# Led Zeppelin Vs. The Beatles - Who Is The True Rock G.O.A.T.?



## Stashman (Mar 2, 2022)

*Led Zeppelin Vs. The Beatles
Who Is The Rock-N-Roll G.O.A.T.?*​First off I have to say that I am an unapologetic Zep head, and get tired of hearing my whole life that the Beatles are the greatest rock band in history*. *But is this really true?
2nd off I want to say that the Beatles were a great band who were way ahead of their time. Their songs will ALWAYS be remembered as some of the greatest ever written. Someone would be hard pressed to find a greater collaboration as was the case with McCartney and Lennon.
I will state my case for Zeppelin below, and would love to hear yours.

The first thing that has to be looked at between these two great bands is with record sales. The Beatles have far more record sales than do Zeppelin, but their is more to this issue than meets the eye.

*1*. The Beatles released 19 studio albums. That's 10 more then Led Zeppelins 9 studio albums. It was a common practice in rock for a band to record an albums than go on tour for almost a year to promote it, than come off of the road, again record an album, than back on tour again etc..
The Beatles stopped touring in 1966, and this enabled them to release multiple albums in a year to everyone else's 1.
*2. *Singles. Who can possible count all of the 45 rpm records that the Beatles sold to millions of love struck teeny bopper girls. Led Zeppelin did not release singles. If you wanted to hear them you had to buy the album. Imo, this is what created what is referred to as album rock.

So, before record sales can be used to say who is the greatest of the two, than you have to remove 10 of the Beatles studio albums to match Zeppelins 9 studio albums. Also, you have to remove the millions and millions of 45 rpm records that the Beatles released because Zeppelin did not release singles.

  The next issue I would say would be promotion. The Beatles were the most heavily promoted band in history. To this day I can't think of another band that came close. The Beatles name and images were on just about everything. Their were Beatles dresses, record players, wigs, stamps, key chains, guitars, mirrors, watches, pendants, bowling balls and on and on and on. 6 months before they came to America posters were plastered everywhere proclaiming The Beatles are coming!, The Beatles are coming!. Radio d.j.'s were almost non stop declaring the same thing.
  In contrast Led Zeppelin were the complete opposite, and the least commercial band in history. They wanted their music to speak for them, and not some gimmick. They even refused to appear on television. Interviews with Zeppelin were rare. Their is an early interview though were John Bonham the Zep drummer points out that people went to see the Beatles live just to look at them. You couldn't even hear the ban play. But to Zeppelin it was about the music they and not the image.

The last thing would be about musicianship and talent. So, lets compare these bands with that in mind.
*1.* *Singer.* I really don't think even die hard Beatles fans would disagree that Robert Plant is a far greater singer than any one of the fab four. 

*2. Guitar. *George Harrison was an awesome player, and much better after the Beatles broke up. However, Jimmy page is legendary. I have never seen a list of the greatest guitar play of all time that didn't have him at 1 or at least top 3.. He was a riff machine. I doubt there is a Harrison tune that page cannot play, and probably many Page pieces that Harrison just could not play.

*3. Bass. *I think Paul McCartney was a good bass player, even better than he got credit for. But was no match for John Paul Jones.

*4. Drums. *Do I even really have to point this out. John Bonham is considered the greatest rock drummer in history. He played an 11 piece kit and used every single piece of it. What he was able to do still has most pro drummers in awe of him. If you've never heard "Moby Dick" than I suggest you give it a listen. Ring Starr? I guess you could he took a 3 piece kit as far as you could take it, but he could have easily have been replaced and not have been missed.

Okay, I guess this is the end of my case that Led Zeppelin not the Beatles are indeed the Rock-N-Roll G.O.A.T.. Their 300 million album sales I would venture to say out sales the Beatles if you take what I said above and even the game up the way it should be done for a true measure of who the greatest are.
What do you say?


----------



## MaryL (Mar 2, 2022)

The Beatles.


----------



## Wickerthing (Mar 2, 2022)

I remember when the Beatles were compared to the Rolling Stones and of course we heard "who's better?"  And someone said (I don't remember who)  "It's like comparing Rembrandt to a house painter.  They are both painters but not in the same way."   That's a good way to look at this argument.  Call both rockers but not in the same way.  The Beatles ran the gamut from Metal to Classical and Zeppelin remained in the rock world for the most part.  I think history will tell the story in that Beatles music is timeless to a greater degree.  I love them both but for different reasons.  I only wish that The Beatles had lasted as long.  Zep's rendition of "Kashmir" live from Celebration Day reminded me that greatness can indeed endure time.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 2, 2022)

I saw LZ at MSG in 73 and 75. It was a music orgy.


----------



## Gracie (Mar 2, 2022)

Never was a huge beatles fan. Their stuff was ok, but only ok. Zep did some awesome stuff. Kashmir is just an example.


----------



## Stashman (Mar 2, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I saw LZ at MSG in 73 and 75. It was a music orgy.


The 73 MSG concert was amazing and the world is lucky it was caught on film. I think "Since I've Been Loving You" was great at that show, and "Stairway To Heaven" is probably the best rendition to that song I have heard.


----------



## DudleySmith (Mar 2, 2022)

Beatles were a marketing gimmick laid out by George Martin. Zeppelin was a rock band, and not ever going to sell as many records to 12 year old middle girls; the Beatles were an updated barbershop quartet who did pop music, and really weren't original; the Dave Clark Five paved the way for their stylizations. The reason the DC 5 didn't succeed nearly as much in sales as the Beatles was their vocals were too masculine and 'old sounding' than the girly man Beatles pop tones, same with the fluffy lyrics.

Even the Ronettes were more adult sounding than the Beatles, and could probably kick their asses in a bar fight.

Britney Spears appeals to the same demographics as the Beatles did in their day; Zeppelin sells to the same demographics that would buy a Janis Joplin album. Guess which demographic has always bought the most records since the 1940's, and always will. Album rock became popular with the advent of FM stereo radio, and the proliferation of decent stereo systems at reasonable prices; pop music was tuned to what sounded better on cheap car radios and portables, i.e. a narrow high range in vocals and instrumentation.


----------



## Wickerthing (Mar 2, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> Beatles were a marketing gimmick laid out by George Martin. Zeppelin was a rock band, and not ever going to sell as many records to 12 year old middle girls; the Beatles were an updated barbershop quartet who did pop music, and really weren't original; the Dave Clark Five paved the way for their stylizations. The reason the DC 5 didn't succeed nearly as much in sales as the Beatles was their vocals were too masculine and 'old sounding' than the girly man Beatles pop tones, same with the fluffy lyrics.
> 
> Britney Spears appeals to the same demographics as the Beatles did in their day; Zeppelin sells to the same demographics that would buy a Janis Joplin album. Guess which demographic has always bought the most records since the 1940's, and always will?


Marketing gimmick?  Seriously?  Have you listened to their whole portfolio?


----------



## DudleySmith (Mar 2, 2022)

Wickerthing said:


> Marketing gimmick?  Seriously?  Have you listened to their whole portfolio?



Yes. George Martin changed up their sound, image, and production values. Without Martin they would still be just another garage band playing bars on weekends. As already mentioned, he also spent a lot on advertising and marketing and promotion, which in those days meant bribing a lot of DJ's, like Dick Clark and others. Martin was purely interested in pop rock for the money, same as everybody else in that line, including 'musicians'; he needed money to produce his classical music recordings and comedy albums. He had better tastes than the demographics the Beatles were targeted at separating their allowance money from.


----------



## Wickerthing (Mar 2, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> Yes. George Martin changed up their sound, image, and production values. Without Martin they would still be just another garage band playing bars on weekends. As already mentioned, he also spent a lot on advertising and marketing and promotion, which in those days meant bribing a lot of DJ's, like Dick Clark and others.


Okay partner.  Did Ringo piss in your corn flakes?


----------



## DudleySmith (Mar 2, 2022)

Wickerthing said:


> Okay partner.  Did Ringo piss in your corn flakes?



Did Ringo let you blow him once?


----------



## Canon Shooter (Mar 2, 2022)

Stashman said:


> The Beatles released 19 studio albums. That's 10 more then Led Zeppelins 9 studio albums. It was a common practice in rock for a band to record an albums than go on tour for almost a year to promote it, than come off of the road, again record an album, than back on tour again etc..



Are you sure about that? I count 13:

Please Please Me
With The Beatles
A Hard Day's Night
Beatles For Sale
Help
Rubber Soul
Revolver
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
Magical Mystery Tour
The Beatles (aka: White Album)
Yellow Submarine
Abbey Road
Let It Be


----------



## Mac-7 (Mar 2, 2022)

Stashman said:


> *Led Zeppelin Vs. The Beatles
> Who Is The Rock-N-Roll G.O.A.T.?*​
> What do you say?


The Beatles were  bigger and better


----------



## Likkmee (Mar 2, 2022)

Stashman said:


> *Led Zeppelin Vs. The Beatles
> Who Is The Rock-N-Roll G.O.A.T.?*​First off I have to say that I am an unapologetic Zep head, and get tired of hearing my whole life that the Beatles are the greatest rock band in history*. *But is this really true?
> 2nd off I want to say that the Beatles were a great band who were way ahead of their time. Their songs will ALWAYS be remembered as some of the greatest ever written. Someone would be hard pressed to find a greater collaboration as was the case with McCartney and Lennon.
> I will state my case for Zeppelin below, and would love to hear yours.
> ...


Cream


----------



## wamose (Mar 2, 2022)

Personally, I liked the Who best. The Beatles and Zeppelin were both great but if you put those three in the same venue, the Who would blow them both outta' the place. I say that having seen the WHO three times, Zeppelin once but not the Beatles. But in the end, it's just my opinion.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Mar 2, 2022)

Stashman said:


> Who Is The True Rock G.O.A.T.?



  That would be the Rock Crawl mode on those sixth-generation Ford Broncos that are equipped with it.



			https://www.ford.com/support/how-tos/more-vehicle-topics/engine-and-transmission/ford-bronco-terrain-management-system/
		


_What do you feed a goat? Well, in the case of Ford Bronco™ G.O.A.T. Modes™ (Goes Over Any Type of Terrain), the answer is almost anything the road, or trail, can put on its plate. That means, no matter where the adventure takes you, your Bronco Terrain Management System™ will automatically adapt and optimize its steering, handling and powertrain performance in response.

The Modes include*:

*Eco* – For efficient driving. This mode helps deliver maximum fuel efficiency and helps to increase driving range.
*Sport* – For sporty driving with improved performance handling and response. This mode increases accelerator pedal response and provides a sportier steering feel. The powertrain system holds onto lower gears longer, helping the vehicle accelerate faster.
*Normal* – For everyday driving. This mode is a balance of excitement, comfort and convenience. This is the default mode after each ignition cycle.
Mud/Ruts (available) – For off-road driving. This mode enhances vehicle performance to traverse muddy, rutted or uneven terrains. Mud/ruts mode engages the four-wheel drive lock.
*Slippery* – For less than ideal road conditions, such as snow or ice-covered roads. This mode can be used for crossing terrain where a firm surface is covered with loose, wet or slippery material. Slippery mode lowers throttle response and optimizes shifting for slippery surfaces.
*Sand/Snow* – Sand mode is for off-road driving on soft, dry sand or deep snow. Sand mode engages the four-wheel drive lock.
*Rock Crawl* (available) – For optimum rock-climbing ability. Rock crawl mode engages the four-wheel drive lock and the rear differential lock feature. It also activates the front trail camera at slow speeds.
*Baja* (available)** – On Bronco Badlands,™ Wildtrak™ and First Edition models, it optimizes suspension and other systems for improved performance on loose terrain and sand. (Baja mode is not available on Bronco Sport).
_​


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 2, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> Beatles were a marketing gimmick laid out by George Martin. Zeppelin was a rock band, and not ever going to sell as many records to 12 year old middle girls; the Beatles were an updated barbershop quartet who did pop music, and really weren't original; the Dave Clark Five paved the way for their stylizations. The reason the DC 5 didn't succeed nearly as much in sales as the Beatles was their vocals were too masculine and 'old sounding' than the girly man Beatles pop tones, same with the fluffy lyrics.
> 
> Even the Ronettes were more adult sounding than the Beatles, and could probably kick their asses in a bar fight.
> 
> Britney Spears appeals to the same demographics as the Beatles did in their day; Zeppelin sells to the same demographics that would buy a Janis Joplin album. Guess which demographic has always bought the most records since the 1940's, and always will. Album rock became popular with the advent of FM stereo radio, and the proliferation of decent stereo systems at reasonable prices; pop music was tuned to what sounded better on cheap car radios and portables, i.e. a narrow high range in vocals and instrumentation.


The Beatles a mere gimmick?!  Unoriginal?!  Merely appealed to teeny boppers, mere bubblegum pop?!  A narrow range of vocals and instrumentation?!

You're outside your mind.   Either you really don't know dick about good music or you don't know dick about the post-Fab Four Beatles', who revolutionized the sound and scope of rock-n-roll.  The Beatle's transformation began in 1965 with _Rubber Soul_, the first of what was, in fact, a jaw-dropping new sound, followed by one "FM-album" revelation after another: _ Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, White Album. . . ._


----------



## DudleySmith (Mar 2, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> The Beatles a mere gimmick?!  Unoriginal?!  Merely appealed to teeny boppers, mere bubblegum pop?!  A narrow range of vocals and instrumentation?!
> 
> You're outside your mind.   Either you really don't know dick about good music or you don't know dick about the post-Fab Four Beatles', who revolutionized the sound and scope of rock-n-roll.  The Beatle's transformation began in 1965 with _Rubber Soul_, the first of what was, in fact, a jaw-dropping new sound, followed by one "FM-album" revelation after another: _ Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, White Album. . . ._



lol the 'post Fab Four' Beatles were chasing changing fashions, not innovators; they were just adapting to newer market demands. You clearly don't know shit about pop music and rock history.

lol @ 'jaw dropping'. Stones, Jimi Hendix, Uriah Heep, and scores of others were already out and touring in 1965; 'Rubber Soul' was candy pop. They started marketing themselves as 'hippies n stuff' trying to keep up. Bob Dylan was already well known.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 2, 2022)

Stashman said:


> *Led Zeppelin Vs. The Beatles
> Who Is The Rock-N-Roll G.O.A.T.?*​First off I have to say that I am an unapologetic Zep head, and get tired of hearing my whole life that the Beatles are the greatest rock band in history*. *But is this really true?
> 2nd off I want to say that the Beatles were a great band who were way ahead of their time. Their songs will ALWAYS be remembered as some of the greatest ever written. Someone would be hard pressed to find a greater collaboration as was the case with McCartney and Lennon.
> I will state my case for Zeppelin below, and would love to hear yours.
> ...


Per my taste:  Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 2, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> lol the 'post Fab Four' Beatles were chasing changing fashions, not innovators; they were just adapting to newer market demands. You clearly don't know shit about pop music and rock history.
> 
> lol @ 'jaw dropping'. Stones, Jimi Hendix, Uriah Heep, and scores of others were already out and touring in 1965; 'Rubber Soul' was candy pop. They started marketing themselves as 'hippies n stuff' trying to keep up. Bob Dylan was already well known.


You're a silly-ass snob of a know-nothing.  I laugh at you.  I open my mouth and guffaw.


----------



## DudleySmith (Mar 2, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You're a silly-ass snob of a know-nothing.  I laugh at you.  I open my mouth and guffaw.


Lol who cares, weirdo fag. Which of these crying lil girls is you?




lol Paul Gets Married!!!


----------



## konradv (Mar 2, 2022)

Stashman said:


> *Led Zeppelin Vs. The Beatles
> Who Is The Rock-N-Roll G.O.A.T.?*​First off I have to say that I am an unapologetic Zep head, and get tired of hearing my whole life that the Beatles are the greatest rock band in history*. *But is this really true?
> 2nd off I want to say that the Beatles were a great band who were way ahead of their time. Their songs will ALWAYS be remembered as some of the greatest ever written. Someone would be hard pressed to find a greater collaboration as was the case with McCartney and Lennon.
> I will state my case for Zeppelin below, and would love to hear yours.
> ...


If you’re talking pure volume AND quality, Neil Young has to be in the conversation.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 2, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> Lol who cares, weirdo fag. Which of these crying lil girls is you?


Silly-ass, know-nothing snob.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 2, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> Lol who cares, weirdo fag. Which of these crying lil girls is you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


dudley why dont you just say you didnt care for the beatles....after 1966 they were nothing like you described them....


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 2, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> dudley why dont you just say you didnt care for the beatles....after 1966 they were nothing like you described them....


Actually, their transformational breakout was in '65 with _Rubber Soul._

Dudley's a know-nothing snob who clearly doesn't really know about the latter Beatles.   Anyone who dismisses the Beatles as nothing more than a teenybopper band that never expanded its demographic appeal or grew in terms of composition and sound is an idiot.


----------



## DudleySmith (Mar 2, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> dudley why dont you just say you didnt care for the beatles....after 1966 they were nothing like you described them....



lol they were everything I described. Dylan, Hendrix, Zeppelin,and many others were getting more popular by word of mouth and getting no radio play except on the newer FM rock stations, and it wasn't until the late'60's that even FM became widespread. Top Forty pop was the top of the sales charts. For the Beatles it was either re-brand or die. They died anyway.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 2, 2022)

konradv said:


> If you’re talking pure volume AND quality, Neil Young has to be in the conversation.


Young is a great artist for sure, despite his silly politics.


----------



## DudleySmith (Mar 2, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Actually, their transformational breakout was in '65 with _Rubber Soul._
> 
> Dudley's a know-nothing snob who clearly doesn't really know about the latter Beatles.   Anyone who dismisses the Beatles as nothing more than a teenybopper band that never expanded its demographic appeal or grew in terms of composition and sound is an idiot.



lol ... 1969 ...














