Home

The Beatles vs Led Zeppelin

Posted By: The_Don_Is_Dead

The Beatles vs Led Zeppelin - 04/25/12 01:25 PM

Same deal as my other two threads this time we have the two winners face off. Personally i'm a bigger fan of The Beatles (they are my favorite band after all).


A Day In The Life - The Beatles


While My Guitar Gently Weeps - The Beatles



Stairway To Heaven - Led Zeppelin


D'yer Mak'er - Led Zeppelin
Posted By: DE NIRO

Re: The Beatles vs Led Zeppelin - 04/25/12 03:42 PM

Zep where the better live band but again the Beatles where better..
Posted By: Turnbull

Re: The Beatles vs Led Zeppelin - 04/25/12 04:51 PM

Apples and orange
Posted By: ronnierocketAGO

Re: The Beatles vs Led Zeppelin - 04/26/12 12:03 AM

Originally Posted By: Turnbull
Apples and orange


More like Tom Brady and Phil Simms. I mean this isn't even close, Led Zeppelin's musical output doesn't and can't match-up with the Beatles' discography.

As for the "live" argument, it should be noted that looking through their earliest captured performances on film, they became a tight, well-oiled rock n roll group after years of endless performances at German stripclubs and Liverpool pubs.

Their released rendition of "Twist & Shout," which was in effect a live recording done after a long hectic day of studio recording for their last LP. Pure audio dynamite. Or even their first Ed Sullivan appearance, they were fucking good too. Or that Washington concert done shortly after Ed Sullivan, in short of the technical limitations and having to revolve the stage and equipment in circles to face the riotous around them...still tight. To dismiss their live playing skills is just rubbish.

It's just when they did stadiums and the technology just wasn't there to justify those performances, andthe Beatles indeed not able to hear themselves over the screaming girls, who really probably weren't even sure what those guys were playing or cared honestly. That demoralized the band, and they got sloppy in just not even trying anymore.

Case in point, watch on YouTube their Japan concerts in 1966. Jesus you can notice the steep decline, and why they quit touring. After seeing that, you can absolutely understand why Lennon and Harrison subconciously were discouraged from heavy touring for the rest of their lives.

EDIT - Actually that's a slight fib. In 1971/72, Lennon had planned an American tour to encourage youth vote registration in advance of the '72 elections. But that tour was cancelled when the FBI and INS started trying to deport him. And he had planned UK concerts for spring '81.

Harrison had a tour in '74, but he got severely bad reviews. Mostly because he basically shredded his throat in recording his album DARK HORSE in haste and beginning that tour just right after finishing that LP. But honestly IMO, I've seen/heard clips from those '74 shows and...he wasn't that bad? Sure you could notice the difference, but it wasn't like it wrecked the concerts and plus he had a very damn good band that helped cover for him.
Posted By: U talkin' da me ??

Re: The Beatles vs Led Zeppelin - 04/26/12 12:11 AM

I discovered The Beatles during Beatlemania, as a child of 8.

I discovered Led Zeppelin in 1969 as a teen of 14.

Both bands have had a major influence on my life.

I listen to them both.

I have no opinion as to which band is "better".



Posted By: Turnbull

Re: The Beatles vs Led Zeppelin - 04/26/12 03:05 AM

Originally Posted By: ronnierocketAGO

It's just when they did stadiums and the technology just wasn't there to justify those performances, andthe Beatles indeed not able to hear themselves over the screaming girls, who really probably weren't even sure what those guys were playing or cared honestly. That demoralized the band, and they got sloppy in just not even trying anymore.


I bought a book years ago, "Beatles Gear," which showed the equipment they used throughout their careers. Your statement, "the technology wasn't there," was an understatement. They had been using 50-watt amps until their Shea Stadium (NY) concerts, then they got Peavey (I think) to make 100-watt amps. They needed them, too, because the concerts were piped over the stadium's PA system, normally used to announce the batting order for baseball games. Not exactly a superior auditory experience for their fans and them. Also, they didn't use foldback speakers then, which meant they couldn't even hear what they were playing.
Posted By: U talkin' da me ??

Re: The Beatles vs Led Zeppelin - 05/01/12 07:05 AM

Originally Posted By: ronnierocketAGO
It's just when they did stadiums and the technology just wasn't there to justify those performances, andthe Beatles indeed not able to hear themselves over the screaming girls, who really probably weren't even sure what those guys were playing or cared honestly.



But, by 1968 (Monterey Pop Festival), and surely by Woodstock (August 1969), all of the Beatles had to know that their was ample amplification available for any band to overcome crowd noise for a Rock'n'Roll show.

But, The Bealtes, before they split up, still chose not to go on the road, even for a limited set of dates. That was their choice.

But only after breaking up, all of the Beatles chose to tour.

I was making plans to go and see my first Beatle in concert, until that psycho Mark David Chapman murdered John Lennon, a loving father, and a loving husband. I hope that C/S Chapman never gets paroled!!!
© 2024 GangsterBB.NET