Rock is Dead? Full Film: ua-cam.com/video/qMlLfrU5fjs/v-deo.html PayPal: bit.ly/2RlNUWC What is Classic Rock? - Canada & USA: - UA-cam bit.ly/2Kbji5C - iTunes apple.co/2KNOCD2 - Vimeo bit.ly/2Iv1ywd - XBOX bit.ly/2K8AF6Z - Google Play bit.ly/3cwDybU What is Classic Rock? - Worldwide: - Vimeo vimeo.com/ondemand/whatisclassicrock2 Cheers, Daniel
Led Zeppelin never recorded a bad song. On one side of my studio is all Beatles, the other side is all Led Zeppelin. I will never make up my mind. EXCELLENT point of view. Finally someone who thinks like me.
Yes, Zeppelin was more album-oriented, but that's because of the timing. In general, 60s bands were more singles-oriented and 70s bands were more album-oriented. By the time Zeppelin put out their first album, the Beatles had pioneered the rock album as an art form and changed the musical landscape (with help from others, of course). Zeppelin's precursor The Yardbirds were putting out pop singles during the mid-60s just like everybody else.
If ? Do you think he'd be interviewed here if he wasn't? It would be pretty easy to prove him a fake if he was lying. A simple search of his name can erase any doubt
How i feel about the Beatle I think people overrated them Led Zepplin are Better in every way .The Drummer let's be real Led Zepplin wins , Guitarist Led Zepplin wins again . How should i say The Beatle Music is for noob level who just started learning and they can learn and play The Beatle its simple but Led Zepplin song is not that simple like the drums part are always awesome . The bigger the difficulty level or challenge the reward we reap from that is more satisfying. We feel more happy and they leave a lasting impression on your mind and about the beatle i all their all song and album i got from a friend i listen find it boring so i delete it all then i listen Led Zepplin i was ready to press the delete button on my keyboard because they say these were the best old band of their times like how great the drummer of led zepplin is and guitarist of led zepplin and they right about Led Zepplin and i found out that the beatle music style were not my taste of music at all . Then from Led Zepplin i listed more heavy stuff Progressive Metal, Power Metal, Symphonic Gothic Metal, Heavy Metal, Thrash Metal then its goes Groove Metal , Nu Metal , Industrial Metal, Math Metal then it happen Metalcore , Deathcore , Finally Death Metal happen i listen to all type of Death Metal Genre and its Sub-Genre. Today i enjoy Progressive Death Metal , Technical Death Metal, Symphonic Death Metal , Trash Death Metal . Modern Death Metal etc etc
huge zep fan..page is my favorite guitarist....beatles catalog is the deepest as far as quantity of quality ever. beatles are the greatest of all time...a band with 3 songwriters of the talent of mccartney, lennon, and Harrison makes them untouchable
Zeppelin made 8 albums every bit as good as The Beatles. Thats why they made it huge, despite not being media darlings and hyped to high heaven. They never even performed on British or American tv. Ever. And obviously Zeppelins live performances were far more creative, inventive and completely above and beyond The Beatles. Its not even close.
@@lyndoncmp5751 "Zeppelin made 8 albums every bit as good as The Beatles." I don't know what makes you think that nonsense, but it's fine if it makes you happy. The Beatles were pioneers, that's why they weren't as sophisticated (live and in the studio) as the bands that succeeded them. "Despite not being media darlings and hyped to high heaven." I don't know about that, either. Zeppelin got hyped up big time. Come on, man, that was the name of the game. "Zeppelins live performances were far more creative, inventive and completely above and beyond The Beatles. Its not even close." The Beatles were more about the music, and exploring new things, which for their time it was groundbreaking. Just listen to Revolver, Sgt. Pepper and the White Album and different songs that are masterpieces. There are a whole lot more bands (a far cry) and musicians that have been influenced by the Beatles than by Led Zeppelin. Why is that?...