						Why were girls crying on Paul's wedding day ?
					

A  photo blog about fans of the Beatles who have met them in person.




					www.meetthebeatlesforreal.com


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 2, 2022)

Stashman said:


> *Led Zeppelin Vs. The Beatles
> Who Is The Rock-N-Roll G.O.A.T.?*​First off I have to say that I am an unapologetic Zep head, and get tired of hearing my whole life that the Beatles are the greatest rock band in history*. *But is this really true?
> 2nd off I want to say that the Beatles were a great band who were way ahead of their time. Their songs will ALWAYS be remembered as some of the greatest ever written. Someone would be hard pressed to find a greater collaboration as was the case with McCartney and Lennon.
> I will state my case for Zeppelin below, and would love to hear yours.
> ...


Ringo was a much better drummer than you seem to think.


----------



## Jets (Mar 2, 2022)

Zeppelin baby!!!!


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Mar 2, 2022)

Why are comparing two different things as if they are the same?

Who could possibly argue that the Beatles had the chops over Zep or Zep had the hooks over the Beatles?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 2, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> lol they were everything I described. Dylan, Hendrix, Zeppelin,and many others were getting more popular by word of mouth and getting no radio play except on the newer FM rock stations, and it wasn't until the late'60's that even FM became widespread. Top Forty pop was the top of the sales charts. For the Beatles it was either re-brand or die. They died anyway.


up until 66 yes.....after that you just sound like someone who didnt care for the beatles...


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 2, 2022)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Why are comparing two different things as if they are the same?
> 
> Who could possibly argue that the Beatles had the chops over Zep or Zep had the hooks over the Beatles?


Fair enough.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Mar 2, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> Stones, Jimi Hendix, Uriah Heep, and scores of others were already out and touring in 1965



That would be quite the feat, considering that Uriah Heep didn't form until 1969.

But, please, tell us more about how you know all about rock history...


----------



## whoisit (Mar 2, 2022)

Stashman said:


> *Led Zeppelin Vs. The Beatles
> Who Is The Rock-N-Roll G.O.A.T.?*​First off I have to say that I am an unapologetic Zep head, and get tired of hearing my whole life that the Beatles are the greatest rock band in history*. *But is this really true?
> 2nd off I want to say that the Beatles were a great band who were way ahead of their time. Their songs will ALWAYS be remembered as some of the greatest ever written. Someone would be hard pressed to find a greater collaboration as was the case with McCartney and Lennon.
> I will state my case for Zeppelin below, and would love to hear yours.
> ...



I like so many artist that it would be hard to pick one from these two,they both sold lots of records.


----------



## Ringo (Mar 2, 2022)

Both the Beatles and Led Zeppelin are legendary bands, but if they had told me that in a month the Sun would turn into a supernova and there was only room in the escape capsule for recordings of only one band - I would have chosen the Beatles and only the Beatles. Of all the abundance of rock music, only they are worthy to represent the Earth. (well, Elvis too,  as a performer, not a band


----------



## Wickerthing (Mar 2, 2022)

Ringo said:


> Both the Beatles and Led Zeppelin are legendary bands, but if they had told me that in a month the Sun would turn into a supernova and there was only room in the escape capsule for recordings of only one band - I would have chosen the Beatles and only the Beatles. Of all the abundance of rock music, only they are worthy to represent the Earth. (well, Elvis too,  as a performer, not a band


Ya had me at Beatles but Elvis?  Not so much.  At least not the later Elvis.  Turned into a crooner.


----------



## Wickerthing (Mar 2, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> That would be quite the feat, considering that Uriah Heep didn't form until 1969.
> 
> But, please, tell us more about how you know all about rock history...


I also shoot Canon.  Have an extensive collection.  My main camera is the 1DS Mark III.   Whatcha shootin with?


----------



## Canon Shooter (Mar 2, 2022)

Wickerthing said:


> I also shoot Canon.  Have an extensive collection.  My main camera is the 1DS Mark III.   Whatcha shootin with?



I've got a few. I've got the 1DX MKIII, a 5D MKIV, a 6D MKII, a 6D and a 5D. I've also got an old 40D which doesn't even power up anymore.

Of the other five bodies, I use the 6D for shooting concerts, as it's great in low light and the thing can take a real beating. Twice it's fallen from about waist height. The first time it was perfectly fine. The second time the battery grip got damaged.

I love Canons...


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Mar 2, 2022)

Stashman said:


> *Led Zeppelin Vs. The Beatles
> Who Is The Rock-N-Roll G.O.A.T.?*​First off I have to say that I am an unapologetic Zep head, and get tired of hearing my whole life that the Beatles are the greatest rock band in history*. *But is this really true?
> 2nd off I want to say that the Beatles were a great band who were way ahead of their time. Their songs will ALWAYS be remembered as some of the greatest ever written. Someone would be hard pressed to find a greater collaboration as was the case with McCartney and Lennon.
> I will state my case for Zeppelin below, and would love to hear yours.
> ...


U2 surpassed them both


----------



## Wickerthing (Mar 2, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> I've got a few. I've got the 1DX MKIII, a 5D MKIV, a 6D MKII, a 6D and a 5D. I've also got an old 40D which doesn't even power up anymore.
> 
> Of the other five bodies, I use the 6D for shooting concerts, as it's great in low light and the thing can take a real beating. Twice it's fallen from about waist height. The first time it was perfectly fine. The second time the battery grip got damaged.
> 
> I love Canons...


Wow!  I'm just what they call an advanced amateur.  You are obviously a pro.  To tell the truth lately I'm more of a collector than a shooter.  Got 53 Cameras 26 of them are Canon DSLRs.  1DX III?  Man that's gotta be sweet.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Mar 2, 2022)

Wickerthing said:


> Wow!  I'm just what they call an advanced amateur.  You are obviously a pro.  To tell the truth lately I'm more of a collector than a shooter.  Got 53 Cameras 26 of them are Canon DSLRs.  1DX III?  Man that's gotta be sweet.



I collect vintage cameras. Some of them work, some don't.

26 Canon DSLR's? Yeah, maybe a little overkill there!


----------



## Wickerthing (Mar 2, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> I collect vintage cameras. Some of them work, some don't.
> 
> 26 Canon DSLR's? Yeah, maybe a little overkill there!


Guilty!  LOL


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 2, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> That would be quite the feat, considering that Uriah Heep didn't form until 1969.
> 
> But, please, tell us more about how you know all about rock history...


and hendrix was playing with Little Richard in 65 and then Curtis Knight and the Squires in 66.....yea dudley is a rock historian.....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 2, 2022)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> U2 surpassed them both


in what?.....


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Mar 2, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> in what?.....


Best band ever


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 2, 2022)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Best band ever


lol.....if you say so....


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Mar 2, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> lol.....if you say so....


One man’s music is another man’s noise.


----------



## DudleySmith (Mar 3, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> up until 66 yes.....after that you just sound like someone who didnt care for the beatles...



It's more like a bunch of closet homos can't tolerate anything that contradicts their silly obsession with a banal marketing gimmicks already common in pop music promotions by the end of the 1950's.. As I've said in a couple other threads on them I like a couple of their songs,*Eleanor Rigby* is good, but it's not rock, and *Paperback Writer* is pretty good for old style 50's rock; neither are anything 'original' or unique.


----------



## DudleySmith (Mar 3, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> That would be quite the feat, considering that Uriah Heep didn't form until 1969.
> 
> But, please, tell us more about how you know all about rock history...



All of their members were playing in bands before 1969.


----------



## DudleySmith (Mar 3, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> and hendrix was playing with Little Richard in 65 and then Curtis Knight and the Squires in 66.....yea dudley is a rock historian.....



Aw, you people can't even find anything with google, can you? lol Next we will hear about Bob Dylan not being around until after the Beatles. lol


----------



## DudleySmith (Mar 3, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> and hendrix was playing with Little Richard in 65 and then Curtis Knight and the Squires in 66.....yea dudley is a rock historian.....



He was already known among musicians by 1965, yes; you think that refutes anything I said, do you?

*Everyone’s crazy ‘bout a sharp-dressed man*​
*Let’s be honest, there’s a reason Beatlemania is typified by hoardes of young women: The Beatles looked good.

When Brian Epstein officially signed on as the Beatles’ manager in early 1962, the first thing he did was smarten up their stage appearance; he fitted them into Edwardian collarless suits, matching boots, and choreographed a synchronised bow at the end of each song.*









						Science Explains Why Girls Went So Crazy For The Beatles
					

It all starts in the limbic, paralimbic, and midbrain regions.




					www.businessinsider.com
				




They're very popular with middle class adolescent girls and homosexuals. These weirdos weren't even listening to the music, the screaming was too loud to hear them live, so obviusly it wasn't about the music.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Mar 3, 2022)

Led Zeppelin.
 Based on talent, long term influence and record sales.
* Led Zeppelin sold just under the same number of records as Beatles, But the Beatles produced 75 studio and compilation records. Led Zeppelin - 18.*
 So Led Zeppelin outsold Beatles by a long shot comparing apples to apples.
*It's not even close.*


----------



## Canon Shooter (Mar 3, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> All of their members were playing in bands before 1969.



Dude, just admit you were wrong.

You said: "Stones, Jimi Hendix, Uriah Heep, and scores of others were already out and touring in 1965." 

That's an untrue statement They were _not _touring, nor were the members of Uriah Heep out touring in other bands. In 1965 Mick Box was only 17. His first band was started in 1967.     

You're only going to make yourself look more foolish by doubling down on this. Just sack up and admit you were wrong...


----------



## Canon Shooter (Mar 3, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> He was already known among musicians by 1965, yes; you think that refutes anything I said, do you?



Well, given your track record of false statements...


----------



## Canon Shooter (Mar 3, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> He was already known among musicians by 1965



Yeah.

He was known as "Little Richard's guitar player"...


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 3, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> Aw, you people can't even find anything with google, can you? lol Next we will hear about Bob Dylan not being around until after the Beatles. lol


you said Jimi Hendix, Uriah Heep were all were already out and touring in 1965 .....did you not?.....


----------



## DudleySmith (Mar 3, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> you said Jimi Hendix, Uriah Heep were all were already out and touring in 1965 .....did you not?.....



And they were. Of course, you can't seem to admit musical markets were changing, and the Beatles merely changed theri image to keep up. They ended up stuck on Top Forty radio and an audience of adolescent girls and fem bois, while Dylan, the Stones, The Animals, the Kinks, etc. all turned out much better music; that's why you're trying to play lame 'gotcha games that don't address that.  

Do you still wear your Beatle boots?


----------



## DudleySmith (Mar 3, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> Yeah.
> 
> He was known as "Little Richard's guitar player"...



He was known by other musicians as a good guitarist, which why Little Richard hired him. Do you really think he never played any of his own gigs when not playing on tour? They all played gigs as indies. The guy who managed the Animals took him on to better gigs based on knowing his work. 

The Peanut Gallery can also note Motown was really taking off and taking market share as well; Barry Gordy had his own AM brodcast station that reached around his studios' block. He would never sign off on a song as finished until he went out and sat in his car and had them play it so he could listen on his car radio; he didn't give a shit one what it sounded liked in the studio. It was radio that sold records then. 

If you loved the Beatles you probably love Milli Vanilli; they sold a lot of records too.


----------



## DudleySmith (Mar 3, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> Well, given your track record of false statements...



The ones you can never find?


----------



## DudleySmith (Mar 3, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> Dude, just admit you were wrong.
> 
> You said: "Stones, Jimi Hendix, Uriah Heep, and scores of others were already out and touring in 1965."
> 
> ...



Just  admit you're a homo and quit wetting your diapers. All those people were out and playing better stuff than the Beatles, and the Beatles got ran over by them. The Beatles knew they were toast when they first saw Hendrix when he played the bars in England.


----------



## DudleySmith (Mar 3, 2022)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Led Zeppelin.
> Based on talent, long term influence and record sales.
> * Led Zeppelin sold just under the same number of records as Beatles, But the Beatles produced 75 studio and compilation records. Led Zeppelin - 18.*
> So Led Zeppelin outsold Beatles by a long shot comparing apples to apples.
> *It's not even close.*



And they did it without Top Forty radio.


----------



## DudleySmith (Mar 3, 2022)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Best band ever



Much better musically and lyrically than the Beatles. The Beatles crashed and burned when Top Forty pop no longer dominated the business.


----------



## miketx (Mar 3, 2022)




----------



## Canon Shooter (Mar 3, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> And they were. Of course, you can't seem to admit musical markets were changing, and the Beatles merely changed theri image to keep up. They ended up stuck on Top Forty radio and an audience of adolescent girls and fem bois, while Dylan, the Stones, The Animals, the Kinks, etc. all turned out much better music; that's why you're trying to play lame 'gotcha games that don't address that.
> 
> Do you still wear your Beatle boots?



When any of them are worth over $1 billion, like McCartney is, get back to me...


----------



## Canon Shooter (Mar 3, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> The ones you can never find?



HAHAHA! 

Yup, you're just an ignorant fool.

Uriah Heep, despite your assertion to the contrary, was not touring in 1965.

You're just too big a chickenshit pussy to admit you were wrong...


----------



## DudleySmith (Mar 3, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> When any of them are worth over $1 billion, like McCartney is, get back to me...



Yes, cuz it's how much they're worth that tells us how good they are. lol so you have everything Britney Spears has put out as well?


----------



## DudleySmith (Mar 3, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> HAHAHA!
> 
> Yup, you're just an ignorant fool.
> 
> ...



says the closet Beatles fag who dreams of blowing the whole band.


----------



## DudleySmith (Mar 3, 2022)

miketx said:


>



Yes, Zeppelin were not only better musicians but much better showmen as well.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Mar 3, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> When any of them are worth over $1 billion, like McCartney is, get back to me...


??
He made most of his money after the Beatles broke up.
  The question was about Zeppelin vs. Beatles.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Mar 3, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> Yes, cuz it's how much they're worth that tells us how good they are. lol so you have everything Britney Spears has put out as well?



I don't even own a Beatles album. Why in the Hell would I own anything by Spears?

Wait, no. I've got one Beatles album: It's an unopened copy of the "White Album" from the first pressing...


----------



## Canon Shooter (Mar 3, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> says the closet Beatles fag who dreams of blowing the whole band.



So, that's your game? Insulting everyone who has a different opinion than you?

You posted something which was clearly false. Instead of just saying "Whoops!", you double down on it. Now you're just a little douchebag liar .

Everyone here is laughing at you...


----------



## Canon Shooter (Mar 3, 2022)

iamwhatiseem said:


> ??
> He made most of his money after the Beatles broke up.



With who? Wings?



iamwhatiseem said:


> The question was about Zeppelin vs. Beatles.



And I would be willing to bet that the bulk of his fortune is derived from Beatles music...


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Mar 3, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> With who? Wings?
> 
> 
> 
> And I would be willing to bet that the bulk of his fortune is derived from Beatles music...


   If you want to know, read about it. John Lennon was worth more than McCartney when he died.
McCartney and Lennon both sold their ownership of Beatles songs to ATV. Retaining some shares as the writers, but the bulk of that money went to ATV. McCartney went on to Wings, but after that short sting went on to continue to tour and wrote  many-many songs for other entertainers. The bulk of his fortune was made after Beatles. Sony/ATV still owns all of Paul and Lennons rights to Beatles music. Paul tried to buy them back from Jackson, but did not have enough money at that time.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 3, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> And they were. Of course, you can't seem to admit musical markets were changing, and the Beatles merely changed theri image to keep up. They ended up stuck on Top Forty radio and an audience of adolescent girls and fem bois, while Dylan, the Stones, The Animals, the Kinks, etc. all turned out much better music; that's why you're trying to play lame 'gotcha games that don't address that.
> 
> Do you still wear your Beatle boots?


were those people out there or not?....jimi wasnt his own act yet was he?.....Uria Heep wasnt out there yet....why dont you quit trying to change what you said.....and the beatles were never my favorite group i liked the harder rock bands.....just admit you fucked up with your lame history lesson...


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 3, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> He was known by other musicians as a good guitarist, which why Little Richard hired him. Do you really think he never played any of his own gigs when not playing on tour? They all played gigs as indies. The guy who managed the Animals took him on to better gigs based on knowing his work.
> 
> The Peanut Gallery can also note Motown was really taking off and taking market share as well; Barry Gordy had his own AM brodcast station that reached around his studios' block. He would never sign off on a song as finished until he went out and sat in his car and had them play it so he could listen on his car radio; he didn't give a shit one what it sounded liked in the studio. It was radio that sold records then.
> 
> If you loved the Beatles you probably love Milli Vanilli; they sold a lot of records too.


chas chandler was not the manager of the animals ...he was their bass player and saw hendrix play....he went into managing after the group broke up with hendrix.......


----------



## Wickerthing (Mar 4, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> says the closet Beatles fag who dreams of blowing the whole band.


WTF is wrong with you?  Are you alright?   Weird Man.  Weird


----------



## Canon Shooter (Mar 4, 2022)

Wickerthing said:


> WTF is wrong with you?



With _that _buttnugget the list would be long...


----------



## Ringo (Mar 4, 2022)




----------



## JoeBlow (Mar 13, 2022)

Stashman said:


> *Led Zeppelin Vs. The Beatles
> Who Is The Rock-N-Roll G.O.A.T.?*​First off I have to say that I am an unapologetic Zep head, and get tired of hearing my whole life that the Beatles are the greatest rock band in history*. *But is this really true?
> 2nd off I want to say that the Beatles were a great band who were way ahead of their time. Their songs will ALWAYS be remembered as some of the greatest ever written. Someone would be hard pressed to find a greater collaboration as was the case with McCartney and Lennon.
> I will state my case for Zeppelin below, and would love to hear yours.
> ...


