Who is better the Beatles or Led Zeppelin

[Gamma-UT]

look at that early pic you posted of the fab four.
no way is that paul the same as this paul

https://goo.gl/images/3vbzQL

In the end, Paul lives on in all of us.

ouch..
no wonder sitting was uncomfortable

That's why...

... we all staaaaand together




I'll get me coat.

[vurt]

bum bum bum
hayaaaaahhhhh

[Kenmac]

Why can't we have both?


Actually this is an Australian tribute band called "The Beatnix" and, to me, this is the best version of Stairway to Heaven I've ever heard.

[vurt]

skiffle

tafte the wainbow of fwoot fwavorf!

[farlukar]

Anyway, Dread Zeppelin is better than The Rutles.

[vurt]

tortelvis for the win?

[Gripthegrip]

Well done everyone just the kind of interesting threads I was hopping for !

[vurt]

Well done everyone just the kind of interesting threads I was hopping for !

why you bringing heather in to this now?

[harryupbabble]

Led Zeppelin's plagiarism was mentioned in this thread a few times and so...

And not to justify plagiarism or anything, but regarding Led Zeppelin as plagiarists, is it not only because Led Zeppelin has become super-huge (second only to the Beatles but closing the gap?) that some people now think of Led Zeppelin as "nothing but a bunch of thieves" and ignore the rest of Led Zeppelin's other songs? That's a lot of other songs that Led Zeppelin wasn't sued for. No lawsuit(?) for Kashmir, D'yer M'ker, Going To California, Down By The Seaside, When The Levee Breaks, Ramble on, Rain Song, Trampled Underfoot, The Battle Of Evermore, The Rover, Houses Of The Holy, That's The Way, etc.

Okay, so, in the beginning, Led Zeppelin did a bunch of blues covers and stuff and may not have given credit to ALL the original songwriters. But in the first Led Zeppelin album, credit was given to "some" of them (the blues songwriters)? I'm not sure if that was done right from the start, though. Wasn't a couple of blues songwriters already given credit before all the lawsuits?

Why isn't plagiarism's giant-spotlight also focused on bands like, oh let's say, Deep Purple? Here's a tiny-spotlight article focused on Richie Blackmore's plagiarism.

https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/article ... hief-78760

The Beatles did a whole bunch of cover songs early in their career too. It wasn't called plagiarism because the Beatles management were not as ignorant as Led Zeppelin's management? Peter Grant or whoever Led Zeppelin's business manager was should have stepped in and told Jimmy Page something like "Jimmy, I know you love these other people's songs but you gotta give them credit, it's the law".

Later on, I guess Led Zeppelin's management got less ignorant and DID give credit to the rest of the plagiarized blues songwriters. But they wouldn't give credit to other songwriters when it came to Stairway To Heaven because really, that wasn't song theft? But it may have been chord progression theft.

So, if JImmy Page wouldn't budge on Stairway To Heaven being a stolen song it's probably because he worked super-hard on that song and only he knows it's not a stolen song. Jimmy Page, mostly, had to fight the lawsuit even if it is just over chord progression because if he didn't then Stairway To Heaven might as well have the reputation of being a stolen song instead of a song that "may" have used stolen chord progression. The lyrics and melody wasn't stolen because Robert Plant made it up and the "song" that Led Zeppelin supposedly stole from didn't even have lyrics nor lyrical melodies nor a guitar solo nor elaborate song structure?

Here's a song theft instead of chord progression theft? More like melody theft instead of song theft because song = melody + lyrics?
Melody by itself is not a song? Lyrics by itself is not a song?


And here is the song George Harrison "subconsciously" stole from.

[herodotus]

Which is better _at what_?

Editing text with EMACS.
Or vi.

Um…

Bullshit! Page and Plant are gedit all the way.

[logifuzz-vst-plugins]

Nah, Rush is better...

[do_androids_dream]

I actually couldn't care less.. both incredibly overrated, both tiresomely and endlessly credited with inventing music itself.. My Dad had me listening to The Beatles from birth - I only took notice of music when I heard John Foxx's Metamatic at 5 years old and then Ashton, Gardner & Dykes What A Bloody Day It's Been around the same time. The Beatles didn't do it for me at all, Led Zep even less so..

[herodotus]

Which is better _at what_?

Yeah, they are like chalk and cheese. Not enough in common to compare them.

Beatles couldn't get very heavy.....

That was what I found so frustrating about the choruses of "I Want You (She's So Heavy)". Mostly I blame Ringo, because he is the one who seems most at fault on that recording. But when you listen to their music, even their solo projects, they just didn't seem to have much heaviness in them at all.

That whole song really seemed like one of the times that their imaginations outstripped their abilities as performers. I am yet to hear a recording of that song that really lives up to it's promise.

And before the hordes of Sir Paul descend on me: I am sure that the Beatles could have been heavier than Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Slayer, and Nirvana combined, they just didn't want to because (insert totally plausible reason here).

The whole '... is better' is a bit childlike. But KVR, 'which is the best __', you know.

True, but at least this forum has an actual, identifiable personality. Given the changes in membership over the years it's kind of uncanny that it does.

[jancivil]

By the time I heard most, if I'd heard any, of Beatles of the mature period, I was a Hendrix freak, so Harrison always seemed very lightweight to me.

[jancivil]