I hear far more acts today that sound like more of a Zeppelin influence than the Beatles, from drumming to guitar to singing. This even extends into rap and hip hop. Zeppelin beats are sampled everywhere. Zeppelin were not hyped. You didn't see them on television, they didn't really release singles for the pop charts (no singles at all in the UK), they weren't played much on mainstream radio usually only FM rock stations, were almost never featured in newspapers and magazines, rarely gave interviews and didn't even hire a publicist until 1973, some 5 years after they began BECAUSE they weren't getting the hype that the Stones and the Who were getting, despite selling more albums and playing to bigger crowds. Zeppelins albums were monumental. They were really the first albums only band. No filler on there. Their 6 album run from 1 to Physical Graffiti is up there with any 6 Beatles album run. The Beatles last two albums might be better than Zeppelins last two albums, but on the flip side Zeppelins first two albums are better than the Beatles first two albums, which are basically just two to three minutes similar sounding bubblegum pop tunes. You are clearly somewhat uninformed about Zeppelin. I have extensive knowledge of both bands. Oh and Zeppelin never needed to bring in an outside producer to expand their vision. Jimmy Page was the producer for Zeppelin. Cheers.
@@lyndoncmp5751 That's what you think, because that's what you wanna hear. But the Beatles have always been the band. Yes, there are trends, but not the way you put it. Just because there are band like Greta Van Fleet doesn't mean everybody is trying to play like Zeppelin. And don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Zeppelin, but they aren't quite there...
Zeppelin were not influenced by the Beatles. They were influenced by 1950s rock and roll, the blues, folk etc. If the Beatles didn't come along, somebody else would have. There was always going to be an explosion in the booming British music scene, because of rock and roll.
Most of that is due to too many screaming girls and under powered primitive technology. The Beatles would be a great live band today. They were a live band for four years before they got their first recording contract. Did thousands of shows. The Beatles knew how to put on a show but quit playing live because they couldn’t hear themselves play.
Mathew, The Beatles released about five times as many records as Zeppelin. That's why they sold more. Zeppelin smashed the Beatles in concert attendance records. Cheers.
I agree that led zeppelin had a better lead guitarist by miles. The other three beatles were excellent musicians. Im a beatles and zeppelin fan . I put the beatles ahead . Live and let live.
It wierd because Americans think of British as Europeans but I always feel foreign around continental Europeans but never ever feal foreigne around Americans. Be it in England or America, yet after 40 years of continental holidays ,I feal more foreign than ever,to the point I do bother going to Spain or France because they beg for our tourism and investments but bad mouth us the world over,northern Europeans are very different because they are not jealous of us brits or Americans in the way the french and Germans ,Spanish are,I wish Britain was closer to continental USA instead of Europe 🇬🇧👍🇺🇸
I’ve got to place the Beatles at a notch above. Their songs could be hard, soft, melodic, poetic…nearly inventing new genre’s of music. Bigger personalities, bigger reach, society changing group. LZ was not a societal force:
As players , that's very much true. The nature of their concerts and the fact that they stopped playing live altogether after 4 yrs kept them from sharpening their instrumental skills onstage the way other bands could. They were creative for sure but they didn't really become great players, except McCartney ,who is a brilliant bassist. Ringo is a genius drummer and his character shines through in everything he plays because of his unusual style. But he doesn't practice , and his skill isn't off the charts . Not that it matters. He's still one of my favorite drummers because he sounds like nobody else.
@@Cincinnatus1869 Mr. McCartney was always a good instrumentalist but his peak as a bass player came after 1965. With the Wings some of his bass is pure class. Silly Love Song ... what a stupid little song but listen to that bass ... world class! George Harrison was very young and sure not really taken for his guitar playing skills alone. His kind of zesty humour matched. But he was always looking to develop. His peak as a guitar player came after 1967. Ringo Starr's peak was around 1965. He never practiced, for him life was practice. John Lennon did develop somewhat. However, I can't really pinpoint when he peaked, since instrumental proficiency was never really his aim. Composing-wise his really creative time was over by the end of the Beatles. He needed McCartney as a driver. That a band does not stop developing instrumental proficiency when stop playing life is also shown with XTC.
@@lyndoncmp5751 All members of Led Zep had a musical life before Led Zep, they were not born with high level instrument proficiency, and no need for a producer.