Bobby Orr was good, but Wayne Gretzky was the GOAT. Led Zep weren't even Bobby Orr, more like Phil Esposito.


----------



## TeeDub (Mar 13, 2022)

JoeBlow said:


> Bobby Orr was good, but Wayne Gretzky was the GOAT. Led Zep weren't even Bobby Orr, more like Phil Esposito.


I saw Zeppelin 4 times live. The first time they were great, in 1968 when their first album came out the last three they just sucked live.


----------



## TeeDub (Mar 13, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> lol the 'post Fab Four' Beatles were chasing changing fashions, not innovators; they were just adapting to newer market demands. You clearly don't know shit about pop music and rock history.
> 
> lol @ 'jaw dropping'. Stones, Jimi Hendix, Uriah Heep, and scores of others were already out and touring in 1965; 'Rubber Soul' was candy pop. They started marketing themselves as 'hippies n stuff' trying to keep up. Bob Dylan was already well known.


Uriah Heep please a few ok songs than faded away, what about Humble Pie?


----------



## TeeDub (Mar 13, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> and hendrix was playing with Little Richard in 65 and then Curtis Knight and the Squires in 66.....yea dudley is a rock historian.....


Don't forget the Isley Brothers fired Jimi.


----------



## Wickerthing (Mar 13, 2022)

JoeBlow said:


> Bobby Orr was good, but Wayne Gretzky was the GOAT. Led Zep weren't even Bobby Orr, more like Phil Esposito.


My argument has always been, listen to Abbey Road without prejudice and then decide.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 13, 2022)

TeeDub said:


> I saw Zeppelin 4 times live. The first time they were great, in 1968 when their first album came out the last three they just sucked live.


ok this then begs the question.....if they sucked why did you keep on going to see them?...


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 13, 2022)

TeeDub said:


> Don't forget the Isley Brothers fired Jimi.


funny you mention that....i just saw on some music station an interview with Ernie Isley...he said Jimi got bored with them and quit....and then he hooked up with little Richard....


----------



## hjmick (Mar 13, 2022)

Apples to marshmallows.


----------



## TeeDub (Mar 14, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> ok this then begs the question.....if they sucked why did you keep on going to see them?...


The first time they were great. Than Jimmy found heroin and became very sloppy.


----------



## TeeDub (Mar 14, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> funny you mention that....i just saw on some music station an interview with Ernie Isley...he said Jimi got bored with them and quit....and then he hooked up with little Richard....


No he was fired for upstaging them. I got that from Buddy Miles who played on Band of Gypsies.


----------



## Wickerthing (Mar 14, 2022)

TeeDub said:


> I saw Zeppelin 4 times live. The first time they were great, in 1968 when their first album came out the last three they just sucked live.


I went to see Chicago and they were terrible.  That doesn't mean they weren't a great band.  Tours can be a bitch.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 14, 2022)

TeeDub said:


> The first time they were great. Than Jimmy found heroin and became very sloppy.


but you said they sucked 3x....after 2x why did you go a third?....thats what i am asking....


----------



## Ralph Norton (Mar 14, 2022)

Love them both but, IMO, the Beatles were not a "rock" band.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 14, 2022)

TeeDub said:


> No he was fired for upstaging them. I got that from Buddy Miles who played on Band of Gypsies.


well i got what i got from one of the Isleys.....here is a quote from Jimi himself.....
" one of the Isley Brothers heard me playing in a club and said he had a job open. So I played with the Isley Brothers for a while, and they used to make me do my thing (play with my teeth, etc.), because it made them more bucks or something. Most groups I was with didn’t let me do my own thing,” Hendrix wrote.
He rocked with the famous soul group for a few months, recording and performing on stages around the U.S. “I quit the Isley Brothers in Nashville. I got tired of playing in the key of F all the time, so I turned in my white mohair silk suit and patent leather shoes and began playing on street corners again.”..............Ronald and Ernie Isley have done several interviews praising Hendrix and his talent. They said he stayed in their mother’s house for two years and the brothers once gifted him with a brand new, left-handed guitar.









						The Isley Brothers Gave Jimi Hendrix One of His First Major Gigs
					

On his ascent to superstardom, Jimi Hendrix played backing guitarist for a number of bands, including the legendary Isley Brothers.




					www.cheatsheet.com


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 14, 2022)

Ralph Norton said:


> Love them both but, IMO, the Beatles were not a "rock" band.


so what were they?....


----------



## Ralph Norton (Mar 14, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> so what were they?....


I don't know - they were The Beatles. Why do you need to label them?


----------



## Ringo (Mar 14, 2022)




----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 14, 2022)

Ralph Norton said:


> I don't know - they were The Beatles. Why do you need to label them?


music has classifications....you are the one who said they aint rock....so what are they?...


----------



## Ralph Norton (Mar 14, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> music has classifications....you are the one who said they aint rock....so what are they?...


How about "Popular music"?
Where do YOU put them?
PS you do know that IMO means 'In My Opinion", right?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 14, 2022)

Ralph Norton said:


> How about "Popular music"?
> Where do YOU put them?
> PS you do know that IMO means 'In My Opinion", right?


pop rock and rock n roll.....


----------



## Ringo (Mar 14, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> ..so what are they?...


They are God's gift to humanity!


----------



## DudleySmith (Mar 14, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> up until 66 yes.....after that you just sound like someone who didnt care for the beatles...



lol Why do these Boy Band fans get so overwrought when people don't gush over their favorite crushes?


----------



## DudleySmith (Mar 14, 2022)

TeeDub said:


> Uriah Heep please a few ok songs than faded away, what about Humble Pie?



So? As I pointed out to someone claiming the Beatles were 'innovative' and big 'influencers', they weren't, they were just essentially a marketing gimmick, nothing original, and rock was already well on its way in other directions, more adult and not just more pablum pop. They Beatles couldn't keep up, all they had was some pathetic bubble gum stuff like Abbey Road and Let It Be. Their audience grew up and moved on, they didn't. They were just a pop Boy Band marketing business. They appealed to the same markets then that Britney Spears appeals to today.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 14, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> lol Why do these Boy Band fans get so overwrought when people don't gush over their favorite crushes?


boy bands dont compose their own music or play their instruments....how come you dont know the difference?...


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 14, 2022)

Stashman said:


> *Led Zeppelin Vs. The Beatles
> Who Is The Rock-N-Roll G.O.A.T.?*​First off I have to say that I am an unapologetic Zep head, and get tired of hearing my whole life that the Beatles are the greatest rock band in history*. *But is this really true?
> 2nd off I want to say that the Beatles were a great band who were way ahead of their time. Their songs will ALWAYS be remembered as some of the greatest ever written. Someone would be hard pressed to find a greater collaboration as was the case with McCartney and Lennon.
> I will state my case for Zeppelin below, and would love to hear yours.
> ...


I think one measure is their impact on music.  The Beatles invented many sounds and techniques later used by others.  Their list of firsts is extensive.  I lived through both and the Beatles were truly unique.  Zep was great but their impact was trivial compared to the Beatles.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 14, 2022)

Stashman said:


> *Led Zeppelin Vs. The Beatles
> Who Is The Rock-N-Roll G.O.A.T.?*​First off I have to say that I am an unapologetic Zep head, and get tired of hearing my whole life that the Beatles are the greatest rock band in history*. *But is this really true?
> 2nd off I want to say that the Beatles were a great band who were way ahead of their time. Their songs will ALWAYS be remembered as some of the greatest ever written. Someone would be hard pressed to find a greater collaboration as was the case with McCartney and Lennon.
> I will state my case for Zeppelin below, and would love to hear yours.
> ...



The Beatles. The Beatles are unquestionably the best and most important band in rock history. 
The Rolling Stones. ... 
Aerosmith
The Grateful Dead. ... No
Velvet Underground. ... No
Led Zeppelin. ... 
Ramones. ... No
Pink Floyd.
Led is on the Mount Rushmore but Beatles are the goat


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 14, 2022)

Wickerthing said:


> I remember when the Beatles were compared to the Rolling Stones and of course we heard "who's better?"  And someone said (I don't remember who)  "It's like comparing Rembrandt to a house painter.  They are both painters but not in the same way."   That's a good way to look at this argument.  Call both rockers but not in the same way.  The Beatles ran the gamut from Metal to Classical and Zeppelin remained in the rock world for the most part.  I think history will tell the story in that Beatles music is timeless to a greater degree.  I love them both but for different reasons.  I only wish that The Beatles had lasted as long.  Zep's rendition of "Kashmir" live from Celebration Day reminded me that greatness can indeed endure time.


Consider all the great song writers and singers. Billy Joel, Elton John, etc. eventually they run out of songs. Perhaps we got just the right amount of them?

Then you got John lennon solo, paul solo. George Harrison solo. Did ringo do a solo album?

I think we got the best of the Beatles through Paul. His music all these years has been wonderful. To this day he puts on a great concert. Led Zeppelin does not.


----------



## Wickerthing (Mar 14, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> Consider all the great song writers and singers. Billy Joel, Elton John, etc. eventually they run out of songs. Perhaps we got just the right amount of them?
> 
> Then you got John lennon solo, paul solo. George Harrison solo. Did ringo do a solo album?
> 
> I think we got the best of the Beatles through Paul. His music all these years has been wonderful. To this day he puts on a great concert. Led Zeppelin does not.


You may be right but I like to think that if the animosity never happened over Yoko or whatever the breakup was about, that they would have continued on their path to greatness.  That's evident IMHO because each album was better than the last one and Abbey Road was a genuine diamond.  Taking nothing away from Zeppelin.  An even greater outcome, again IMHO is if they would have continued as a group and each did their own thing as individuals.  Also, to me, to compare them to Zeppelin is kind of unfair because I viewed them as very different in their music, their style and their subject matter.  I like to think of each of them as unique and great in their own right.  I'm not crazy about all of this ranking stuff.  I think it just gets in the way of appreciating them and their individualism.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 14, 2022)

Wickerthing said:


> You may be right but I like to think that if the animosity never happened over Yoko or whatever the breakup was about, that they would have continued on their path to greatness.  That's evident IMHO because each album was better than the last one and Abbey Road was a genuine diamond.  Taking nothing away from Zeppelin.  An even greater outcome, again IMHO is if they would have continued as a group and each did their own thing as individuals.  Also, to me, to compare them to Zeppelin is kind of unfair because I viewed them as very different in their music, their style and their subject matter.  I like to think of each of them as unique and great in their own right.  I'm not crazy about all of this ranking stuff.  I think it just gets in the way of appreciating them and their individualism.


It’s just we all know Beatles are number one and everyone else is fighting for two.

I guess there is a really long boring slow documentary out on the Beatles but anyone who loves them will want to see all 6 hours of it. In it you see yoko and Linda being allowed in the studio. I was a madhouse.

But yea I remember wishing or hoping they’d eventually get back together.


----------



## Ringo (Mar 15, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> So? As I pointed out to someone claiming the Beatles were 'innovative' and big 'influencers', they weren't, they were just essentially a marketing gimmick, nothing original,... They were just a pop Boy Band marketing business. They appealed to the same markets then that Britney Spears appeals to today.


Is this how you play to be popular in school - say outrageous stupidities in the presence of adults, so that your dumb friends say: "Cool, dude!"? How old are you now?


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 15, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> The Beatles. The Beatles are unquestionably the best and most important band in rock history.
> The Rolling Stones. ...
> Aerosmith
> The Grateful Dead. ... No
> ...


Of all the concerts I've been to, admittedly not all that many, the Grateful Dead offered the best live band experience.  Even better than the Stones who I saw twice.  I wouldn't rank the Dead above the Stones but their concerts were wonderful.


----------



## Wickerthing (Mar 15, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> lol Why do these Boy Band fans get so overwrought when people don't gush over their favorite crushes?


To compare the Beatles to Britney Spears is ludicrous.  Shows clearly that you know absolutely nothing about music or history.   Do you know the impact that they had on youth in Russia and throughout the USSR?  Many Russian youth learned to speak English through Beatles lyrics.  They traded bootlegged copies of albums and even developed a technique to use the plates from XRays to hold and play back the music.  Beatles music opened their horizons and introduced them to freedoms that many didn't realize they were being denied.  They held underground raves and fell in love to the music of the Beatles.  It affected their lives in many positive ways because they knew that what they were listening to was special and classic.  They loved the Beatles music on an even deeper level than many American kids did.  Britney Spears is a silly and ignorant comparison.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 15, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Of all the concerts I've been to, admittedly not all that many, the Grateful Dead offered the best live band experience.  Even better than the Stones who I saw twice.  I wouldn't rank the Dead above the Stones but their concerts were wonderful.


Were you on drugs?


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 15, 2022)

Wickerthing said:


> To compare the Beatles to Britney Spears is ludicrous.  Shows clearly that you know absolutely nothing about music or history.   Do you know the impact that they had on youth in Russia and throughout the USSR?  Many Russian youth learned to speak English through Beatles lyrics.  They traded bootlegged copies of albums and even developed a technique to use the plates from XRays to hold and play back the music.  Beatles music opened their horizons and introduced them to freedoms that many didn't realize they were being denied.  They held underground raves and fell in love to the music of the Beatles.  It affected their lives in many positive ways because they knew that what they were listening to was special and classic.  They loved the Beatles music on an even deeper level than many American kids did.  Britney Spears is a silly and ignorant comparison.


Yet black people here in America didn't give a rats ass about the Beatles.  They thought they sucked.  They preferred Motown.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 15, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> Yet black people here in America didn't give a rats ass about the Beatles.  They thought they sucked.  They preferred Motown.


and of course you being a black guy,you know who black people liked....right?...many black artist covered beatle songs....


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 15, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> and of course you being a black guy,you know who black people liked....right?...many black artist covered beatle songs....


I went to an all black school.  And Howard Stern tells a similar story about bring a record in to school day back when he went to an all black school.  He was mocked for listening to the Beatles.  The black community back then loved Motown not the Beatles.

See, white boys like you don't know what it was like living in the hood.  You don't know how different the culture is.  I do.  When I moved to an all white neighborhood I remember the whites made fun of my black taste in music.  I can remember one song specifically when this happened.

Remember "cupid, draw back your bow, and let your arrow flow, straight to my lovers heart" Sam Cooke.  All my white friends made fun of me for listening to stuff like that and they were listening to Led Zepplin, Aerosmith, Def Leppard.  Or remember Cool and the Gang?  I loved that shit.  or Commodores, Stevey Wonder, etc.

Tell you what.  Let's ask a black person on Quora

Most of the black people I know don't listen to the Beatles. It's just not their type of music, and I'm around a lot of black people daily, whether I'm in a professional setting with professional black people or around lower/working class black people, they generally don't listen to the Beatles. Most of them don't even know who Paul McCartney or John Lennon are. I'm pretty sure if you played a random Beatles’ song, there’s a 95% chance that the black people will NOT know that the song was a Beatles song. They're just not that familiar with them. However, I've notice that many black people are familiar with and love the hit song “Twist and Shout”, which is probably the only Beatles song that is popular and well liked by black people as a whole, but I could be wrong. By the way, “Twist and Shout” was originally recorded by The Top Notes which then became a hit by the Isley Brothers which then became a global hit by the Beatles.

I'm one of the very few black people who do listen to the Beatles. But then again, I also like to listen to other classic rock bands like Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones, and Pink Floyd.

Most black people don't really listen to classic rock music in the first place and so therefore, don't listen to The Beatles.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 15, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> and of course you being a black guy,you know who black people liked....right?...many black artist covered beatle songs....


Do I have to be a black guy to know what type of music black people like?

Or maybe all I need to do is listen to black radio stations and talk to black people.

Very few black people like Elvis.  Did you know that?


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 15, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> Were you on drugs?


Maybe you overlooked the part where I said I was at a Grateful Dead concert.


----------



## Ringo (Mar 15, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> Most of the black people I know don't listen to the Beatles.


That's why so many youtube videos where blacks react to Beatles songs with admiration...


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 15, 2022)

Ringo said:


> That's why so many youtube videos where blacks react to Beatles songs with admiration...


Have you seen that video of the two black kids hearing great classical rock music for the first time?  So funny.  Yes, they appreciate it now.  I'm just telling you back in the 70's, 80's and even beyond the black community, FOR THE MOST PART, appreciates R&B a lot more than they do the Beatles or Nirvana.

I dated a black girl.  Actually a few but this one particular girl told me black people secretly love Bon Jovi.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 15, 2022)

Ringo said:


> That's why so many youtube videos where blacks react to Beatles songs with admiration...


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 15, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> and of course you being a black guy,you know who black people liked....right?...many black artist covered beatle songs....



The fact you are arguing with me tells me just how little you know about the black community

....never listened to a Beatles song until I was twenty-three. I heard a few snippets when Across the Universe (2007) was advertised. And, I enjoyed the covers on American Idol. But, I never heard them sing their own songs until I was cornered by white coworkers shocked and amazed at my inability to name a singular member of the group or song.

Their puzzlement went from inquiry to harassment to public shaming as they paraded me around the office showing me off to other white people who were similarly shocked at my apparent “poor upbringing.” They had no idea that their projections of what constituted “good music” denoted their own simmering privilege. Meanwhile, they were discrediting everything I actually had grown up listening to.

It all started when a young white lady in the office was commenting on her favorite Beatles song. When asked, I responded, “Which group is that?” Then, ‘el shit’ hit ‘el fan.’ I got the Beatles mixed up with the Eagles mixed up with the Rolling Stones. They asked me to name them and I said “Well, I know it’s not Elton John. Bob Dylan? Maybe Billy Joel?” Shit everywhere. It was completely foreign to them that I could have possibly missed something so integral to their lives. So, they attempted to shame me.

The responses I got from everyone were in virtual lockstep.

“What in the world did you listen to at home?”

“What? Did you live under a rock?”

“Do you just never turn on the radio?”

“Where are you from?”

