 25 2009 at 15:33
|
|
Viva .MX cabrones!
|
|
Kashmir75
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 25 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 1029
|
Posted: June 25 2009 at 21:58 |
|
Zeppelin wins for me. The Beatles may have been more important in rock history, but I prefer Led Zep. But I do really love the Beatles later proggy stuff. I really enjoy The White Album in particular.
|
|
Hello, mirror. So glad to see you, my friend. It's been a while...
|
|
Gianthogweed
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 22 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 224
|
Posted: June 29 2009 at 03:55 |
The Beatles were an unstoppable force for the 7 years they recorded their 16 albums worth of music. They broke up at the top of their game. And had it not been for the squabbles that eventually led to their break up they would have still been making great music well into the 80s.
Led Zeppelin started out very strong making great blues inspired heavy rock albums but very quickly ran out of steam in the mid seventies. They couldn't survive the death of their drummer and broke up after 10 albums worth of music in 12 years.
The Beatles wins this so handily.
Edited by Gianthogweed - June 29 2009 at 03:55
|
|
Kazzbaah
Forum Newbie
Joined: June 29 2009
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Points: 10
|
Posted: June 29 2009 at 16:59 |
Oh, definitely voted for Led Zeppelin. In terms of relative "importance to music" I don't believe in putting the two bands on the same scale. Certainly while the Beatles were/are extremely popular and well-known throughout the world probably more than LZ, they each accomplished a lot in their respective music scenes. The Beatles probably accomplished more for progressive music with their psychedelic/proto-prog music, but LZ was definitely more than instrumentally better than the Beatles, with each member exhibiting great skill with their respective instrument, including vocals.
But eh, the poll isn't really about which one was a greater influence, it's about which one you prefer over the other, and to me that's LZ, simply because the Beatles to me are very played out and just so over-done, it kinda makes me sick of 'em. George and John were cool though.
|
|
terransage
Forum Newbie
Joined: July 25 2009
Location: Albuquerque
Status: Offline
Points: 13
|
Posted: July 26 2009 at 03:09 |
I voted Beatles, but Led Zeppelin is a close second for me. The Beatles were my first "favorite" band, in the late '60's. It was my dad, a classically trained bebop jazz musician, who brought home Abbey Road from one of his students. He excitedly put it on the record player and had our whole family listen to it. I still have a clear memory of that day. I don't know what it was that drew us in, but there was a "magic" in the music that got us all excited. Before that, my parents hated rock music. After that, my dad started buying more Beatles albums, Santana, Rare Earth, Blood, Sweat and Tears, Bob Dylan. One thing that impressed me was that each song on Abbey Road had a completely different sound and feel to it. It was like an adventure. My mom, who loved classical music, fell in love with "Because," and my dad raved about "I Want You (She's So Heavy)."
I played trombone and guitar (and sang) in all kinds of ensembles, from concert bands, brass choirs and orchestras, to jazz bands and rock bands. Whether the Beatles were necessary for the development of prog or not (I think it was definitely influential, if not necessary), they fit right in with my own eclectic tastes and eventually led me down a road that included Pink Floyd, Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, King Crimson, Gentle Giant, Pentangle, Soft Machine, Jethro Tull, Genesis, Brand X, Hawkwind, etc.. I never thought of prog as a reaction to the "simple-minded pop" of the Beatles. I'd never heard that before, in any prog histories or interviews. In fact, I'd always heard the opposite, that Yes, Robert Fripp, Phil Collins and other prog folk were influenced by the Beatles.
Lol, I don't know what my point is here; I just started rambling. I think it was all the talk about the Beatles' place in prog history that got me going. Anyway, I just joined the forum today. This is my second post....
|
|
progkidjoel
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 02 2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 19643
|
Posted: July 26 2009 at 04:16 |
Avantgardehead wrote:
The Beatles have about 10x as many songs I enjoy compared to Led Zeppelin.
|
Make that 1000 times, and we agree 
|
|
|
|
Zargus
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 08 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 3491
|
Posted: July 26 2009 at 07:29 |
Led Zeppelin > The Beatles, but i love both. 
|
|
|
|
camilleanne
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 29 2009
Location: Philippines
Status: Offline
Points: 403
|
Posted: July 27 2009 at 20:57 |
Beatles...
|
|
The planet is fine the people are f**ked.
