KVR Audio

BONES · Post by **BONES** » Thu Feb 14, 2019 1:55 am

You guys overthink it. If you get the best musicians in the world to record a shit song, it will still be a shit song. The opposite, however, does not necessarily apply. Great songs matter and the simple fact is that The Beatles have way, way more great songs than Led Zeppelin. I don't think Led Zeppelin were even the best group in their genre, Deep Purple were way better than they were - Smoke on the Water vs Stairway to Heaven? It's not even a contest. Machine Head vs any Led Zeppelin album? Again, no contest. In fact, if you put all of Led Zeppelin's best songs on one album, it still wouldn't be as good as Machine Head.

herodotus · Post by **herodotus** » Thu Feb 14, 2019 2:11 am

Zombie Queen wrote: Wed Feb 13, 2019 11:24 pm
herodotus wrote: Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:33 pm
Aloysius wrote: Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:16 pm No. Ringo was perfect for the beatles.
Perhaps, but that doesn't mean he was very good.
I don't know. I too think Ringo was (considering him a retired drummer) actually really good. He had good timing and he didn't require to have been allowed drum solos in every other song, which is a great treat in a drummer.

He was more or less competent, and he knew how to tune his drums, which is more than can be said for many drummers.

But he had a limited imagination, and a monochrome rhythmic pallette. And there were times when he could suck the life right out of a song. The most notable example that comes to mind is "I Want You (She's So Heavy)". It truly annoys me how boring he makes the choruses in that song. I can't imagine a single contemporary drummer (e.g. Mitch Mitchell, Ginger Baker, Charlie Watts, Michael Giles, Ian Paice, Kenney Jones, Carmine Appice, Jim McCarty) who couldn't have done a better job than Ringo.

Now I am going to stop. I promise. I don't really have anything against the Beatles, or Ringo. But he was simply nowhere near as talented as John Bonham, who was a landmark among Rock musicians. And that was all that I had intended to say (along with the bit about the Beatles being great vocalists). All the rest has been goaded out of me by others.

And I should probably note that I grew up with a large number of Beatles fanatics among my friends, and have been hearing about how they were the greatest EVAR since 1970 at least. And while I do like and respect their vocal ability and many of their songs, I have heard more than enough of Ringos playing, and have had more than enough time to gather evidence and draw my conclusions.

Anyway, I am out of here. Good day, everyone.

I can't believe I got drawn into this again!!!

harryupbabble · Post by **harryupbabble** » Thu Feb 14, 2019 2:46 am

harryupbabble wrote: Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:47 pm
himalaya wrote: Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:31 pm The Beatles led Zeppelin.
The second half of this song sounds like it to me but the song is a few years late?

Oops. Slight correction here. Abbey Road is not a couple of years late. It was about 9 months late.

First Led Zeppelin album release date: January 12, 1969
Abbey Road album release date: September 26, 1969
Black Sabbath's first album release date: February 13, 1970

Maybe John Lennon heard Led Zeppelin's first album and it influenced "I Want You (She's So Heavy)".

But I bet no one is going to find an article where John Lennon admits that.

ATS · Post by **ATS** » Thu Feb 14, 2019 3:07 am

In the old days the comparison was always Beatles or Stones.

SJ_Digriz · Post by **SJ_Digriz** » Thu Feb 14, 2019 3:13 am

ATS wrote: Thu Feb 14, 2019 3:07 am In the old days the comparison was always Beatles or Stones.

Which I never understood as I can't stand the stones. And the composition and musical breadth have almost no relation to eachother.

Bombadil · Post by **Bombadil** » Thu Feb 14, 2019 3:13 am

Musical prowess notwithstanding, it comes down to whose music I personally prefer. And the answer to that is The Beatles. As I've said above, to me, there's The Beatles, and then there's everyone else. Arguably, Dylan is one of the best songwriters of the 20th century, but it is the covers of many of his songs from the Byrds to Hendrix that are most remembered and revered. It is the opposite with The Beatles. IMO, there are very, very few covers of their songs that transcend the originals.

Otoh, a band like Heart does Led Zep better than Led Zep often did.

Another band that I mentioned as being creative and pushing boundaries while still being commercial is Floyd. I've never heard a cover of their stuff that transcended the originals.

Hink · Post by **Hink** » Thu Feb 14, 2019 4:54 am

SJ_Digriz wrote: Thu Feb 14, 2019 3:13 am
ATS wrote: Thu Feb 14, 2019 3:07 am In the old days the comparison was always Beatles or Stones.
Which I never understood as I can't stand the stones. And the composition and musical breadth have almost no relation to eachother.

some early stuff was similar here and there, I haven't liked the stones in a long while but Mick Taylor was a huge influence for me when I was a very young kid. I'm not a fan of anything after the MT years, a little of before MT and really not even 25% of the MT stuff but this album is surely near the beginning of my guitar playing journey

SJ_Digriz · Post by **SJ_Digriz** » Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:03 am

Hey make no mistake, people rightfully like stuff that pushed them into music. I just never quite got the comparison. I guess both early versions of the band maybe had 1 or 2 songs that kinda sorta could be in the same genre. But, the stones sorta started glammish and the beatles were ultra pop to start.

