Elvis of course
What a question.
Who is better the Beatles or Led Zeppelin
-
- Boss Lovin' DR
- 14312 posts since 15 Mar, 2002 from the grimness of yorkshire
I do like Black Night, a proper good cheesy riff and drum part.aMUSEd wrote: Thu Feb 14, 2019 6:55 amI 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.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.
-
- KVRAF
- 6432 posts since 8 Jun, 2009
It was never the point of the Beatles-or-Stones question. It was a "mod or rocker" type thing - which group did you identify with?
-
- KVRAF
- 5440 posts since 4 Aug, 2006 from Helsinki
Who.
But seriously, of course apples (!) and oranges.
The Beatles has been, so far, no doubt the best band in the history of pop music, when you value all the aspects (such as the song writing talent, innovativines, progress, synergy, vocal performance, versatility, influence etc.). Hands down.
But seriously, of course apples (!) and oranges.
The Beatles has been, so far, no doubt the best band in the history of pop music, when you value all the aspects (such as the song writing talent, innovativines, progress, synergy, vocal performance, versatility, influence etc.). Hands down.
-
- Banned
- 10729 posts since 17 Nov, 2015
which is strange, as neither band was eitherGamma-UT wrote: Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:44 amIt was never the point of the Beatles-or-Stones question. It was a "mod or rocker" type thing -
-
- KVRAF
- 6432 posts since 8 Jun, 2009
-
- KVRAF
- 9578 posts since 6 Jan, 2017 from Outer Space
Let Zebeatles, no doubt about it... Even the name sounds better than either...
-
- KVRAF
- 44032 posts since 11 Aug, 2008 from clown world
The Beatles were supposed to be ''good boys''. Nice clean haircuts and suits etc.
The Rolling Stones were supposed to be ''bad boys''.
Opposites.
The Rolling Stones were supposed to be ''bad boys''.
Opposites.
This is the same method MJ used when he was working on Anthony Marinelli's Thriller.
-
- KVRAF
- 5666 posts since 23 Mar, 2006 from pendeLondonmonium
But the Led Zeppelin were supposed to be baloonists.Aloysius wrote: Thu Feb 14, 2019 11:01 am The Beatles were supposed to be ''good boys''. Nice clean haircuts and suits etc.
The Rolling Stones were supposed to be ''bad boys''.
Opposites.
-
- KVRian
- 589 posts since 19 Jan, 2008 from Bethlehem, PA USA
both are
equally
overrated
equally
overrated
my newest sounds:
https://soundcloud.com/the-das-kaput
Cakewalk by BandLab, Komplete 13, Maschine 2 (MKI & Jam), Fathom Synth, Guitars, Jam Origin MIDI Guitar, EXH Superego+ etc
https://soundcloud.com/the-das-kaput
Cakewalk by BandLab, Komplete 13, Maschine 2 (MKI & Jam), Fathom Synth, Guitars, Jam Origin MIDI Guitar, EXH Superego+ etc
-
- Banned
- 10729 posts since 17 Nov, 2015
the point is, they looked and sounded the same when they started, but dont let facts ruin your dayGamma-UT wrote: Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:26 amWhat's that whooshing noise? Why, it's the point sailing over your head.
-
- addled muppet weed
- 111304 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
and if it was arafat like harry suggests, he truly has been mocking us all this time!