To which I responded, “Well, I’m black.” And, I simply explained that there are other radio stations that play other music. Unsatisfied with this answer, they pelted me with further inquiries.

“Do you just never watch TV? cause the Beatles are EVERYWHERE!”

It was cute for about two seconds then it just got stale. What was funniest about it was that they were almost offended when I mentioned non-Beatles members. Like I had somehow broken white people music code by mentioning Billy Joel or Elton John in the same conversation. The Beatles were so sacred to them that they guffawed about it and it became an office joke until I eventually left the team.

Isn’t it funny though how I was assumed to be some foreigner transplant because I didn’t conform to white musical interests? They questioned my mom’s parenting skills before they ventured to think that maybe black folks just aren’t interested in listening to boring music sung by vocally-challenged British men.

My mother raised me on Anita Baker, Luther Vandross, The Four Tops, The Commodores, Patti Labelle, and a healthy dose of gospel artists. I have heard and appreciated a host of other greats. Presently, I love the soul sounds of India.Arie, Jill Scott, and John Legend. Not to mention I come from a family of talented singers, rappers, and song writers. I was never lacking for musicality in my home or life. But, my music and upbringing didn’t “count” to these folks because it didn’t measure up to their standards. This is the definition of white superiority.


----------



## Ringo (Mar 15, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> Yes, they appreciate it now.  I'm just telling you back in the 70's, 80's and even beyond the black community, FOR THE MOST PART, appreciates R&B a lot more than they do the Beatles or Nirvana.


Cos' blacks had greate music then, the Beatles themselves were lovers of that music.
And after 3 decades of crap, or as they say, rap, it is hard not to recognize the beauty of the Beatles music... any *music*.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 15, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> I went to an all black school.  And Howard Stern tells a similar story about bring a record in to school day back when he went to an all black school.  He was mocked for listening to the Beatles.  The black community back then loved Motown not the Beatles.
> 
> See, white boys like you don't know what it was like living in the hood.  You don't know how different the culture is.  I do.  When I moved to an all white neighborhood I remember the whites made fun of my black taste in music.  I can remember one song specifically when this happened.
> 
> ...


oh give me a fucking break....i grew up with lots of black kids including going into their houses and the school i went to was half black......who the fuck do you think you are?....and like i said many black musicians covered beatle songs....and now you are a black guy?....what happened to being greek?...you are a phony bobo.....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 15, 2022)

Ringo said:


> That's why so many youtube videos where blacks react to Beatles songs with admiration...


he dont know what the fuck he is talking about.....quite a few black musicians covered beatle songs....that doesnt mean they listen to them all day....it means they liked the song good enough to cover it...


----------



## Moonglow (Mar 15, 2022)

Stashman said:


> *Led Zeppelin Vs. The Beatles
> Who Is The Rock-N-Roll G.O.A.T.?*​First off I have to say that I am an unapologetic Zep head, and get tired of hearing my whole life that the Beatles are the greatest rock band in history*. *But is this really true?
> 2nd off I want to say that the Beatles were a great band who were way ahead of their time. Their songs will ALWAYS be remembered as some of the greatest ever written. Someone would be hard pressed to find a greater collaboration as was the case with McCartney and Lennon.
> I will state my case for Zeppelin below, and would love to hear yours.
> ...


The Beetles and Led Zepplin were different kind of rock bands.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 15, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> The fact you are arguing with me tells me just how little you know about the black community
> 
> ....never listened to a Beatles song until I was twenty-three. I heard a few snippets when Across the Universe (2007) was advertised. And, I enjoyed the covers on American Idol. But, I never heard them sing their own songs until I was cornered by white coworkers shocked and amazed at my inability to name a singular member of the group or song.
> 
> ...


great story bobo.....i was raised listening to black music including the blues.....country western and rock in roll mostly do wop stuff...and Classical music was even in there especially opera....you do realize your stories usually reek of shit like this one....


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 15, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> oh give me a fucking break....i grew up with lots of black kids including going into their houses and the school i went to was half black......who the fuck do you think you are?....and like i said many black musicians covered beatle songs....and now you are a black guy?....what happened to being greek?...you are a phony bobo.....


Your school was half black?  Well then that explains it.  Especially if you are telling me that you all got along splendidly.  Is that what you are telling me?  The black kids and the white kids got along in your school?

Because if it's true, we need to know where this part of the country is and emulate it.  Because where I come from, if half the school is black then the school is very divided.  The blacks listen to black music, the whites listen to white music.  Of course there are some wiggers and some blacks who love Bon Jovi but for the most part, either you lived in a fairytale or you are making up the fact that you got along with the black kids and you all listened to the same music, TOGETHER!

Then don't forget I went to an all black school.  Only 3 whites in an entire K-8 school.  NO ONE was listening to the Beatles in my community.  They were listening to Michael Jackson.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 15, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> Your school was half black?  Well then that explains it.  Especially if you are telling me that you all got along splendidly.  Is that what you are telling me?  The black kids and the white kids got along in your school?
> 
> Because if it's true, we need to know where this part of the country is and emulate it.  Because where I come from, if half the school is black then the school is very divided.  The blacks listen to black music, the whites listen to white music.  Of course there are some wiggers and some blacks who love Bon Jovi but for the most part, either you lived in a fairytale or you are making up the fact that you got along with the black kids and you all listened to the same music, TOGETHER!
> 
> Then don't forget I went to an all black school.  Only 3 whites in an entire K-8 school.  NO ONE was listening to the Beatles in my community.  They were listening to Michael Jackson.


yea i got along.....im not like you who cant get along....and no the darker kids and the white kids had their problems....were the hell did i say we got along splendidly?....did you learn to read in your school?.....K-8th grade?....i am talking 7th thru 12th grade....


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 15, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> great story bobo.....i was raised listening to black music including the blues.....country western and rock in roll mostly do wop stuff...and Classical music was even in there especially opera....you do realize your stories usually reek of shit like this one....


I don't give a fuck about your personal antidotal nonsense.  I was raise a poor black child too.





I remember being invited in to my friends house and his mother made corn bread.  It was so yummy I'll never forget it.  Dry with butter.  Make you want to smack yo mama.

I'm just telling you if any of the kids in class were listening to the Beatles or Bon Jovi, they kept that shit to themselves.  It's like me when I moved to an all white neighborhood.  I was made fun of when I told them the shit i listened to.  BLACK music.  Because I came from the hood, that's what I was influenced by and I can tell you a lot of blacks in the hood are only listening to rap in front of their kids.  

How about those kids who are famous online for hearing good music for the first time?  How come those young black men never heard of Coming in the Air Tonight?


Have you seen this?  Where are they from idiot?  the two brothers from Gary, Indiana

Gary Indiana is 79% black you stupid mother fucker.  It's no surprise they never heard a lot of good white music because their parents never listened to white music.

You USMB whites are so fucking stupid.  Ignorant.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 15, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> yea i got along.....im not like you who cant get along....and no the darker kids and the white kids had their problems....were the hell did i say we got along splendidly?....did you learn to read in your school?.....K-8th grade?....i am talking 7th thru 12th grade....


Like I said, Gary Indiana is 78% black.  Detroit is 81% black.  You lived in la la land.  

Oh, and I'm sure of the 50% population of your school that is black, the 10% of blacks who hung out with your white ass, I'm sure 50% of them loved the music you made them listen to.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 15, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> yea i got along.....im not like you who cant get along....and no the darker kids and the white kids had their problems....were the hell did i say we got along splendidly?....did you learn to read in your school?.....K-8th grade?....i am talking 7th thru 12th grade....


If you didn't get along how do you know what their taste in music was?  That's something you only know if someone is a friend.  I think you just remember your 1 or 2 black friends rocking to Motley Crew or Ozzy and you assume you know what the fuck you are talking about or you don't realize what I'm saying is true because it doesn't jive with your world views is that about it Harry?

I found a picture of your diverse highschool


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 15, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> I don't give a fuck about your personal antidotal nonsense.  I was raise a poor black child too.
> 
> View attachment 616170
> 
> ...


but we have to listen to your personal "antidotal" nonsense?....bobo i believe the word you are looking for is anecdotal..antidotal is something that is used to counteract,i know thats a big word,they are used to counteract poisons in the body .....

idote​[ an-ti-doht  ]

noun
a medicine or other remedy for counteracting the effects of poison, disease, etc.
something that prevents or counteracts injurious or unwanted effects: Good jobs are the best antidote to teenage crime.
verb (used with object), an·ti·dot·ed, an·ti·dot·ing.
to counteract with an antidote: Medication was given to antidote the poison the child had swallowed.

Definition of "antidotal" [an•ti•do•tal]

Relating to an antidote. _(adjective)_


"Sorry to pick on Ben, but I also laughed when he referred to antidotal evidence, a nice new Bushism or verbal typo that I guess means a piece of evidence that fixes a poisonous problem."


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 15, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> If you didn't get along how do you know what their taste in music was?  That's something you only know if someone is a friend.  I think you just remember your 1 or 2 black friends rocking to Motley Crew or Ozzy and you assume you know what the fuck you are talking about or you don't realize what I'm saying is true because it doesn't jive with your world views is that about it Harry?
> 
> I found a picture of your diverse highschool
> 
> View attachment 616177


bobo are you high?.....were did i say i did not get along?....thats your 2nd fuck up here....geezus wait until i go and catch up to you...then we can post....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 15, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> If you didn't get along how do you know what their taste in music was?  That's something you only know if someone is a friend.  I think you just remember your 1 or 2 black friends rocking to Motley Crew or Ozzy and you assume you know what the fuck you are talking about or you don't realize what I'm saying is true because it doesn't jive with your world views is that about it Harry?
> 
> I found a picture of your diverse highschool
> 
> View attachment 616177


geezus....lol....


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 15, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> but we have to listen to your personal "antidotal" nonsense?....bobo i believe the word you are looking for is anecdotal..antidotal is something that is used to counteract,i know thats a big word,they are used to counteract poisons in the body .....
> 
> idote​[ an-ti-doht  ]
> 
> ...


Well hopefully you know I'm just having fun arguing this with you right?  

Antidotal.  Yea, I get the red squggly line so I must have typed it wrong but honestly, you're not worth me opening up another browser and spell checking.  You knew what I meant.  And so I didn't need the english lesson.  I assumed you knew what I meant and I assume you assumed I knew what I was talking about.  

So, back to your fellow classmates who you didn't get along with but you can remember to this day what kind of music they were into.

And in your class, there was no connection between skin color and musical preference?

I'm calling bullshit Harry.  Even if that's how you remember it, that's probably not how it really happened.  Sounds like you are making shit up to prove me wrong.

Yes I give personal anctidotes.  Because I saw it with my own eyes.  Black kids mocking popular white artists like the Beatles while worshiping Cool and the Gang or the Commidores.  Yes, that happened.  And I'm not the only one to experience this.

That's why I'm dying to know what mixed school you went to where the community didn't even notice skin color.  Black girls listened to Iron Maiden and white boys listen to Chaka Khan.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 15, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> Well hopefully you know I'm just having fun arguing this with you right?
> 
> Antidotal.  Yea, I get the red squggly line so I must have typed it wrong but honestly, you're not worth me opening up another browser and spell checking.  You knew what I meant.  And so I didn't need the english lesson.  I assumed you knew what I meant and I assume you assumed I knew what I was talking about.
> 
> ...


i cant argue this bobo ...your saying things i never said.....so until you start posting a little more coherent......


----------



## Ringo (Mar 15, 2022)

Bloody hell, both of you, stop this silly quarrel and go back to your rooms!


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 15, 2022)

Ringo said:


> Bloody hell, both of you, stop this silly quarrel and go back to your rooms!


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 15, 2022)

Ringo said:


> Bloody hell, both of you, stop this silly quarrel and go back to your rooms!


Ringo: And you must be Sealybobo

Sealybobo: That's the rumor.

Ringo: You retired too?

Sealybobo: Not me. I'm in my prime.

Ringo: Yeah, you look it.

Sealybobo speaking to Harry: Look, darling, Ringo. The deadliest pistoleer since Wild Bill, they say. What do you think, darling? Should I hate him?

Harry: You don't even know him.

Sealybobo: Yes, but there's just something about him. Something around the eyes, I don't know, reminds me of... me. No. I'm sure of it, I hate him.


----------



## Wickerthing (Mar 15, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> Ringo: And you must be Sealybobo
> 
> Sealybobo: That's the rumor.
> 
> ...


How did this go from music appreciation to a race war?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 15, 2022)

Wickerthing said:


> How did this go from music appreciation to a race war?


bobo likes to make things about himself.....


----------



## SmokeALib (Mar 15, 2022)

Floyd
Zep
Who 
Rush


----------



## Wickerthing (Mar 15, 2022)

I grew up in the fifties and sixties and loved all kinds of music.  I loved soul music as much as anything else.  Loved Otis Redding, Jackie Wilson, Temptations, Four Tops, James Brown etc.  And later I loved Al Jarreau, George Benson, Anita Baker, etc.  I loved all of that because it was great music.  Great artists and great musicianship.  But I gotta say that when Angry Rap came along I immediately hated it.  It had nothing to do with color.  I hate M&M equally.  In the early days I liked Will Smith and Run DMC because it was fun to listen to.  In the nineties it was MC Hammer, Whitney, Toni Braxton, Natalie Cole etc.  But then with Hip Hop came the age of the steal.  So-called "Sampling" took away any and almost all incentive for Black "musicians" to create their own original music.  I miss it and I feel bad that young blacks seldom get to hear new "real" music.  Now I enjoy watching young and not so young black people discover the gems of the past, both black and white tunes. It's amazing to watch eyes light up and smiles come to the faces of folks who never or almost never heard real art.  I hope black inner city youth are inspired once again to learn to play instruments and to put gentle, thoughtful lyrics down on paper and abandon angry, violent and shocking disrespect of women in their "art."


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 16, 2022)

Wickerthing said:


> How did this go from music appreciation to a race war?


Huh?  That's a scene out of Tombstone.  Doc Holiday is talking to Johnny Ringo.  LOL.  I just saw the name Ringo and I thought about this scene.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 16, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> bobo likes to make things about himself.....


I simply said black people don't love the Beatles.  Why did I say that?  Because Wicker said this

To compare the Beatles to Britney Spears is ludicrous. Shows clearly that you know absolutely nothing about music or history. Do you know the impact that they had on youth in Russia and throughout the USSR? Many Russian youth learned to speak English through Beatles lyrics. They traded bootlegged copies of albums and even developed a technique to use the plates from XRays to hold and play back the music. Beatles music opened their horizons and introduced them to freedoms that many didn't realize they were being denied. They held underground raves and fell in love to the music of the Beatles. It affected their lives in many positive ways because they knew that what they were listening to was special and classic. They loved the Beatles music on an even deeper level than many American kids did. Britney Spears is a silly and ignorant comparison.

First of all, it's subjective.  Just because most of us understand that the beatles are greater than Brittney Spears, I'm sure there are people out there who would disagree.  They aren't wrong.  The beatles being the best is not a fact.  It's true, but not a fact.  Sort of like evolution.

Do you know the impact blacks had on the Beatles?  You talk about the impact the Beatles had on Russians?  

Are Russians free?

So how did the Beatles affect the Russian people?  Did the music make Putin an asshole or the citizens sheep?


----------



## Mac-7 (Mar 16, 2022)

wamose said:


> Personally, I liked the Who best. The Beatles and Zeppelin were both great but if you put those three in the same venue, the Who would blow them both outta' the place. I say that having seen the WHO three times, Zeppelin once but not the Beatles. But in the end, it's just my opinion.


In the end history will decide

whoever has the most music remembered and loved by the most future generations gets to take a seat next to motzart

And I think that will be the Beatles


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 16, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> In the end history will decide
> 
> whoever has the most music remembered and loved by the most future generations gets to take a seat next to motzart
> 
> And I think that will be the Beatles


Off the top of my head I can't name 2 members of Led Zepplin.  And I'd have to think hard to name 3 songs.  Stairway to Heaven, ....that's it.  

Or that song that goes DA DA DA, DA DA DA, DA what beat as the sunshine that fills my rage, cause blablablabla, whoa, whoa, what's the name of that song?

And I probably know 10 Led Zepplin songs if I heard them but I'd probably change the channel.

I'm not a HUGE Beatles fan but I can name all 4 band members and at least 10 songs.  There is no comparison. 

If you want to ask who's better Zepplin, Stones, Doors, Aerosmith okay we can have that conversation.  But to compare Zepplin to the Beatles is ridiculous.


----------



## Ralph Norton (Mar 16, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> In the end history will decide
> 
> whoever has the most music remembered and loved by the most future generations gets to take a seat next to motzart
> 
> And I think that will be the Beatles


FWIW: I live in a college town. When I walk around on weekends I hear Zep, AC/DC, Doors, etc.. I almost never hear the Beatles.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 16, 2022)

Ralph Norton said:


> FWIW: I live in a college town. When I walk around on weekends I hear Zep, AC/DC, Doors, etc.. I almost never hear the Beatles.


That's a good point.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 16, 2022)

Ralph Norton said:


> FWIW: I live in a college town. When I walk around on weekends I hear Zep, AC/DC, Doors, etc.. I almost never hear the Beatles.


Cashmere!  I just thought of the song.  So I know 2 Zepplin songs.  Cashmere and Stairway to Heaven.  LOL.  

How about, want a whole lot of love?  There's a 3rd song I can remember.  I could rattle off a bunch of Beatles songs.  But yea, in college, I wouldn't be listening to them either.  The doors maybe but not the Beatles.


----------



## Mac-7 (Mar 16, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> Off the top of my head I can't name 2 members of Led Zepplin.  And I'd have to think hard to name 3 songs.  Stairway to Heaven, ....that's it.
> 
> Or that song that goes DA DA DA, DA DA DA, DA what beat as the sunshine that fills my rage, cause blablablabla, whoa, whoa, what's the name of that song?
> 
> ...