Its fair to say that Zep were better players, but the Lads were FAR better writers (especially lyrically). SO many Zep tunes are lyrical cringe-fests. Sonicly, Zep also benefited from years of Beatle-led studio advances
Lyrical cringe fest. "She loves you yeah yeah yeah woooohoooo". "I am the walrus. I am the egg man." Etc. My my. So much better. Not. Its MUSIC. No musician is up there with Shelly and Keats. Zeppelin came up with compositions light years away from the Beatles. Kashmir, The Rain Song etc.
No zeppelin lyrics are insane way ahead of there time and musically too remember the beatles were made famous from hype where zeppelin earned there way to the top
Please do not put the Beatles with Led Zeppelin. There is only one rock band who stood head and shoulders above all others, and that’s the Beatles. No disrespect to Led Zeppelin but let’s be honest here, if you look at which rock band has been the most influential, has had the biggest social and cultural impact, has been the most successful and sold the most records, there is only one band not two who have accomplished those things and that’s the Beatles. When people ask who is the king of rock, nobody says “well there’s two: Elvis and chuck berry” even though Elvis also had teenybopper screaming girls but no one accuses Elvis of being a pop boy band teen idol, everyone says he is the king of rock even though chuck berry’s audience was more the adult, musician type. Sorry folks there’s only room for one greatest rock band of all time and that’s the band that like it or not, always tops the polls… the Beatles.
I love Zeppelin ..but against the Beatles , Zeppelin is not at their level. Beatles global musical influence is unmatched...sorry. How many #1 songs does Zeppelin have? ..nevermind.
led zeppelin over the beatles? as musicians maybe but as far as their catalog goes this gotta be a joke many of led zep's best songs were ripoffs whole lotta love is one of the best examples
Zep were better musicians, individually and collectively. Zep played together better as a band. Zep was a better live band. Zep's music was more sophisticated and mature than the Beatles, out of the gate and throughout their career. The Beatles played 49 versions of the same song from 1962-1965....and it wasn't until they started taking heavy drugs that they created their most creative music. Love them both, but to talk about Zep as though they were an inferior band is ridiculous.
NO man. Zeppelin's best songs were wholly original. Ten Yrs Gone, Tea For One, Rock and Roll, ,Wanton Song, Kashmir , Song Remains the Same, Out on the Tiles, Tangerine.etc. Those are the songs thst set Zeppelin apart Brilliant original material. Whole Lotta Love was rookie shit. The Small Faces rewrote the same song . Every band in the UK was playing blues covers early on . . Stones, Animals , Jeff Beck Group Fleetwood Mac, Yardbirds etc , etc . Zeppelin's original material was the difference between them and the wanna bes. There are way too many newbs who like to repeat that nonsense of Zeppelin not composing original material. Learned rock fans laugh at people like that. Also the Beatles , brilliant as they were, did the same stuff with rearranging songs to call them their own. Come Together is Chuck Berry's You Can't Catch Me, rearranged. Fact. Do some research. Listen to some albums instead of repeating the things you have watched or read on the internet
Zeppelin put out 90 studio recordings, only 10 were covers. That’s a lot less than most of their contemporaries in the blues rock movement. And I’d argue while their covers were great they don’t come close to constituting as their best work.
@@zosomoso also their covers sound nothing like the originals, except for I Can't Quit You Baby which sounded like Jimmy was heavily influenced by Otis Rush's interpretation of Willie Dixon song. People make videos and write article claiming bunch of songs were plagiarism. A lot of them don't sound even alike, for most covers they did credit, sometimes they thought it was a folk song or that artist is deceased so they thought they didn't have to, and when sued they settled it. They only fought on Stairway as far as I know, and in that case they were sued by trust holders to the copyrights of the song, not by actual writers. Some people just like to bitch about everything. And when they see other people enjoying something that they don't get, they wanna ruin it.
Comparing Led Zeppelin to the Beatles? Please. That's just embarrassing. Each have their fans no doubt. But in terms of impact on music and culture it's the Beatles followed by daylight.
Yes its embarrassing comparing a band who played mediocre twenty minute live sets, then gave up touring completely...... to the greatest band of all time. Led Zeppelin excelled both in the studio and on stage. The Beatles didn't. Go back to your pop stuff.