-George Carlin-
|
|
SergiUriah
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 03 2009
Location: I don´t know
Status: Offline
Points: 453
|
Posted: July 27 2009 at 23:03 |
Abstrakt wrote:
While Beatles may have been more important for the music scene, Led Zeppelin is much better...
|
...for you and for Page, of course.
|
|
|
|
SaltyJon
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 08 2008
Location: Location
Status: Offline
Points: 28772
|
Posted: July 27 2009 at 23:09 |
|
Zep for me. I'm not a giant fan of either band, though I do like each band. I prefer the slightly heavier sound of Zep though, especially songs like Achilles Last Stand.
|
|
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65266
|
Posted: July 27 2009 at 23:31 |
Gianthogweed wrote:
The Beatles were an unstoppable force for the 7 years they recorded their 16 albums worth of music. They broke up at the top of their game. And had it not been for the squabbles that eventually led to their break up they would have still been making great music well into the 80s.
Led Zeppelin started out very strong making great blues inspired heavy rock albums but very quickly ran out of steam in the mid seventies. They couldn't survive the death of their drummer and broke up after 10 albums worth of music in 12 years.
The Beatles wins this so handily. |
Bullsh*t. I'll take your points one at a time ; - The Beatles "16 albums worth of music" contained a fair percentage of, let's face it, mediocre songs, both original and covered. I don't begrudge them this, they loved to play and were probably the most prolific rock ensemble ever, but quantity is not quality. - They broke up for numerous reasons, and may very well have split eventually due to the fact they just didn't want to be the Beatles anymore. Besides you can hear what they would've been doing by listening to the best of the solo work. Would they have still been the cutting-edge band of the world? Maybe but I doubt it. It was Prog and Hard-rock's turn, and soon Punk's, and all three trumped the Beatles for newness, innovation and risk-taking. Not to say the boys wouldn't have put out some great records - I'm sure they would have - but artists as Zeppelin, Genesis, Bowie, Zappa, Sabbath, Tull, the Stooges, these were the new leaders of what rock was capable of. The Beatles had mostly run their course as trailblazers. - Your opinion of Zeppelin's mid-70s output is fair and probably shared by some fans (though I hesitate to call anyone who doesn't like their mid-70s stuff a fan) but you don't specify what, i.e. 1975's Physical Graffiti is mostly a hard blues album, was one of their most successful records, and is arguably their finest studio release. That they broke up after Bonham's death just shows their integrity and understanding that without him they would not be the same band. This is a testament to the band's honesty, intelligence and sensitivity. Further, this deep bond and friendship was real and endured, unlike the bitterness sometimes shown between former Beatles.
|
|
paragraph7
Forum Groupie
Joined: April 06 2009
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 100
|
Posted: July 30 2009 at 08:00 |
|
I love the old Beatles stuff very much, but i have hard time comparing any of Beatles performances or recordings to, lets say "Baby im gonna leave you" 1969 or "Since ive been loving you"(not even mentioning the fourth album" of Led Zeppelin. It may be an "acquired taste" but i personally have never heard anyone sing like Robert Plant in those early years. So Zeppelin for me.
|
|
What you cannot speak of, you have to pass on in silence.
|
|
Gustavo Froes
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 06 2008
Location: Rio,Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 385
|
Posted: July 30 2009 at 13:47 |
|
I don't think people appreciate just how influential was Zeppelin,even compared to the Beatles.As far as musicianship goes,there's no pint in arguing who's best,since both have proven several times to be made of genious musicians(alright maybe not Ringo).The Beatles reinvented rock n'roll,but Led Zep basically set the standard for early 70's music with their first albums,and where the grandfathers of heavy metal.
|
|
Gustavo Froes
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 06 2008
Location: Rio,Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 385
|
Posted: July 30 2009 at 13:50 |
^by the way,in a Stones vs. Beatles poll,I guess I'd just have to vote for the Stones...just a matter of personal taste,but I do love their 60's stuff,really  .
|
|
alanerc
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 20 2007
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 278
|
Posted: August 03 2009 at 00:16 |
Lancé una moneda al aire, para decidir, pero esta jamás cayó  Can't decide
|
|
Tengent
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 17 2009
Location: Evansville, IN
Status: Offline
Points: 119
|
Posted: August 03 2009 at 10:42 |
|
Zeppelin, personally. They never went under any line-up changes, and I am in love with every song but a few. I only like The Beatles after Rubber Soul.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Beatles vs. Led Zeppelin