Paul McCartney is still doing concerts

and most of the music he plays is Beatles songs

not Wings, or very much of his oen music after the Beatles

and he’s usually joined by a long list of talented musicians from other bands

when the camera pans the audience you see Beatles fans from 7 to 70 lip syncing 
     the songs


----------



## Mac-7 (Mar 16, 2022)




----------



## Wickerthing (Mar 16, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> I simply said black people don't love the Beatles.  Why did I say that?  Because Wicker said this
> 
> To compare the Beatles to Britney Spears is ludicrous. Shows clearly that you know absolutely nothing about music or history. Do you know the impact that they had on youth in Russia and throughout the USSR? Many Russian youth learned to speak English through Beatles lyrics. They traded bootlegged copies of albums and even developed a technique to use the plates from XRays to hold and play back the music. Beatles music opened their horizons and introduced them to freedoms that many didn't realize they were being denied. They held underground raves and fell in love to the music of the Beatles. It affected their lives in many positive ways because they knew that what they were listening to was special and classic. They loved the Beatles music on an even deeper level than many American kids did. Britney Spears is a silly and ignorant comparison.
> 
> ...


WTF are you getting at?    The only logical question is the first one.  Beatles and every rock and roll band were influenced by black music.  Rock came from Blues.  Beatles were influenced by The Isley Bros, little Richard, Chuck Berry and many of the early blues artists.   The rest of your post is bizarre and silly.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 16, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> Paul McCartney is still doing concerts
> 
> and most of the music he plays is Beatles songs
> 
> ...


Yea!  Who cares what stupid college kids are listening.  They like Zepplin better because they are high and drunk.  I liked the Doors in college better than the Beatles for the same reason but today I prefer the Beatles.  Led Zepplin is one kind of music and limited.  The Beatles have so many albums and they are so different.  Know which ones I like the most?  The first couple/few.  Then I feel like they got weird and lost me.  But today I even like that stuff.  You know, Seargeant Pepper I am the Iceman co co ka choo?  WTF?


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 16, 2022)

Wickerthing said:


> WTF are you getting at?    The only logical question is the first one.  Beatles and every rock and roll band were influenced by black music.  Rock came from Blues.  Beatles were influenced by The Isley Bros, little Richard, Chuck Berry and many of the early blues artists.   The rest of your post is bizarre and silly.


Sorry probably just being silly/stupid.  LOL


----------



## Ringo (Mar 16, 2022)




----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 16, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> In the end history will decide
> 
> whoever has the most music remembered and loved by the most future generations gets to take a seat next to motzart
> 
> And I think that will be the Beatles


well they got the first 50 years out of the way.....


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 16, 2022)

Ringo said:


>


The narrator sucked.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 16, 2022)

Ringo said:


>


Have you listened to DJ Cassidy?  He has the best singers from the 90's/2000's sing to their own hits in a mix style.  Sweet!


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Mar 16, 2022)

Never was a Beatles fan.
They have a few songs I can tolerate tho.

I think most of their fans were pre-teen girls....or teen age kids on LSD....(teenage wasteland kinda thing)
One example.....Elton John's rendition of Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds blows the Beatles rendition out of the water.  Just a far better piece by Mrs. John.

Another...their Christmas song Simply Having A Wonderful Christmas Time makes crowds of people nauseous
There was really nothing special about them.  They were just beneficiaries of the times and changing culture.  Long hair.  Elvis could swing his hips.  Things like that.   Today it's hateful RAP or singing about WAP that makes you famous.   Still the same garbage and idiots that feed on it.


----------



## Ringo (Mar 26, 2022)




----------



## justoffal (Mar 28, 2022)

Stashman said:


> *Led Zeppelin Vs. The Beatles
> Who Is The Rock-N-Roll G.O.A.T.?*​First off I have to say that I am an unapologetic Zep head, and get tired of hearing my whole life that the Beatles are the greatest rock band in history*. *But is this really true?
> 2nd off I want to say that the Beatles were a great band who were way ahead of their time. Their songs will ALWAYS be remembered as some of the greatest ever written. Someone would be hard pressed to find a greater collaboration as was the case with McCartney and Lennon.
> I will state my case for Zeppelin below, and would love to hear yours.
> ...


I have to go with the stones...

Jo


----------



## 1stNickD (Apr 2, 2022)

Wickerthing said:


> I remember when the Beatles were compared to the Rolling Stones and of course we heard "who's better?"  And someone said (I don't remember who)  "It's like comparing Rembrandt to a house painter.  They are both painters but not in the same way."   That's a good way to look at this argument.  Call both rockers but not in the same way.  The Beatles ran the gamut from Metal to Classical and Zeppelin remained in the rock world for the most part.  I think history will tell the story in that Beatles music is timeless to a greater degree.  I love them both but for different reasons.  I only wish that The Beatles had lasted as long.  Zep's rendition of "Kashmir" live from Celebration Day reminded me that greatness can indeed endure time.


I never wanted to drive 160 mph when I listened to the Beatles.  Like you say I like them both and for different reasons.

Who is to say if an apple is better than an orange?

You pretty much mentioned the three best Rock and Roll bands in your post, any of which could be rated number one by a listener for good reasons.


----------



## 1stNickD (Apr 2, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> Beatles were a marketing gimmick laid out by George Martin. Zeppelin was a rock band, and not ever going to sell as many records to 12 year old middle girls; the Beatles were an updated barbershop quartet who did pop music, and really weren't original; the Dave Clark Five paved the way for their stylizations. The reason the DC 5 didn't succeed nearly as much in sales as the Beatles was their vocals were too masculine and 'old sounding' than the girly man Beatles pop tones, same with the fluffy lyrics.
> 
> Even the Ronettes were more adult sounding than the Beatles, and could probably kick their asses in a bar fight.
> 
> Britney Spears appeals to the same demographics as the Beatles did in their day; Zeppelin sells to the same demographics that would buy a Janis Joplin album. Guess which demographic has always bought the most records since the 1940's, and always will. Album rock became popular with the advent of FM stereo radio, and the proliferation of decent stereo systems at reasonable prices; pop music was tuned to what sounded better on cheap car radios and portables, i.e. a narrow high range in vocals and instrumentation.


You play to the technology available. When decent Stereo's first came out is when many bands really started going crazy with instrumental solos and anthems so the stoners could go WOO0000o0W when a guitar lick suddenly circled the room followed by a keyboard and snare drum...  Johnny Winters "Frankenstein" would never have worked on a monotone system.  Artists like Joe Walsh and Peter Frampton made a killing  by splitting the music and small town equipment inventors were suddenly famous behind the scenes.  The Allman Brothers long, long jam music was perfect for the album world, and still one of my favorite go to's on long road trips. But for pure kick your face in rock and roll,  Zeppelin pulls you in and doesn't let you go.  Like I said to another poster, Kashmir would make me want to drive 160 mph.

Briteny spears should never even be mentioned along with any rock and roll conversation, no matter how much you dislike a band. (for my money she shouldn't be mentioned at all for any reason). Early Beatles were certainly sock hop rock, but the last few albums such as Abbey Road (my personal favorite of theirs) were really good. The fact that they all had successful solo careers speaks to their talents. 

A lot of people wouldn't understand the driving around with your favorite girl and an AM radio hoping to hear good music. WGN from Chicago played the most in the Midwest, and when the "skip" was just right one could listen in from hundreds of miles away for several songs at a time before the static took over again.  When Steely Dan's "FM" song is played it still takes me back to the days of my old beaters and one of my all time favorite pick up trucks that had an FM converter screwed to the bottom of the solid metal dash board.

 When KSHE 95 on FM in St. Louis came along, with low and slow talking DJs who sometimes spun entire albums without interruption, it was like a giant wormhole had opened up and brought a whole new universe to we youngens.


----------



## Wickerthing (Apr 3, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> Are you sure about that? I count 13:
> 
> Please Please Me
> With The Beatles
> ...


Don't forget Meet the Beatles and Yesterday and Today.  And I know there's more but can't think of them right now.


----------



## Wickerthing (Apr 3, 2022)

1stNickD said:


> You play to the technology available. When decent Stereo's first came out is when many bands really started going crazy with instrumental solos and anthems so the stoners could go WOO0000o0W when a guitar lick suddenly circled the room followed by a keyboard and snare drum...  Johnny Winters "Frankenstein" would never have worked on a monotone system.  Artists like Joe Walsh and Peter Frampton made a killing  by splitting the music and small town equipment inventors were suddenly famous behind the scenes.  The Allman Brothers long, long jam music was perfect for the album world, and still one of my favorite go to's on long road trips. But for pure kick your face in rock and roll,  Zeppelin pulls you in and doesn't let you go.  Like I said to another poster, Kashmir would make me want to drive 160 mph.
> 
> Briteny spears should never even be mentioned along with any rock and roll conversation, no matter how much you dislike a band. (for my money she shouldn't be mentioned at all for any reason). Early Beatles were certainly sock hop rock, but the last few albums such as Abbey Road (my personal favorite of theirs) were really good. The fact that they all had successful solo careers speaks to their talents.
> 
> ...


I'm still a big fan of the Winter's.  Johnny'e great but Edgar is a virtuoso.  Ever see the live version of Tobacco Road?


----------



## Wickerthing (Apr 3, 2022)

Lately I've been watching reaction videos on Youtube.  Young folks reacting to 50's til 90's music.  Many grew up just listening to Rap and Hip Hop and I love watching their reaction to actual music, with instruments, original songs and no "Samples"  I hate that shit.  Write your own Music!!  LOL


----------



## toobfreak (Apr 3, 2022)

Stashman said:


> Led Zeppelin Vs. The Beatles - Who Is The True Rock G.O.A.T.?​


Pure rock: Emerson, Lake and Palmer.  Jazz Rock: Mahavishnu Orchestra.



Stashman said:


> *4. Drums. *Do I even really have to point this out. John Bonham is considered the greatest rock drummer in history.​


Not in my book.  In reality, he cannot come within a mile of Michael Walden.


----------



## Ringo (Apr 4, 2022)




----------



## Stashman (Apr 4, 2022)

Wickerthing said:


> Lately I've been watching reaction videos on Youtube.  Young folks reacting to 50's til 90's music.  Many grew up just listening to Rap and Hip Hop and I love watching their reaction to actual music, with instruments, original songs and no "Samples"  I hate that shit.  Write your own Music!!  LOL


I watch those too. It is hard to believe though that some of these reactors have never heard Stairway To Heaven.


----------



## Stashman (Apr 4, 2022)

1stNickD said:


> You play to the technology available. When decent Stereo's first came out is when many bands really started going crazy with instrumental solos and anthems so the stoners could go WOO0000o0W when a guitar lick suddenly circled the room followed by a keyboard and snare drum...  Johnny Winters "Frankenstein" would never have worked on a monotone system.  Artists like Joe Walsh and Peter Frampton made a killing  by splitting the music and small town equipment inventors were suddenly famous behind the scenes.  The Allman Brothers long, long jam music was perfect for the album world, and still one of my favorite go to's on long road trips. But for pure kick your face in rock and roll,  Zeppelin pulls you in and doesn't let you go.  Like I said to another poster, Kashmir would make me want to drive 160 mph.
> 
> Briteny spears should never even be mentioned along with any rock and roll conversation, no matter how much you dislike a band. (for my money she shouldn't be mentioned at all for any reason). Early Beatles were certainly sock hop rock, but the last few albums such as Abbey Road (my personal favorite of theirs) were really good. The fact that they all had successful solo careers speaks to their talents.
> 
> ...


I remember picking up rock from over the Texas border where Wolfman Jack would be doing his thing. Your right that Ms. Spears is a farce, and it's hard to believe that anyone would take her music seriously. I doubt anyone 20 yrs. from now will be hearing anything from her on the radio.

As far a tech goes. It's always been amazing to me how Jimmy Page was able to use recording techniques back than that would pan both left and than right in the headphones of the day. AMAZING!


----------



## Wickerthing (Apr 4, 2022)

Stashman said:


> I remember picking up rock from over the Texas border where Wolfman Jack would be doing his thing. Your right that Ms. Spears is a farce, and it's hard to believe that anyone would take her music seriously. I doubt anyone 20 yrs. from now will be hearing anything from her on the radio.
> 
> As far a tech goes. It's always been amazing to me how Jimmy Page was able to use recording techniques back than that would pan both left and than right in the headphones of the day. AMAZING!


My great niece is a hip hop head who I've been encouraging to listen to other stuff.  I told her about the Beatles and she said,  I've heard of them and I listened and didn't like it.  "I wanna hold your hand?"  That's baby stuff.  I absolutely made her sit and listen to the whole Abbey Road album.  When it was over, she was stunned.  Sat there with her jaw in her lap. I asked her if she was just responding that way to please me.  She said, "no way! I didn't know that they were like this!." " I've never heard anything like this.  It was an eye opener for me.  Why isn't there this kind of stuff now?"  I didn't have an answer for her.  Then I had her listen to "Good Vibrations" by the Beach Boys and she went nuts.  I sent her home with copies of about 20 CDs from Beatles to Zep to Springsteen to Boz Scaggs to Al Jarreau to Alan Parsons Project.  I'm waiting for her to tell me what she liked.  It was amazing to watch the lights go on in her eyes.


----------



## Stashman (Apr 4, 2022)

Wickerthing said:


> My great niece is a hip hop head who I've been encouraging to listen to other stuff.  I told her about the Beatles and she said,  I've heard of them and I listened and didn't like it.  "I wanna hold your hand?"  That's baby stuff.  I absolutely made her sit and listen to the whole Abbey Road album.  When it was over, she was stunned.  Sat there with her jaw in her lap. I asked her if she was just responding that way to please me.  She said, "no way! I didn't know that they were like this!." " I've never heard anything like this.  It was an eye opener for me.  Why isn't there this kind of stuff now?"  I didn't have an answer for her.  Then I had her listen to "Good Vibrations" by the Beach Boys and she went nuts.  I sent her home with copies of about 20 CDs from Beatles to Zep to Springsteen to Boz Scaggs to Al Jarreau to Alan Parsons Project.  I'm waiting for her to tell me what she liked.  It was amazing to watch the lights go on in her eyes.


What's passing for music these days is pathetic to say the least. They go on stage and no one is even playing instruments. It's all created in the studio electronically. Than they auto-tune everything. I saw a youtube video of a guy who auto-tuned Elvis. ELVIS! The most perfect voice of all time. When you take the human out of music it is no longer music IMO. We need to educate the younger generation as to what rock is before it's to damn late. Right now old classic rock is outselling new stuff and that's good, but I don't know how long that will last.


----------



## badbob85037 (Apr 5, 2022)

Stashman said:


> *Led Zeppelin Vs. The Beatles
> Who Is The Rock-N-Roll G.O.A.T.?*​First off I have to say that I am an unapologetic Zep head, and get tired of hearing my whole life that the Beatles are the greatest rock band in history*. *But is this really true?
> 2nd off I want to say that the Beatles were a great band who were way ahead of their time. Their songs will ALWAYS be remembered as some of the greatest ever written. Someone would be hard pressed to find a greater collaboration as was the case with McCartney and Lennon.
> I will state my case for Zeppelin below, and would love to hear yours.
> ...


If I had Zeppelin and the Beatles to pick from I would have  to pick the Stones. Also for blues' of course Zeppelin ripped off a lot of old blues songs.


----------



## Stashman (Apr 5, 2022)

badbob85037 said:


> If I had Zeppelin and the Beatles to pick from I would have  to pick the Stones. Also for blues' of course Zeppelin ripped off a lot of old blues songs.


The entire British invasion before Led Zeppelin was even a band took old American blues tunes and reworked them and sent them back to the States. Nothing new as far as that goes.
When was the last time the Stones were viable? Hell they've done what now like 80 albums and still need to sell about 50 million to catch Led Zeppelin. Considering how old the Stones are I don't see that ever happening. Not putting them down though. In their early days they were great. My first rock record was Angie by the Stones.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Apr 16, 2022)

I look at it this way:  I think it's a safe bet that more people decided to become musicians after seeing The Beatles than those who decided to become musicians after seeing Led Zeppelin. In terms of their influence, it's silly to even try to debate it. The Beatles win in a walk.

When it comes to musicianship, however, I don't know that anyone would try to make the case that McCartney was a superior bass player to John Paul Jones, or that John Bonham was a wannabe compared to Ringo Starr. Could Harrison or Lennon hang with Page on a 24 bar lead break? Yeah, probably not. Songwriting? That's a wash, I think. I know people who think that both bands are responsible for some of the best songs ever written. And then there are those who believe it's all derivative garbage.

If you put a gun to my head, though, and insisted I pick, I would have to consider the fact that there's not a single Beatles song I turn up as loud as I turn up "Kashmir"...


----------



## Wickerthing (Apr 16, 2022)

There were some awesome groups back in the 60s and 70's that are largely overlooked.  Rascals, Paul Revere and the Raiders, The Guess Who, Beach Boys,  Santana,  The Sweet,  Tommy James and the Shondells,  CSN etc etc.  I was never a big Stones fan except one song,  Start Me Up.


----------



## Feeding Crows (Apr 17, 2022)

Being a huge fan of both, and many others...

The Beatles were the greatest rock group in history. Period. There's no contest here. 

The Rolling Stones were the 2nd greatest rock group in history. 

Led Zeppelin was the greatest hard rock group in history, there is no question about that. 

Pink Floyd was the greatest alternative music group in history. 

And the Kinks! They are a mish-mash of all the music groups and deserve some prominence.


----------



## Feeding Crows (Apr 17, 2022)

What band would I put on a playlist on a desert island? Just one band? Beatles for sure. Kinks 2nd.