That Guy, I prefer a band who played three hour concerts that were never the same. Now THAT is talent. The Beatles were not that band, but Zeppelin were.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Stylistically, Zeppelin had a far bigger impact than the Beatles. Look at how many guitarists and singers that followed adapted the Jimmy Page and Robert Plant look and sound. How many bands have adopted the Beatles look and sound?
Rock is Dead? Full Film: ua-cam.com/video/qMlLfrU5fjs/v-deo.html
PayPal: bit.ly/2RlNUWC
What is Classic Rock? - Canada & USA:
- UA-cam bit.ly/2Kbji5C
- iTunes apple.co/2KNOCD2
- Vimeo bit.ly/2Iv1ywd
- XBOX bit.ly/2K8AF6Z
- Google Play bit.ly/3cwDybU
What is Classic Rock? - Worldwide:
- Vimeo vimeo.com/ondemand/whatisclassicrock2
Cheers,
Daniel
Led Zeppelin never recorded a bad song. On one side of my studio is all Beatles, the other side is all Led Zeppelin. I will never make up my mind. EXCELLENT point of view. Finally someone who thinks like me.
Hats off to Roy, and Hot Dog are my least fav Zep songs. I wont say they are "bad", but I could do without those 2.
led zeppelin without a doubt musicianship songwriting spontaneous 3hour performances mystique the entire scaloon
Totally different bands with different styles. They were both extraordinarily unique
led zeppelin was a music album concert band from the beginning to the end the beatles were a celebrity tv band
Yes, Zeppelin was more album-oriented, but that's because of the timing. In general, 60s bands were more singles-oriented and 70s bands were more album-oriented. By the time Zeppelin put out their first album, the Beatles had pioneered the rock album as an art form and changed the musical landscape (with help from others, of course). Zeppelin's precursor The Yardbirds were putting out pop singles during the mid-60s just like everybody else.
The Beatles - Boy-band version of Early Rock Music
Led Zeppelin - GODS OF ROCK
Two different times but Led Z hands down! Genius talent.
Imo the beatles are the best pop band ever and zep are the best rock band ever
The Beatles talked about reality. Zeppelin presented themselves as being reality
We love the most who we love the most. That's who we think is the best. That's it. I love the Stones the most.
Can't compare The Beatles and Zeppelin, agreed.
There's Bands. And then there's ZePPeLiN and the Beatles. In a totally different category.
They are completely different bands.
this guy looks incredible if he was zeps engineer...what was he 5?
Lol no kiddin
If ? Do you think he'd be interviewed here if he wasn't? It would be pretty easy to prove him a fake if he was lying. A simple search of his name can erase any doubt
@@Cincinnatus1869 do you actually think that is what he meant??
Both the best at there trades the rest can sort themselves out
How i feel about the Beatle I think people overrated them Led Zepplin are Better in every way .The Drummer let's be real Led Zepplin wins , Guitarist Led Zepplin wins again . How should i say The Beatle Music is for noob level who just started learning and they can learn and play The Beatle its simple but Led Zepplin song is not that simple like the drums part are always awesome . The bigger the difficulty level or challenge the reward we reap from that is more satisfying. We feel more happy and they leave a lasting impression on your mind and about the beatle i all their all song and album i got from a friend i listen find it boring so i delete it all then i listen Led Zepplin i was ready to press the delete button on my keyboard because they say these were the best old band of their times like how great the drummer of led zepplin is and guitarist of led zepplin and they right about Led Zepplin and i found out that the beatle music style were not my taste of music at all . Then from Led Zepplin i listed more heavy stuff Progressive Metal, Power Metal, Symphonic Gothic Metal, Heavy Metal, Thrash Metal then its goes Groove Metal , Nu Metal , Industrial Metal, Math Metal then it happen Metalcore , Deathcore , Finally Death Metal happen i listen to all type of Death Metal Genre and its Sub-Genre. Today i enjoy Progressive Death Metal , Technical Death Metal, Symphonic Death Metal , Trash Death Metal . Modern Death Metal etc etc
huge zep fan..page is my favorite guitarist....beatles catalog is the deepest as far as quantity of quality ever. beatles are the greatest of all time...a band with 3 songwriters of the talent of mccartney, lennon, and Harrison makes them untouchable
You nailed it...