I don't want anyone to get the idea that I'm totally a Beatles homer though. I like some of their stuff, but my leanings are far more towards (as DT kids me constantly but is actually true) long form jazz, classical, fusion and prog ... not the bullshit scale wanking metal stuff they call prog now, but proper droning organs and synths with obstinate guitar noodlings and drummers off doing their own thing while the rest of the band plays a different toon.

george · Post by **george** » Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:40 am

Bad Bunny

BONES · Post by **BONES** » Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:43 am

ATS wrote: Thu Feb 14, 2019 3:07 amIn the old days the comparison was always Beatles or Stones.

What I've found over the years is that most people are either "Beatles" people or "Elvis" people. To me that's the difference between liking English music or American music and The Stones always sounded like American music to me, so would probably appeal more to Elvis people. (I am not an Elvis person.)

Bombadil · Post by **Bombadil** » Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:47 am

Hink wrote: Thu Feb 14, 2019 4:54 am
SJ_Digriz wrote: Thu Feb 14, 2019 3:13 am
ATS wrote: Thu Feb 14, 2019 3:07 am In the old days the comparison was always Beatles or Stones.
Which I never understood as I can't stand the stones. And the composition and musical breadth have almost no relation to eachother.
some early stuff was similar here and there, I haven't liked the stones in a long while but Mick Taylor was a huge influence for me when I was a very young kid. I'm not a fan of anything after the MT years, a little of before MT and really not even 25% of the MT stuff but this album is surely near the beginning of my guitar playing journey

I like the Stones well enough...up until Some Girls, and even from that I only like a few songs. I like a fair bit of what they did with Brian Jones, but I can't think of any entire albums that I can listen to all the way through until Beggars Banquet, which really only had Jones on one song: No Expectations. Let it Bleed is almost all Keef, but it is an excellent album. Taylor really upped their game, though. He was really a gifted player for such a young kid. The solo at the end of Can't You Hear Me Knocking? and Time Waits For No One are beautifully played, and basically one take improvs.

Hink, one of my favourite albums to listen to when I go biking is Get Yer Ya Ya's Out. Get's the adrenaline going.

herodotus · Post by **herodotus** » Thu Feb 14, 2019 6:08 am

BONES wrote: Thu Feb 14, 2019 1:55 am You guys overthink it.

Yes. Well, that certainly has never been a problem for you now, has it?

ghettosynth · Post by **ghettosynth** » Thu Feb 14, 2019 6:46 am

SJ_Digriz wrote: Thu Feb 14, 2019 12:19 am Also, LZ isn't really that original ... the heavy blues based stuff was rampant at the time. I'm not saying they don't have an original sound, but the structure/format and content was very pedestrian. What the beatles were doing starting around Revolver simply didn't have a comparison that I'm aware of. They were sailing their own pop ship.

Absolutely, hell, they couldn't even write without blatantly stealing. However, to say that all blues driven rock bands were equal doesn't give them enough credit.

aMUSEd · Post by **aMUSEd** » Thu Feb 14, 2019 6:55 am

BONES wrote: Thu Feb 14, 2019 1:55 am You guys overthink it. If you get the best musicians in the world to record a shit song, it will still be a shit song. The opposite, however, does not necessarily apply. Great songs matter and the simple fact is that The Beatles have way, way more great songs than Led Zeppelin. I don't think Led Zeppelin were even the best group in their genre, Deep Purple were way better than they were - Smoke on the Water vs Stairway to Heaven? It's not even a contest. Machine Head vs any Led Zeppelin album? Again, no contest. In fact, if you put all of Led Zeppelin's best songs on one album, it still wouldn't be as good as Machine Head.

I can only think of one song by Deep Purple I slightly liked and that was Child in Time and they nicked the tune for that from It's a beautiful day. The rest of their stuff is too monotonous and heavy. What I like about Led Zep is although their music is classed as 'heavy' or even 'metal' it's actually very diverse and includes lots more blues and folk influences. It's also more emotionally engaging for me, they write beautiful songs and perform them beautifully. 2 of the best concerts I went to as a teenager were by Led Zep in their heyday, they were just amazing. I'm wondering if people here are not that familiar with a lot of Led Zep because to say they didn't write well is just rubbish, you can't just go by Stairway which is not their best by a long chalk. Songs like Kashmir and Achilles last stand, Thank You, The Rain Song, Heartbreaker, No Quarter, Bring it on home, Ramble on, Since I've been loving you, In my time of dying and many more are outstanding.

I do agree about the Heart comment though, I love Heart better than Led Zep and the Beatles.

JamminFool · Post by **JamminFool** » Thu Feb 14, 2019 8:02 am

BONES wrote: Thu Feb 14, 2019 1:55 am You guys overthink it. If you get the best musicians in the world to record a shit song, it will still be a shit song. The opposite, however, does not necessarily apply. Great songs matter and the simple fact is that The Beatles have way, way more great songs than Led Zeppelin. I don't think Led Zeppelin were even the best group in their genre, Deep Purple were way better than they were - Smoke on the Water vs Stairway to Heaven? It's not even a contest. Machine Head vs any Led Zeppelin album? Again, no contest. In fact, if you put all of Led Zeppelin's best songs on one album, it still wouldn't be as good as Machine Head.

LOL

Who is better the Beatles or Led Zeppelin