----------



## Feeding Crows (Apr 17, 2022)

Here's for man-empowerment! The Beatles were the first to do it.


----------



## Ringo (Apr 17, 2022)




----------



## Feeding Crows (Apr 17, 2022)

They were concerned about lesbians back then.  They were so progressive...


----------



## playtime (May 17, 2022)




----------



## playtime (May 17, 2022)




----------



## Zincwarrior (May 17, 2022)

Metallica superior. Lame retirement home music inferior.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 17, 2022)

Zincwarrior said:


> Metallica superior. Lame retirement home music inferior.


what is retirement home music?.....


----------



## Zincwarrior (May 17, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> what is retirement home music?.....


Beatles, Led Zeppelin.


----------



## miketx (May 17, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> what is retirement home music?.....


That's where some demented 90 year old woman wearing nothing but a robe, hides in the shadows and jumps out flashing people while screaming like a banshee!


----------



## Zincwarrior (May 17, 2022)

butchyboy said:


> That's where some demented 90 year old woman wearing nothing but a robe, hides in the shadows and jumps out flashing people while screaming like a banshee!


So you've met my mother in law!


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 17, 2022)

Zincwarrior said:


> Beatles, Led Zeppelin.


you mentioned metallica....those guys are just about retirement age....


----------



## Zincwarrior (May 17, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> you mentioned metallica....those guys are just about retirement age....


Almost.


----------



## justoffal (May 17, 2022)

Ringo said:


>


The ZEP all day long


----------



## TeeDub (May 18, 2022)

Zincwarrior said:


> Metallica superior. Lame retirement home music inferior.


Hate to upset you but last week I heard Metallica at the grocery store. Metallica on Muzak, it is over...


----------



## Feeding Crows (May 18, 2022)

Gosh, I don't remember my post on this, but I do have to say that the Beatles are the best based on song-writing abilities. 

Zeppelin is a far superior band, and wrote lots of my favorite music, but the Beatles are just the kings. The only band that can come close is the Stones, but the Beatles are still head and shoulders over them. I'm not a big fan of early Beatles, but from 1965 on, when Paul died, they made the most iconic songs ever.


----------



## Wickerthing (May 18, 2022)

I'm old enough to have lived the whole Beatles experience.  From the early crude fluff to the breakup and the best of their music. I've come to realize that my favorite songs were pretty much all written and/or performed by George Harrison.  Makes me wish that the Lennon/McCartney team had invited his songwriting talent to break through a lot sooner.  George's music was uplifting, beautiful and joyful.  I love: I Me Mine, Here Comes the Sun, When We Was Fab, Something, etc etc.


----------



## Wickerthing (May 19, 2022)

Freedom Crows Nest said:


> Gosh, I don't remember my post on this, but I do have to say that the Beatles are the best based on song-writing abilities.
> 
> Zeppelin is a far superior band, and wrote lots of my favorite music, but the Beatles are just the kings. The only band that can come close is the Stones, but the Beatles are still head and shoulders over them. I'm not a big fan of early Beatles, but from 1965 on, when Paul died, they made the most iconic songs ever.


I'm sure that 1965 "when Paul Died" was said in jest, right?


----------



## Golfing Gator (May 19, 2022)

Stashman said:


> *Led Zeppelin Vs. The Beatles
> Who Is The Rock-N-Roll G.O.A.T.?*​First off I have to say that I am an unapologetic Zep head, and get tired of hearing my whole life that the Beatles are the greatest rock band in history*. *But is this really true?
> 2nd off I want to say that the Beatles were a great band who were way ahead of their time. Their songs will ALWAYS be remembered as some of the greatest ever written. Someone would be hard pressed to find a greater collaboration as was the case with McCartney and Lennon.
> I will state my case for Zeppelin below, and would love to hear yours.
> ...



Only real bone of contention I have with your list is number 4.   Neil Peart is the greatest rock drummer in history.


----------



## Golfing Gator (May 19, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Per my taste:  Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd.



I would put Pink Floyd before the other 3.


----------



## Feeding Crows (May 21, 2022)

Wickerthing said:


> I'm sure that 1965 "when Paul Died" was said in jest, right?


Of course


----------



## Feeding Crows (May 21, 2022)

Golfing Gator said:


> I would put Pink Floyd before the other 3.


My list is Beatles, Zep, Stones, Floyd, Kinks, and then we can go from there.

Floyd was #3 for me, but I've really gotten into the Stones lately, and i gotta say, wow! They moved up a spot.


----------



## Feeding Crows (May 21, 2022)

Best Zep song vs best Beatle song... Let's do it!


----------



## Feeding Crows (May 21, 2022)

In my personal opinion, In My Life is the greatest Beatle song. Stairway to Heaven is Zep's greatest song, again in my humble opinion. These are both arguable. But which one is better? How do we compare the two groups? Different styles.


----------



## Feeding Crows (May 21, 2022)

Zep is the greatest hard rock band ever. No question, period. 

The Beatles are the greatest rock & roll band ever. I got to leave it at that. 

Floyd is the greatest psychedelic band ever. And the Stones are overall great. But the Kinks is a band that people underestimate. I love the Kinks!


----------



## Feeding Crows (May 21, 2022)




----------



## Feeding Crows (May 21, 2022)




----------



## the other mike (May 21, 2022)

Marco Sfogli.


----------



## Wickerthing (May 21, 2022)

Freedom Crows Nest said:


> My list is Beatles, Zep, Stones, Floyd, Kinks, and then we can go from there.
> 
> Floyd was #3 for me, but I've really gotten into the Stones lately, and i gotta say, wow! They moved up a spot.


The sixties thru the eighties were so jam-packed with talent that it's pretty much impossible to stop at a top 5 or top 10.  Top 100?  Maybe.  If you overlook the hundreds of others.  LOL


----------



## Wickerthing (May 21, 2022)

Moody Blues are in my top 10.  Anyone else?  Did anyone see the show with Gary Brooker and the Dutch Nat'l symphony that was done in the 2000's?  His voice is better than ever and the whole thing is magical.  Especially, "A Whiter Shade of Pale."  It's on facebook.  Check it out to be awed.


----------



## Snouter (May 22, 2022)

In all honesty Paul McCartney and George Martin were the minds who came up with most respectable Beatle content.  Zeppelin consisted of two top studio musicians who hired a Joe Morello inspired drummer who could keep a groove live and one of the best bluesy multi-octave vocalists before the medical issues in '72 or so which prevented him from singing like he did before.


----------



## Feeding Crows (May 22, 2022)

Snout! Long time no see!! How you doing bro? You know me from a different board.

This guy knows his music. He plays a mean guitar.


----------



## Feeding Crows (May 22, 2022)

Paul did come up with most of the greatest hits of the Beatles. But John and George made great songs too. They were at their best when they were collaborating. But truly the best songs came out when they were doing things by themselves, and the rest of the band was a backup.


----------



## Wickerthing (May 22, 2022)

Freedom Crows Nest said:


> Paul did come up with most of the greatest hits of the Beatles. But John and George made great songs too. They were at their best when they were collaborating. But truly the best songs came out when they were doing things by themselves, and the rest of the band was a backup.


Yeah, people talk about the Beatles, "How could they have been any better?"  Well, by allowing George to play a bigger role in the writing and performing.  Maybe it's just my opinion but my fave stuff came from him.


----------



## Feeding Crows (May 22, 2022)

He had his chance afterwards. He made some great songs during and after! But the Beatles were Paul and John. George was allowed one or two songs per album. And he made the best of it!!!


----------



## Ringo (May 22, 2022)

Wickerthing said:


> Well, by allowing George to play a bigger role in the writing and performing.


The record contains 14 songs. If more, then the sound quality will suffer.
 According to the contract, the Beatles had to release 2 LРs a year, so in order to insert more George songs, it was necessary to throw out some Lennon-McCartney songs. Which of their songs would you sacrifice? Considering that we know these songs, but George's songs are unknown to us...
 Harrison's talent was especially evident towards the end of the Beatles' existence and these songs did not disappear, we can hear them in the first albums of Harrison


----------



## Wickerthing (May 22, 2022)

Ringo said:


> The record contains 14 songs. If more, then the sound quality will suffer.
> According to the contract, the Beatles had to release 2 LРs a year, so in order to insert more George songs, it was necessary to throw out some Lennon-McCartney songs. Which of their songs would you sacrifice? Considering that we know these songs, but George's songs are unknown to us...
> Harrison's talent was especially evident towards the end of the Beatles' existence and these songs did not disappear, we can hear them in the first albums of Harrison


Sounds like someone who just needs to be right about something.  What don't you get about opinion?


----------



## Golfing Gator (May 23, 2022)

Freedom Crows Nest said:


> My list is Beatles, Zep, Stones, Floyd, Kinks, and then we can go from there.
> 
> Floyd was #3 for me, but I've really gotten into the Stones lately, and i gotta say, wow! They moved up a spot.



The Kinks, not many put them in their top 5.   Nice.

My list would be Rush, Floyd, Yes, Moody Blues, Van Morrison.  The last is a very late addition to my list, I seem to have mellowed as age.


----------



## Ringo (May 23, 2022)

Wickerthing said:


> What don't you get about opinion?


Оpinion? What I have said is Truth and Fact, not opinion. 
I repeat - in order to release more George songs on Beatles records, it was necessary to throw out Lennon-McCartney songs.


----------



## Wickerthing (May 23, 2022)

Ringo said:


> Оpinion? What I have said is Truth and Fact, not opinion.
> I repeat - in order to release more George songs on Beatles records, it was necessary to throw out Lennon-McCartney songs.


Feel better now?  I was talking about MY opinion, not yours.  Learn to read and comprehend before you go off on a tangent.  LOL


----------



## Wickerthing (May 23, 2022)

Golfing Gator said:


> The Kinks, not many put them in their top 5.   Nice.
> 
> My list would be Rush, Floyd, Yes, Moody Blues, Van Morrison.  The last is a very late addition to my list, I seem to have mellowed as age.


Van Morrison.  Yes!  We tend to overlook him.  But he was a unique talent.  Nobody sounds like him and nobody writes like him.  Makes me wanna Moondance!!


----------



## Indeependent (May 23, 2022)

Stashman said:


> *Led Zeppelin Vs. The Beatles
> Who Is The Rock-N-Roll G.O.A.T.?*​First off I have to say that I am an unapologetic Zep head, and get tired of hearing my whole life that the Beatles are the greatest rock band in history*. *But is this really true?
> 2nd off I want to say that the Beatles were a great band who were way ahead of their time. Their songs will ALWAYS be remembered as some of the greatest ever written. Someone would be hard pressed to find a greater collaboration as was the case with McCartney and Lennon.
> I will state my case for Zeppelin below, and would love to hear yours.
> ...


I do not begrudge anyone of their taste in music.

This is a multi-level issue...
Paul and John could write one song per day (which they did when they spent a few months in India), each song would easily consist of 4 distinct melodies.
LZ songs would play perhaps 2 short melody lines for 7 minutes, so as composers the John and Paul destroy LZ.
Stairway To Heaven was a miracle and one of the greatest songs of all-time but The Beatles have tons of those.

Paul was right up there with RP, as can be seen in the film Get Back, but their music, with a few exceptions, such as Helter Skelter, never called for maniacal singing.

Instrumentally, until digital recording allowed for split second stopping of music, no one on earth could play 90% of George Harrison's guitar licks and solos.
GH spent hours nailing down every freaking note in the studio much to the chagrin of the asshole named George Martin.

I find LZ to be good music in the car or as background music and I admire their musicianship but to sit back and listen, eh.


----------



## Indeependent (May 23, 2022)

Ringo said:


> Оpinion? What I have said is Truth and Fact, not opinion.
> I repeat - in order to release more George songs on Beatles records, it was necessary to throw out Lennon-McCartney songs.


It was a contractual matter.
Their contract called for a certain number of songs to be performed prior to the contract expiration and L&M had precedence in the contract.
It was up to L&M to forfeit royalties by giving GH more tracks.


----------



## Indeependent (May 23, 2022)

Wickerthing said:


> Yeah, people talk about the Beatles, "How could they have been any better?"  Well, by allowing George to play a bigger role in the writing and performing.  Maybe it's just my opinion but my fave stuff came from him.


GH's songs that were recorded by the Beatles were just as good as L&Ms.
All Things Must Pass had the combination of great songs and terrible production.
GH admitted he put too much bass and echo on ATMP.
If you know of a version of the album that allows for more treble, let me know.


----------



## Indeependent (May 23, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Actually, their transformational breakout was in '65 with _Rubber Soul._
> 
> Dudley's a know-nothing snob who clearly doesn't really know about the latter Beatles.   Anyone who dismisses the Beatles as nothing more than a teenybopper band that never expanded its demographic appeal or grew in terms of composition and sound is an idiot.


The Beatles for Sale was hardly a Tenny-Bopper Album.
Rather morose.


----------



## Indeependent (May 23, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> Much better musically and lyrically than the Beatles. The Beatles crashed and burned when Top Forty pop no longer dominated the business.


When was that?
BTW, LZ was better than most of the post-Beatles albums.
I liked everything McCartney up to and until Band On The Run.


----------



## Wickerthing (May 23, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> GH's songs that were recorded by the Beatles were just as good as L&Ms.
> All Things Must Pass had the combination of great songs and terrible production.
> GH admitted he put too much bass and echo on ATMP.
> If you know of a version of the album that allows for more treble, let me know.


I'll leave all of the minutia to you tech heads.  I don't pick em apart, I just listen and enjoy.  To me, George was as talented as anyone out there at the time.


----------



## Indeependent (May 23, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> Consider all the great song writers and singers. Billy Joel, Elton John, etc. eventually they run out of songs. Perhaps we got just the right amount of them?
> 
> Then you got John lennon solo, paul solo. George Harrison solo. Did ringo do a solo album?
> 
> I think we got the best of the Beatles through Paul. His music all these years has been wonderful. To this day he puts on a great concert. Led Zeppelin does not.


PM has been so-so since Venus and Mars.


----------



## Indeependent (May 23, 2022)

Wickerthing said:


> I'll leave all of the minutia to you tech heads.  I don't pick em apart, I just listen and enjoy.  To me, George was as talented as anyone out there at the time.


It had nothing to do with GH.
GH should not have had Phil Spector produce ATMP.


----------



## Indeependent (May 23, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> I simply said black people don't love the Beatles.  Why did I say that?  Because Wicker said this
> 
> To compare the Beatles to Britney Spears is ludicrous. Shows clearly that you know absolutely nothing about music or history. Do you know the impact that they had on youth in Russia and throughout the USSR? Many Russian youth learned to speak English through Beatles lyrics. They traded bootlegged copies of albums and even developed a technique to use the plates from XRays to hold and play back the music. Beatles music opened their horizons and introduced them to freedoms that many didn't realize they were being denied. They held underground raves and fell in love to the music of the Beatles. It affected their lives in many positive ways because they knew that what they were listening to was special and classic. They loved the Beatles music on an even deeper level than many American kids did. Britney Spears is a silly and ignorant comparison.
> 
> ...


Russians have always loved The Beatles.


----------



## Ringo (May 23, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> PM has been so-so since Venus and Mars.


But he was able to do great come backs time after time as Tag of war, Flowers in the dirt, Flaming pie


----------



## Indeependent (May 23, 2022)

Ringo said:


> But he was able to do great come backs time after time as Tag of war, Flowers in the dirt, Flaming pie


Flowers in the dirt, Flaming pie, upon 3 listenings, were good.
Tug of War pleasant muzak.
Look, PM has nothing to apologize for but he's lost his gift.


----------



## Ringo (May 23, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> Tug of War pleasant muzak.


It is one of the best PM LPs


----------



## Indeependent (May 23, 2022)

Ringo said:


> It is one of the best PM LPs


Nah!
McCartney
RAM
Red Rose Speedway
Band On The Run
1/2 of Venus and Mars
Wings At The Speed Of Sound with most of the songs being limited to 3 minutes.
Back To The Egg with several songs left off.

After that...eh.


----------



## Ringo (May 23, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> Back To The Egg with several songs left off.


Can't stand this LP.  Same as Press to play
But Tug oW is 100% perfect songs.


----------



## Indeependent (May 23, 2022)

Ringo said:


> Can't stand this LP.  Same as Press to play
> But Tug oW is 100% perfect songs.


I think part of the issue is aging.
I stopped listening to PM after Back To The Egg and I'm in my 60s.
I listened last year to TOW about 6 times over 4 days and it left me bored.
My younger brain used to be able to adapt.


----------



## Meathead (May 23, 2022)

Stashman said:


> *Led Zeppelin Vs. The Beatles
> Who Is The Rock-N-Roll G.O.A.T.?*​First off I have to say that I am an unapologetic Zep head, and get tired of hearing my whole life that the Beatles are the greatest rock band in history*. *But is this really true?
> 2nd off I want to say that the Beatles were a great band who were way ahead of their time. Their songs will ALWAYS be remembered as some of the greatest ever written. Someone would be hard pressed to find a greater collaboration as was the case with McCartney and Lennon.
> I will state my case for Zeppelin below, and would love to hear yours.
> ...


You analysis omits the musical compositions.

The Beatles hands down. Zep was good, even great, but they were no Beatles.


----------



## Meathead (May 23, 2022)

konradv said:


> If you’re talking pure volume AND quality, Neil Young has to be in the conversation.


Great guitarist, but I find a whiny edge to his music, very much like himself.


----------



## Indeependent (May 23, 2022)

The Archies were far superior to The Beatles.


----------



## Wickerthing (May 23, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> Russians have always loved The Beatles.


I think the feeling was and is mutual.


----------



## Ringo (May 23, 2022)

"We loved Beatles so much" 1988


----------



## Feeding Crows (May 24, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> I do not begrudge anyone of their taste in music.
> 
> This is a multi-level issue...
> Paul and John could write one song per day (which they did when they spent a few months in India), each song would easily consist of 4 distinct melodies.
> ...