Zeppelin made 8 albums every bit as good as The Beatles.
Thats why they made it huge, despite not being media darlings and hyped to high heaven. They never even performed on British or American tv. Ever.
And obviously Zeppelins live performances were far more creative, inventive and completely above and beyond The Beatles. Its not even close.
@@lyndoncmp5751 "Zeppelin made 8 albums every bit as good as The Beatles." I don't know what makes you think that nonsense, but it's fine if it makes you happy. The Beatles were pioneers, that's why they weren't as sophisticated (live and in the studio) as the bands that succeeded them. "Despite not being media darlings and hyped to high heaven." I don't know about that, either. Zeppelin got hyped up big time. Come on, man, that was the name of the game. "Zeppelins live performances were far more creative, inventive and completely above and beyond The Beatles. Its not even close." The Beatles were more about the music, and exploring new things, which for their time it was groundbreaking. Just listen to Revolver, Sgt. Pepper and the White Album and different songs that are masterpieces. There are a whole lot more bands (a far cry) and musicians that have been influenced by the Beatles than by Led Zeppelin. Why is that?...
I hear far more acts today that sound like more of a Zeppelin influence than the Beatles, from drumming to guitar to singing. This even extends into rap and hip hop. Zeppelin beats are sampled everywhere.
Zeppelin were not hyped. You didn't see them on television, they didn't really release singles for the pop charts (no singles at all in the UK), they weren't played much on mainstream radio usually only FM rock stations, were almost never featured in newspapers and magazines, rarely gave interviews and didn't even hire a publicist until 1973, some 5 years after they began BECAUSE they weren't getting the hype that the Stones and the Who were getting, despite selling more albums and playing to bigger crowds.
Zeppelins albums were monumental. They were really the first albums only band. No filler on there. Their 6 album run from 1 to Physical Graffiti is up there with any 6 Beatles album run. The Beatles last two albums might be better than Zeppelins last two albums, but on the flip side Zeppelins first two albums are better than the Beatles first two albums, which are basically just two to three minutes similar sounding bubblegum pop tunes.
You are clearly somewhat uninformed about Zeppelin. I have extensive knowledge of both bands.
Oh and Zeppelin never needed to bring in an outside producer to expand their vision. Jimmy Page was the producer for Zeppelin.
Cheers.
@@lyndoncmp5751 That's what you think, because that's what you wanna hear. But the Beatles have always been the band. Yes, there are trends, but not the way you put it. Just because there are band like Greta Van Fleet doesn't mean everybody is trying to play like Zeppelin. And don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Zeppelin, but they aren't quite there...
Basically the Beatles broke down some musical barriers which allowed later bands to go further than they could before the Beatles came along
Zeppelin beats the hell out of the Beatles!
If it wasn't for the Beatles there probably wouldn't have been a Zeppelin. Probably a bunch of Elvis impersonators. Jim
You can also say if there was no Buddy Holly, there would be no Beatles.
Zeppelin were not influenced by the Beatles. They were influenced by 1950s rock and roll, the blues, folk etc.
If the Beatles didn't come along, somebody else would have. There was always going to be an explosion in the booming British music scene, because of rock and roll.
@@lyndoncmp5751 as Alice Cooper said « everybody was influenced by somebody but everybody was influenced by the Beatles »,
Led Zeppelin were amazing both in the studio and on stage. The Beatles weren't. That's the difference.
Main difference between the Beatles and Zeppelin .The Beatles 600,million sales Zep 200,million
Most of that is due to too many screaming girls and under powered primitive technology. The Beatles would be a great live band today. They were a live band for four years before they got their first recording contract. Did thousands of shows. The Beatles knew how to put on a show but quit playing live because they couldn’t hear themselves play.
Mathew,
The Beatles released about five times as many records as Zeppelin. That's why they sold more.
Zeppelin smashed the Beatles in concert attendance records.
Cheers.
lol great stuff. I love both .