Beatles rule. LZ is #2! Totally agree!

What's the purpose to argue #1 vs #2?  or 3-5? Or 6-10? They're all great musicians that I have tons of love for!


----------



## Wickerthing (May 24, 2022)

Wickerthing said:


> Moody Blues are in my top 10.  Anyone else?  Did anyone see the show with Gary Brooker and the Dutch Nat'l symphony that was done in the 2000's?  His voice is better than ever and the whole thing is magical.  Especially, "A Whiter Shade of Pale."  It's on facebook.  Check it out to be awed.


I got my wires crossed.  Blame it on age.  I meant Procol Harum.  They and Moody blues both recorded a recent gig with the Danish Nat'l Symphony.  Brooker and Procol did Whiter Shade of Pale and Moody Blues did Nights in White Saturn.   Both equally mind blowing.  Check them out on youtube.  You won't be disappointed.  BTW the Orchestra also did a rendition of The Good, The Bad and the Ugly that is one for the ages.


----------



## Feeding Crows (May 25, 2022)

Golfing Gator said:


> The Kinks, not many put them in their top 5.   Nice.
> 
> My list would be Rush, Floyd, Yes, Moody Blues, Van Morrison.  The last is a very late addition to my list, I seem to have mellowed as age.


I love groups that bring a whole new style of music, and the Kinks were doing it for 4 decades  i Love the Kinks!


----------



## Wickerthing (May 25, 2022)

For those who love music history and The Beatles, you really should check out a pair of concerts on DVD.  It's called McCartney in Red Square.  It shows just how big an effect the Beatles had on not only the youth of Russia but the leadership as well.  The Russian Defense Minister talks about how the Beatles music softened him to the west.  He talks about buying Love Me Do and then the entire collection.  It talks to teens and those who were teens back then and how it opened their minds to freedoms that they didn't even know they were being denied.  Plus the music is amazing.  Paul gives it his heart and soul and the Russian audience falls in love with the music all over again.  It's heart warming and educational.  I think I've watched it about 50 times.  Do yourself a big favor and rent it.


----------



## Ringo (Jun 13, 2022)




----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 16, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> The Beatles were  bigger and better




best damn post on this thread. yeah you nailed it,no contest.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Jul 16, 2022)

LA RAM FAN said:


> best damn post on this thread. yeah you nailed it,no contest.


The first corporate sponsored boy band.
And Paul McCartney was the absolute KING of cheesy love songs.
They were so popular because they were one of the first, and they were heavily-heavily-heavily pushed by label radio and the industry in general.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 16, 2022)

iamwhatiseem said:


> The first corporate sponsored boy band.
> And Paul McCartney was the absolute KING of cheesy love songs.
> They were so popular because they were one of the first, and they were heavily-heavily-heavily pushed by label radio and the industry in general.


Wrong on all counts.  They weren't put together by any corporation and had to fight their way into the US.

True about McCartney but he also wrote Helter Skelter and brought in orchestral pieces.  When they started there were ONLY cheesy love songs, they expanded rock to include much more like Penny Lane.

They were so popular because they were so creative, doing what had never been done before.  They deserved to be #1.  The Stones were a very close second followed by every other group/artist that followed.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Jul 16, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Wrong on all counts.  They weren't put together by any corporation and had to fight their way into the US.
> 
> True about McCartney but he also wrote Helter Skelter and brought in orchestral pieces.  When they started there were ONLY cheesy love songs, they expanded rock to include much more like Penny Lane.
> 
> They were so popular because they were so creative, doing what had never been done before.  They deserved to be #1.  The Stones were a very close second followed by every other group/artist that followed.


No
They were pushed by the labels and the industry just like Elvis was.
Not saying Beatles had no talent, obviously they did. But the best ever? - no
Paul McCartney's musical volume consist of about 70% sappy-silly songs, 20% great music and 10% pure garbage.
  Their last year the band barely held together as evidenced clearly by their recording videos where Lennon and Harrison visibly had it up to their necks with McCartney wanting to churn out silly songs.
In Lennons - words "we haven't done anything meaningful or worthwhile for so long.... this song is like all of the others songs about nothing"


----------



## Feeding Crows (Jul 16, 2022)

Paul is probably the greatest songwriter in history. He just farts great songs. Along with John and George, and of course Ringo, they were the greatest band in history. Without a doubt. Even musicians agree that the greatest song ever was "In My Life". 

Your hatred of Paul is based on some John Lennon quotes after the Beatles broke up, which he took back. John and Paul are my idols, along will Billy Joel.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 16, 2022)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Paul McCartney's musical volume consist of about 70% sappy-silly songs, 20% great music and 10% pure garbage.


McCartney wrote some 800+ songs.  If only 20% were great that's still 160 great songs.



iamwhatiseem said:


> Their last year the band barely held together as evidenced clearly by their recording videos where Lennon and Harrison visibly had it up to their necks with McCartney wanting to churn out silly songs.
> In Lennons - words "we haven't done anything meaningful or worthwhile for so long.... this song is like all of the others songs about nothing"


Not true, they were tired of Paul's perfectionism and ego, not his music.


----------



## Feeding Crows (Jul 16, 2022)

This isn't just some sappy song, this is really great songwriting! No rock band could have done this except the Beatles, because of Paul....


----------



## Feeding Crows (Jul 16, 2022)

What artist wouldn't give their right arm to have written this sappy song?


----------



## Indeependent (Jul 16, 2022)

iamwhatiseem said:


> No
> They were pushed by the labels and the industry just like Elvis was.
> Not saying Beatles had no talent, obviously they did. But the best ever? - no
> Paul McCartney's musical volume consist of about 70% sappy-silly songs, 20% great music and 10% pure garbage.
> ...


It's obvious you haven't studied how they got their break after every other label turned them down.


----------



## Ringo (Jul 17, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> It's obvious you haven't studied how they got their break


I smell the scientific discovery of the century! Tell us more, Mr. Science


----------



## Indeependent (Jul 17, 2022)

Ringo said:


> I smell the scientific discovery of the century! Tell us more, Mr. Science


I suggest you do some research; it's rather fascinating how they were rejected by every record company except Parlaphone, a comedy label.
They also wound up doing the same thing as every other artist...
Brian Epstein got 25% of their *Gross Income* for 3 years.
The Publishing Company owned their music.
EMI paid them a paltry sum of money per record, single or album, because they were unknown.
They found out around 1969 that, collectively, they owned Britain 10 million pounds in taxes.
Allen Klein told them to sell the rights to their music in order to pay the taxes and associated fine.

They toured for the first 3 years just to be able to pay EMI, the publisher and Brian Epstein which is why Lennon wanted to quit after Revolver and only wrote to keep up with Paul.
It wasn't a happy story.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Jul 17, 2022)

Feeding Crows said:


> Paul is probably the greatest songwriter in history. He just farts great songs. Along with John and George, and of course Ringo, they were the greatest band in history. Without a doubt. Even musicians agree that the greatest song ever was "In My Life".
> 
> Your hatred of Paul is based on some John Lennon quotes after the Beatles broke up, which he took back. John and Paul are my idols, along will Billy Joel.


There is prolific, and there is great songs/music.
There is probably no one else I can think of. except maybe Paul Williams. who could crank out hit songs like McCartney.
But hit songs are not always, and often not, great music. The good stuff. 
  Compare song writing ability between Prince and McCartney - based on quality - Prince takes that award and McCartney stays in the back seat.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 17, 2022)

iamwhatiseem said:


> There is prolific, and there is great songs/music.
> There is probably no one else I can think of. except maybe Paul Williams. who could crank out hit songs like McCartney.
> But hit songs are not always, and often not, great music. The good stuff.
> Compare song writing ability between Prince and McCartney - based on quality - Prince takes that award and McCartney stays in the back seat.


thats all a matter of opinion......


----------



## Feeding Crows (Jul 18, 2022)

iamwhatiseem said:


> There is prolific, and there is great songs/music.
> There is probably no one else I can think of. except maybe Paul Williams. who could crank out hit songs like McCartney.
> But hit songs are not always, and often not, great music. The good stuff.
> Compare song writing ability between Prince and McCartney - based on quality - Prince takes that award and McCartney stays in the back seat.


I disagree a lot, and I love Prince! 

To compare Prince to the Beatles, let alone McCartney, is a long shot.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Jul 18, 2022)

Feeding Crows said:


> I disagree a lot, and I love Prince!
> 
> To compare Prince to the Beatles, let alone McCartney, is a long shot.


Again I am not talking about number of hits.
I mean, c'mon yellow submarine was a big hit. It's not exactly a great song... it was basically a childrens song. Maxwell Silver Hammer... WTF was that? Again like a childrens sing a long.
  There was a time Beatles could have recorded themselves sneezing and kids would have ran out and bought it.
  Paul McCartney, IMO, was a hit machine. he knew how to write catchy-quick little tunes better than anyone. To this day. 
I am talking quality of music. Again, not to say everything Paul did was kiddie stuff, there was groundbreaking songs mixed in with it.
But writing 1000 little catchy diddies doesn't mean you are the greatest of all time.


----------



## Ringo (Jul 18, 2022)

iamwhatiseem said:


> But writing 1000 little catchy diddies doesn't mean you are the greatest of all time.


Yes, it mean.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 18, 2022)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Again I am not talking about number of hits.
> I mean, c'mon yellow submarine was a big hit. It's not exactly a great song... it was basically a childrens song. Maxwell Silver Hammer... WTF was that? Again like a childrens sing a long.
> There was a time Beatles could have recorded themselves sneezing and kids would have ran out and bought it.
> Paul McCartney, IMO, was a hit machine. he knew how to write catchy-quick little tunes better than anyone. To this day.
> ...


you are using the word "greatest".......greatest means what they have accomplished is greater than the other bands....name a band that equals what the Beatles have accomplished.....maybe BEST is what should be used here....are the Beatles the best there has been so far?...i dont think they were....


----------



## Ringo (Jul 18, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> are the Beatles the best there has been so far?....


Yes, they were.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jul 18, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> I suggest you do some research; it's rather fascinating how they were rejected by every record company except Parlaphone, a comedy label.
> They also wound up doing the same thing as every other artist...
> Brian Epstein got 25% of their *Gross Income* for 3 years.
> The Publishing Company owned their music.
> ...



And, yet, Paul McCartney currently has a net worth just north of $1 _billion _dollars.

Ringo Starr isn't doing too shabby, either...


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 18, 2022)

Ringo said:


> Yes, they were.


thats a matter of opinion.....there are bands who have had far better musicians and who had a lot of success too..... they just were not as great as the Beatles were....but many bands since have had guys who were better players than the Beatles....the only Beatle who could stand with best on their instrument was McCartney on Bass.....but the other 3?.....


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Jul 18, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> you are using the word "greatest".......greatest means what they have accomplished is greater than the other bands....name a band that equals what the Beatles have accomplished.....maybe BEST is what should be used here....are the Beatles the best there has been so far?...i dont think they were....


I can go with that... sort of.
I am thinking of "greatest" as the best there has ever been, not just who did the most songs.
 The Beatles were a significant part of early Rock n Roll, and influenced many other band after them. Anyone saying otherwise has their head buried in the sand.
   But so did Led Zepplin. In fact I believe LED had a longer and greater influence sphere than the Beatles did.
You take The Hollies, earlier than Beatles... McCartney did not like The Hollies because people were comparing them and asking Paul and John are they influenced by them, Paul declined they were - but who knows? I think they probably influenced each other.
 Then you have Buddy Holly who were a HEAVY influence for Paul and John, and where they got the name Beatles from!
  No one band created Rock n Roll, but groups had a larger sphere of influence than other bands did like them. Beatles sphere was massive at the time because of their success. But I am not convinced they have had long term "sound shifting" influence like LED.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 18, 2022)

iamwhatiseem said:


> I can go with that... sort of.
> I am thinking of "greatest" as the best there has ever been, not just who did the most songs.
> The Beatles were a significant part of early Rock n Roll, and influenced many other band after them. Anyone saying otherwise has their head buried in the sand.
> But so did Led Zepplin. In fact I believe LED had a longer and greater influence sphere than the Beatles did.
> ...


Zepplin definitely was a bigger influence in the hard rock world...


----------



## the other mike (Jul 18, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> Zepplin definitely was a bigger influence in the hard rock world...


That's kind of like saying the invention of steel made concrete skyscrapers possible.

but Beatles still thought of the idea of the skyscraper in the first place


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 18, 2022)

the other mike said:


> That's kind of like saying the invention of steel made concrete skyscrapers possible.
> 
> but Beatles still thought of the idea of the skyscraper in the first place


was i right or wrong?....


----------



## the other mike (Jul 18, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> was i right or wrong?....


It's an inherently redundant question to begin with isn't it? Even if Led Zeppelin 'improved' on what the Beatles started , it wouldn't make them better.

It's like saying a 2022 Corvette is better than a mint condition 69 Camaro.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 18, 2022)

the other mike said:


> It's an inherently redundant question to begin with isn't it? Even if Led Zeppelin 'improved' on what the Beatles started , it wouldn't make them better.
> 
> It's like saying a 2022 Corvette is better than a mint condition 69 Camaro.


no its not.....who has a bigger influence in hard rock music....the Beatles or Zeppelin?...


----------



## Leo123 (Jul 18, 2022)

I saw Zep one of the first times they played in SF.   They nearly blew the roof off the place!!!  I believe, at the time, they were 2nd billing to Country Joe and the Fish.   Felt sorry for CJF though.


----------



## the other mike (Jul 18, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> no its not.....who has a bigger influence in hard rock music....the Beatles or Zeppelin?...


That's not the premise of this thread.
If you want to argue in semantics try the education board.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 18, 2022)

the other mike said:


> That's not the premise of this thread.
> If you want to argue in semantics try the education board.


so i was right?....zep was a greater influence in the hard rock world....


----------



## Feeding Crows (Jul 19, 2022)

I'm sorry, you can't use the little catch hits that McCartney would write for the Beatles, and himself. Yeah, there are hundreds!

But that's not what it's about. The Beatles made many of the greatest songs in rock history. Nobody has made more.

You can't call Let it Be, Hey Dude, Yesterday, and countless other songs as "paul fluff". And that's not even including John and George. They made the most iconic songs, and they are all still with us today. They haven't lost a "beat". Greatest band of all time. Even though they did a lot of ballads.

Which brings me to something I was thinking out. Ballads. The Beatles were Rock&Roll, but they played a lot of ballads, and a lot of different style music. So did Led Zeppelin, Stones, and Floyd. So did Elvis!

But everyone calls Elvis the King of R&R, but most of his songs were ballads. Not even written by him.

So it's hard to pigeon hole, "Best Rock and Roll Band", because there's a lot of ballads in the greatest groups.

If we want to go groups that did only R&R, there are very few... Besides heavy metal, and even they did ballads, there's none I can think of!


----------



## Feeding Crows (Jul 19, 2022)

We have to go by what professional musicians consider the greatest group and also the greatest song of all time.

And that's the Beatles almost unanimously, and the song being "in my life".


----------



## Feeding Crows (Jul 19, 2022)

We can have our opinions. In my opinion, Billy Joel (my musical idol, along with Paul and John) is one the greatest songwriters ever, but I can't give him "the best" title because of Paul. And the Beatles were his idols! That's what created Billy Joel.... The Beatles! So I'm going with my idol's idols as the best ever.


----------



## Gracie (Jul 20, 2022)

In my opinion, The Beach Boys were twinsies of the Beatles. Same concept of grabbing teenyboppers and $$$$.  Go after the young girls and boys, not a lot of "great" music.
Again...just my opinion. Everyone has their own style of what they like to hear. Its kinda like who was the best crooner...Sinatra or Crosby or Como.

My own style was Hendrix, Joplin, Led, Stones, etc. Less hard rock was The Animals, Crosby Stills Nash and Young etc, a dash of Moody Blues with a sprinkle of Cat Stevens and similars.


----------



## .oldschool (Jul 20, 2022)




----------



## Ringo (Jul 20, 2022)

Feeding Crows said:


>


Their saddest song was on the same LP


----------



## Feeding Crows (Jul 20, 2022)

I love that song! I play the crap out of it on piano! TY!!!


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 20, 2022)

Feeding Crows said:


> I'm sorry, you can't use the little catch hits that McCartney would write for the Beatles, and himself. Yeah, there are hundreds!
> 
> But that's not what it's about. The Beatles made many of the greatest songs in rock history. Nobody has made more.
> 
> ...


*But everyone calls Elvis the King of R&R, but most of his songs were ballads. Not even written by him.*
i agree he wasnt the king.....if he was he would have been in the Song Writing Hall Of Fame.....something he will never be in....


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Jul 23, 2022)

Stashman said:


> *Led Zeppelin Vs. The Beatles
> Who Is The Rock-N-Roll G.O.A.T.?*​First off I have to say that I am an unapologetic Zep head, and get tired of hearing my whole life that the Beatles are the greatest rock band in history*. *But is this really true?
> 2nd off I want to say that the Beatles were a great band who were way ahead of their time. Their songs will ALWAYS be remembered as some of the greatest ever written. Someone would be hard pressed to find a greater collaboration as was the case with McCartney and Lennon.
> I will state my case for Zeppelin below, and would love to hear yours.
> ...


Zep


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Jul 23, 2022)

Stashman said:


> *Led Zeppelin Vs. The Beatles
> Who Is The Rock-N-Roll G.O.A.T.?*​First off I have to say that I am an unapologetic Zep head, and get tired of hearing my whole life that the Beatles are the greatest rock band in history*. *But is this really true?
> 2nd off I want to say that the Beatles were a great band who were way ahead of their time. Their songs will ALWAYS be remembered as some of the greatest ever written. Someone would be hard pressed to find a greater collaboration as was the case with McCartney and Lennon.
> I will state my case for Zeppelin below, and would love to hear yours.
> ...