@@lyndoncmp5751 Care to count Paul's concert attendance numbers?? Thought so. Zep was great, but nobody smashes the Beatles, k bruh?
I agree that led zeppelin had a better lead guitarist by miles. The other three beatles were excellent musicians. Im a beatles and zeppelin fan . I put the beatles ahead . Live and let live.
It wierd because Americans think of British as Europeans but I always feel foreign around continental Europeans but never ever feal foreigne around Americans. Be it in England or America, yet after 40 years of continental holidays ,I feal more foreign than ever,to the point I do bother going to Spain or France because they beg for our tourism and investments but bad mouth us the world over,northern Europeans are very different because they are not jealous of us brits or Americans in the way the french and Germans ,Spanish are,I wish Britain was closer to continental USA instead of Europe 🇬🇧👍🇺🇸
Sorry beatles you lost this one
I’ve got to place the Beatles at a notch above. Their songs could be hard, soft, melodic, poetic…nearly inventing new genre’s of music. Bigger personalities, bigger reach, society changing group. LZ was not a societal force:
Sage of Quay.....Tavistock, ad infinitum, yawn. Everybody's doing the big dirt nap.
To think the Beatles accomplished what they did, all before any band member was 30 years old.
So did Zeppelin.
@@lyndoncmp5751.. yep 👍
@@MJEvermore853
Plant was just 22 when he sung Stairway to Heaven. At 22 Lennon was singing "she loves you yeah yeah yeah wooohooo".
@@lyndoncmp5751 👍😂
Yes. Perspective!
@@MJEvermore853
😉👍
THE Mighty Van Halen 1978 - 1984, 2012 and Cheap Trick ya big goofs!!
Different generations. Goofball❤
Beatles=Beta Males. Zep=Alpha Males
Led Zeppelin vs The Beatles? -The Beatles are more popular because your mom likes them too.
the beatles were as good as they were gonna get individually in the early days? what a nonsense
Indeed.
As players , that's very much true. The nature of their concerts and the fact that they stopped playing live altogether after 4 yrs kept them from sharpening their instrumental skills onstage the way other bands could. They were creative for sure but they didn't really become great players, except McCartney ,who is a brilliant bassist. Ringo is a genius drummer and his character shines through in everything he plays because of his unusual style. But he doesn't practice , and his skill isn't off the charts . Not that it matters. He's still one of my favorite drummers because he sounds like nobody else.
@@Cincinnatus1869 Mr. McCartney was always a good instrumentalist but his peak as a bass player came after 1965. With the Wings some of his bass is pure class. Silly Love Song ... what a stupid little song but listen to that bass ... world class!
George Harrison was very young and sure not really taken for his guitar playing skills alone. His kind of zesty humour matched. But he was always looking to develop. His peak as a guitar player came after 1967.
Ringo Starr's peak was around 1965. He never practiced, for him life was practice.
John Lennon did develop somewhat. However, I can't really pinpoint when he peaked, since instrumental proficiency was never really his aim. Composing-wise his really creative time was over by the end of the Beatles. He needed McCartney as a driver.
That a band does not stop developing instrumental proficiency when stop playing life is also shown with XTC.
the black circle,
Indeed. Well said. And they had to rely on an outside producer, George Martin, to take them to the next level.
@@lyndoncmp5751 All members of Led Zep had a musical life before Led Zep, they were not born with high level instrument proficiency, and no need for a producer.
Its fair to say that Zep were better players, but the Lads were FAR better writers (especially lyrically). SO many Zep tunes are lyrical cringe-fests.
Sonicly, Zep also benefited from years of Beatle-led studio advances
Lyrical cringe fest.
"She loves you yeah yeah yeah woooohoooo".
"I am the walrus. I am the egg man."
Etc.
My my. So much better. Not.
Its MUSIC. No musician is up there with Shelly and Keats. Zeppelin came up with compositions light years away from the Beatles. Kashmir, The Rain Song etc.
Uggggggg....wrong
@@lyndoncmp5751 Another triggered Zep Fanboy 🙄
No zeppelin lyrics are insane way ahead of there time and musically too remember the beatles were made famous from hype where zeppelin earned there way to the top
Please do not put the Beatles with Led Zeppelin. There is only one rock band who stood head and shoulders above all others, and that’s the Beatles. No disrespect to Led Zeppelin but let’s be honest here, if you look at which rock band has been the most influential, has had the biggest social and cultural impact, has been the most successful and sold the most records, there is only one band not two who have accomplished those things and that’s the Beatles. When people ask who is the king of rock, nobody says “well there’s two: Elvis and chuck berry” even though Elvis also had teenybopper screaming girls but no one accuses Elvis of being a pop boy band teen idol, everyone says he is the king of rock even though chuck berry’s audience was more the adult, musician type. Sorry folks there’s only room for one greatest rock band of all time and that’s the band that like it or not, always tops the polls… the Beatles.
I love Zeppelin ..but against the Beatles , Zeppelin is not at their level. Beatles global musical influence is unmatched...sorry. How many #1 songs does Zeppelin have? ..nevermind.
2 sides of the coin
led zeppelin over the beatles? as musicians maybe but as far as their catalog goes this gotta be a joke
many of led zep's best songs were ripoffs
whole lotta love is one of the best examples
Zep were better musicians, individually and collectively. Zep played together better as a band. Zep was a better live band. Zep's music was more sophisticated and mature than the Beatles, out of the gate and throughout their career. The Beatles played 49 versions of the same song from 1962-1965....and it wasn't until they started taking heavy drugs that they created their most creative music. Love them both, but to talk about Zep as though they were an inferior band is ridiculous.
NO man. Zeppelin's best songs were wholly original. Ten Yrs Gone, Tea For One, Rock and Roll, ,Wanton Song, Kashmir , Song Remains the Same, Out on the Tiles, Tangerine.etc. Those are the songs thst set Zeppelin apart Brilliant original material. Whole Lotta Love was rookie shit. The Small Faces rewrote the same song . Every band in the UK was playing blues covers early on . . Stones, Animals , Jeff Beck Group Fleetwood Mac, Yardbirds etc , etc . Zeppelin's original material was the difference between them and the wanna bes. There are way too many newbs who like to repeat that nonsense of Zeppelin not composing original material. Learned rock fans laugh at people like that. Also the Beatles , brilliant as they were, did the same stuff with rearranging songs to call them their own. Come Together is Chuck Berry's You Can't Catch Me, rearranged. Fact. Do some research. Listen to some albums instead of repeating the things you have watched or read on the internet
You're just not getting Zeppelin. Learn to respect that a lot of music connoisseurs have Zeppelin as number one.
Zeppelin put out 90 studio recordings, only 10 were covers. That’s a lot less than most of their contemporaries in the blues rock movement. And I’d argue while their covers were great they don’t come close to constituting as their best work.
@@zosomoso also their covers sound nothing like the originals, except for I Can't Quit You Baby which sounded like Jimmy was heavily influenced by Otis Rush's interpretation of Willie Dixon song. People make videos and write article claiming bunch of songs were plagiarism. A lot of them don't sound even alike, for most covers they did credit, sometimes they thought it was a folk song or that artist is deceased so they thought they didn't have to, and when sued they settled it. They only fought on Stairway as far as I know, and in that case they were sued by trust holders to the copyrights of the song, not by actual writers. Some people just like to bitch about everything. And when they see other people enjoying something that they don't get, they wanna ruin it.
Comparing Led Zeppelin to the Beatles? Please. That's just embarrassing. Each have their fans no doubt. But in terms of impact on music and culture it's the Beatles followed by daylight.
Yes its embarrassing comparing a band who played mediocre twenty minute live sets, then gave up touring completely...... to the greatest band of all time. Led Zeppelin excelled both in the studio and on stage. The Beatles didn't.
Go back to your pop stuff.
@@lyndoncmp5751 And now it just went bizarre.
That Guy,
I prefer a band who played three hour concerts that
were never the same. Now THAT is talent. The Beatles were not that band, but Zeppelin were.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Stylistically, Zeppelin had a far bigger impact than the Beatles. Look at how many guitarists and singers that followed adapted the Jimmy Page and Robert Plant look and sound. How many bands have adopted the Beatles look and sound?