Beatles were great no doubt but they are not even my second choice for G.O.A.T. I've never thought about it but i'm not sure they crack my top 5


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jul 24, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> so i was right?....zep was a greater influence in the hard rock world....



Correct, but primarily because The Beatles weren't hard rock.

And it probably bears pointing out  that the thread has nothing to do with who had a bigger influence on hard rock...


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 24, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> Correct, but primarily because The Beatles weren't hard rock.
> 
> And it probably bears pointing out  that the thread has nothing to do with who had a bigger influence on hard rock...


the thread is about Zeppelin and Beatles....two groups who are nothing alike...one is hard rock the other just moderate rock....so yea hard rock gets to be mentioned....


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Jul 24, 2022)

Frankeneinstein said:


> Beatles were great no doubt but they are not even my second choice for G.O.A.T. I've never thought about it but i'm not sure they crack my top 5


Same here...half the songs McCartney wrote sound like children sing-a-longs.
And it was that bubble gum music that ended the band when both Lennon and Harrison had it up to their ears in sappy, meaningless jingles that defined Paul's music.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 24, 2022)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Same here...half the songs McCartney wrote sound like children sing-a-longs.
> And it was that bubble gum music that ended the band when both Lennon and Harrison had it up to their ears in sappy, meaningless jingles that defined Paul's music.


the Beatles were in the right place at the right time.....if the Stones showed up first they would be talked about like the Beatles are....


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Jul 24, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> the Beatles were in the right place at the right time.....if the Stones showed up first they would be talked about like the Beatles are....


Maybe- maybe not.
The record companies and the all powerful radio companies wanted wholesomeness.
And early Beatles were dripping wet with it. They looked like a collection of well behaved ivy league kids.
And they sang songs about puppy love and nonsensical "happy music".






And in that same year (1964).... Here is Rolling Stones






And this is about as "dressed up" as they got.
Shaggy hair, photos with cigarettes hanging out of their mouths... they hardly looked like the pristine white boys the industry was after. And their songs were about straight up sex and protesting the man.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 24, 2022)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Maybe- maybe not.
> The record companies and the all powerful radio companies wanted wholesomeness.
> And early Beatles were dripping wet with it. They looked like a collection of well behaved ivy league kids.
> And they sang songs about puppy love and nonsensical "happy music".
> ...


the Beach Boys had them both beat with the wholesome look....


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Jul 24, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> the Beach Boys had them both beat with the wholesome look....


Well there is that


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Jul 24, 2022)

iamwhatiseem said:


> And it was that bubble gum music that ended the band when both Lennon and Harrison had it up to their ears in sappy, meaningless jingles that defined Paul's music.


They certainly have their place atop the rock-n-roll hierarchy and they were phenoms, but they owe a lot to the timing....
... their music was groundbreaking at the time which also means the competition was thin...by the end of the decade though everyone from the "STONES" to ZEP to THE WHO to FLOYD et al were replacing those, [as Lenon put it], "silly little love songs" with what would become "classic" music and make themselves super bands by the end of the next decade.


----------



## BothWings (Sep 1, 2022)

Songwriting? The Beatles!

Performance? Led Zeppelin!


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 1, 2022)

BothWings said:


> Songwriting? The Beatles!
> 
> Performance? Led Zeppelin!



The Beatles are number 1.  There is no denying it.  Even if you don't like the Beatles, you understand they are number 1.  It goes

1.  Beatles






2-10 (Zepplin, Stones, Doors, Cars, Aerosmith, Jethro Tull, whoever else you want to put in lines 2-10)

So your question should be, besides the Beatles, who is the GOAT.  Then MAYBE Zepplin.  Even without the Beatles that is debatable.  Not saying they aren't number 2.  They could be.  But they most certainly aren't number 1.


----------



## konradv (Sep 1, 2022)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Maybe- maybe not.
> The record companies and the all powerful radio companies wanted wholesomeness.
> And early Beatles were dripping wet with it. They looked like a collection of well behaved ivy league kids.
> And they sang songs about puppy love and nonsensical "happy music".
> ...


At the time the Beatles competition for teen idol status wasn’t the Rolling Stones, but the Dave Clark 5.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Sep 1, 2022)

konradv said:


> At the time the Beatles competition for teen idol status wasn’t the Rolling Stones, but the Dave Clark 5.


I would think The Hollies even more so wouldn't you say?


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 1, 2022)

konradv said:


> At the time the Beatles competition for teen idol status wasn’t the Rolling Stones, but the Dave Clark 5.


34 Top 10 hits

Rolling Stones *23 top 10s*

Not one of Led Zeppelin's 16 singles has reached No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100.​
Led Zeppelin's highest-charting song is 1969's "Whole Lotta Love," which peaked at No. 4.


----------



## Ralph Norton (Sep 1, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> 34 Top 10 hits
> 
> Rolling Stones *23 top 10s*
> 
> ...


And that is your basis for ranking bands?


----------



## konradv (Sep 1, 2022)

iamwhatiseem said:


> I would think The Hollies even more so wouldn't you say?


I saw something a while back that said in ‘64 you were just as likely to see DC5 on TV as the Beatles.  Gotta see if I can find that.

Update: According to Wiki they appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show 18 times, not all in ‘64.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Sep 1, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> 34 Top 10 hits
> 
> Rolling Stones *23 top 10s*
> 
> ...


the Beatles had a bigger fan selection.....many older people at the time liked the Beatles but would never listen to Zeppelin..


----------



## Harry Dresden (Sep 1, 2022)

konradv said:


> I saw something a while back that said in ‘64 you were just as likely to see DC5 on TV as the Beatles.  Gotta see if I can find that.


that was true....i seen the DC5 a few times on TV back then.....


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 1, 2022)

Ralph Norton said:


> And that is your basis for ranking bands?


No ,well, yes.  I don't even base my decision my my own taste.  From a non bias perspective, and I think the vast majority of Americans on the planet would agree, Led Z is not the GOAT.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 1, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> the Beatles had a bigger fan selection.....many older people at the time liked the Beatles but would never listen to Zeppelin..



The Beatles songs which are many also stand the test of time.  So do some of Zeppelin's songs but I don't even know if I can name 5 Zeppelin songs.  

I know they are one of the greatest.  I'm not saying they aren't up there.  You can put them anywhere 2-10 I don't care.  Just not 1.  LOL


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 1, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> the Beatles had a bigger fan selection.....many older people at the time liked the Beatles but would never listen to Zeppelin..


I can see why.  I LOVED the young Beatles.  Listen, ew ah ew do you want to know a secret.  ew ah ew do you promise not to tell whoa whoa whoa closer, ew ah ew.  What a great song.  And there were so many others.

I remember I didn't like it when the Beatles changed.  I liked the older stuff the older people liked.  

And I hated Led Zeppelin growing up.  Same with all the other 80's hair bands.  What's that band with the one arm drummer?  Bands like that.  I hated them.  Billy Squire.  Remember that guy?  Hated that shit.  ACDC, Motley Crew, etc.  Just hated this genre. 

I liked Journey, Jethro Tull, the Scorpions.  

But mostly I was listening to Easy Rock when all my friends were listening to Metalica.  The first time I liked Metalica was the album where their fans said they sold out.  Enter Sandman.  That was good.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Sep 1, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> The Beatles songs which are many also stand the test of time.  So do some of Zeppelin's songs but I don't even know if I can name 5 Zeppelin songs.
> 
> I know they are one of the greatest.  I'm not saying they aren't up there.  You can put them anywhere 2-10 I don't care.  Just not 1.  LOL


If you can't name 5 Led songs than you laughably can't assume anyone to take your opinion seriously about Rock N Roll.
That is simply true.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Sep 1, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> I can see why.  I LOVED the young Beatles.  Listen, ew ah ew do you want to know a secret.  ew ah ew do you promise not to tell whoa whoa whoa closer, ew ah ew.  What a great song.  And there were so many others.
> 
> I remember I didn't like it when the Beatles changed.  I liked the older stuff the older people liked.
> 
> ...


AC/DC wasnt a hair band.....


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 1, 2022)

konradv said:


> At the time the Beatles competition for teen idol status wasn’t the Rolling Stones, but the Dave Clark 5.


That competition lasted months not years and the Stones were their only competition after that.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Sep 1, 2022)

LED was a 80s hair band????????






Please go on.....  HAHAHAHA


----------



## Mac-7 (Sep 1, 2022)

Stashman said:


> *Led Zeppelin Vs. The Beatles
> Who Is The Rock-N-Roll G.O.A.T.?*​First off I have to say that I am an unapologetic Zep head, and get tired of hearing my whole life that the Beatles are the greatest rock band in history*. *But is this really true?
> 2nd off I want to say that the Beatles were a great band who were way ahead of their time. Their songs will ALWAYS be remembered as some of the greatest ever written. Someone would be hard pressed to find a greater collaboration as was the case with McCartney and Lennon.
> I will state my case for Zeppelin below, and would love to hear yours.
> ...


I think Beatles music will still be remembered 100 years from now

Not all their songs, maybe only a few

But most Mozart music is no longer played

Led Zeppelin probably will not be remembered that long


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Sep 1, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> I think Beatles music will still be remembered 100 years from now
> 
> Not all their songs, maybe only a few
> 
> ...


Hard to say... it may all die out in this generation.
They are all about shitty rap, pop or bubble gum country.
Millennials still favored Classic Rock more than anything else, Gen Z - not at all.
 If you look at most popular bands now - you probably wouldn't recognize any of them.
BTS is the most popular apparently - and they sound EXACTLY like Back Street Boys. And I mean exactly the same bubble gum beats.
There is nothing in the least artistic or imaginative about them whatsoever.  Sad.


----------



## konradv (Sep 1, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> That competition lasted months not years and the Stones were their only competition after that.


They had 17 Top 40 hits in the US from ‘64-‘67(Wiki).  That does sound like years.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Sep 1, 2022)

konradv said:


> They had 17 Top 40 hits in the US from ‘64-‘67(Wiki).  That does sound like years.


The Stones is, IMO, the most overrated band in world history.
And I say that knowing Some Girls is one of my all time favorite albums.
 Just about everything Stones did was on 3 albums. And none of them are newer than 40 years.


----------



## TeeDub (Sep 1, 2022)

BothWings said:


> Songwriting? The Beatles!
> 
> Performance? Led Zeppelin!


Performance, I guess you never saw them live. I did 5 times and they were great the first time (their first tour) and they went downhill after that. Too much junk for Jimmy Page and you could see the rest of them were pissed!


----------



## Borillar (Sep 1, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> So? As I pointed out to someone claiming the Beatles were 'innovative' and big 'influencers', they weren't, they were just essentially a marketing gimmick, nothing original, and rock was already well on its way in other directions, more adult and not just more pablum pop. They Beatles couldn't keep up, all they had was some pathetic bubble gum stuff like Abbey Road and Let It Be. Their audience grew up and moved on, they didn't. They were just a pop Boy Band marketing business. They appealed to the same markets then that Britney Spears appeals to today.


Heh, yeah. Rock went from " I want to hold your hand" to "Squeeze my lemon til the juice runs down my leg". It changed from 3 minute pop tunes to 10+ minute epics. Late 60's rock was like a totally different genre from early 60's. Comparing the Beatles to Led Zeppelin is apples and oranges.


----------



## Indeependent (Sep 1, 2022)

Borillar said:


> Heh, yeah. Rock went from " I want to hold your hand" to "Squeeze my lemon til the juice runs down my leg". It changed from 3 minute pop tunes to 10+ minute epics. Late 60's rock was like a totally different genre from early 60's. Comparing the Beatles to Led Zeppelin is apples and oranges.


That's also because Lennon or McCartney or Harrison could write a song with 4 melodies and Plant or Page wrote 2 melodies and played it for 10 minutes,


----------



## DudleySmith (Sep 2, 2022)

iamwhatiseem said:


> The Stones is, IMO, the most overrated band in world history.
> And I say that knowing Some Girls is one of my all time favorite albums.
> Just about everything Stones did was on 3 albums. And none of them are newer than 40 years.



I've heard recordings of their concerts; they sound like shit live, which is why I never wasted money on their over-priced concert tickets. I like a lot of their studio works, but yes, I would only buy their 'greatest hits' compilation albums, and only those because unlike most knock off labels  the Stones had sense enough to keep the rights to quality control on secondary releases of their music

 I did spring for a box seat right over the right side of the stage when Hendrix came to town. Best concert I ever went to. No flashing lights, now scenery, just him and his crew with a few amps and spare guitars playing for over an hour, and sounding just like his records. Cosby, Stills, Nash, and Young was even better live; they did two sets, with a half hour break as their roadies changed up the sound equipment as they moved from covering their acoustic sets to their electric sets. They also sounded just like their records.


----------



## DudleySmith (Sep 2, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> *But everyone calls Elvis the King of R&R, but most of his songs were ballads. Not even written by him.*
> i agree he wasnt the king.....if he was he would have been in the Song Writing Hall Of Fame.....something he will never be in....



He had a great voice and a lot of stage presence; he didn't need to write songs, songwriters were beating down  his door to write for him. Kings have other people to do the lugging.


----------



## DudleySmith (Sep 2, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> That's also because Lennon or McCartney or Harrison could write a song with 4 melodies and Plant or Page wrote 2 melodies and played it for 10 minutes,



lol Dolly Parton could out write both of them on a bad day, as could Tom T. Hall, or Bob Dylan. So did Barry Gordy's staff writers. They don't even make the Top 100 song writers.


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 2, 2022)

konradv said:


> They had 17 Top 40 hits in the US from ‘64-‘67(Wiki).  That does sound like years.


Also from DC5 Wiki: Their popularity in the US mostly dried up by 1967

As I recall, they were considered on par with the Beatles for only a short time as the Beatles evolved and they were just another British Invasion band.


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 2, 2022)

Borillar said:


> Heh, yeah. Rock went from " I want to hold your hand" to "Squeeze my lemon til the juice runs down my leg". It changed from 3 minute pop tunes to 10+ minute epics. Late 60's rock was like a totally different genre from early 60's. Comparing the Beatles to Led Zeppelin is apples and oranges.


The number of Beatles' firsts is impressive, they changed pop into rock.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Sep 2, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> The number of Beatles' firsts is impressive, they changed pop into rock.


They did not.
That is what Beatles fan boys say. And enough of them have been saying it for the past 60 years that non Beatles fans even believe it.

For instance - listen to this record by The Coasters in *1961.
One year before Beatles recorded a single record.*


More importantly perhaps is The Hollies recorded a version of the same song in *1963, *within months of Beatles first release. However The Hollies were playing this version - again - BEFORE Beatles made any splash whatsoever.


There is hype - and there is reality. And the reality is The Beatles were making music crafted from the sounds they were already hearing.


----------



## Indeependent (Sep 2, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> lol Dolly Parton could out write both of them on a bad day, as could Tom T. Hall, or Bob Dylan. So did Barry Gordy's staff writers. They don't even make the Top 100 song writers.


Uh huh.
It all depends on one’s taste.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Sep 2, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> He had a great voice and a lot of stage presence; he didn't need to write songs, songwriters were beating down  his door to write for him. Kings have other people to do the lugging.


so you are in love with the guy....got it


----------



## Harry Dresden (Sep 2, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> lol Dolly Parton could out write both of them on a bad day, as could Tom T. Hall, or Bob Dylan. So did Barry Gordy's staff writers. They don't even make the Top 100 song writers.


Lennon and McCartney dont make the top 100?....it was typo right?....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Sep 2, 2022)

iamwhatiseem said:


> They did not.
> That is what Beatles fan boys say. And enough of them have been saying it for the past 60 years that non Beatles fans even believe it.
> 
> For instance - listen to this record by The Coasters in *1961.
> ...


----------



## gipper (Sep 2, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> Lennon and McCartney dont make the top 100?....it was typo right?....


And Harrison?  

Led Zeppelin was great. More hard rock than the Beatles.

IMO the Beatles were better. They were a hit machine for a long time. Then all of them had successful careers after the Beatles.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Sep 2, 2022)

gipper said:


> And Harrison?
> 
> Led Zeppelin was great. More hard rock than the Beatles.
> 
> IMO the Beatles were better. They were a hit machine for a long time. Then all of them had successful careers after the Beatles.


have to agree....


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Sep 2, 2022)

Harrison was the better Beatle. That is basically generally excepted.
He was the most talented musician and songwriter. His songs were typically less bubble gum pop fare - and more complicated than McCartney's "teeny bop" hits.
McCartney was a hit song writing machine. He could care less how simple, kiddie like they were - just wanted to churn out hits after hits. His ego is legendary. Lennon was the 2nd best Beatle, also a better song writer than McCartney's "3 minute hits".
  You can watch the videos on YouTube of their last recording sessions. Lennon and Harrison both had it up to their ears with Paul insisting on only producing bubble gum. In one video Paul wants to make the guitar sound different, and Lennon says" why does it matter, none of our songs are about anything really are they? We haven't made a meaningful song in so long, I have forgotten it".
  And the next day is the famous video where Harrison quits. Disgusted with how the band was not progressing, and bone tired of McCartney's songs that sounded like children's nursery rhymes.


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 2, 2022)

iamwhatiseem said:


> They did not.
> That is what Beatles fan boys say. And enough of them have been saying it for the past 60 years that non Beatles fans even believe it.


And the reason is because it is true.



iamwhatiseem said:


> For instance - listen to this record by The Coasters in *1961.
> One year before Beatles recorded a single record.*
> 
> More importantly perhaps is The Hollies recorded a version of the same song in *1963, *within months of Beatles first release. However The Hollies were playing this version - again - BEFORE Beatles made any splash whatsoever.
> ...


Every artist starts with what came before and the Beatles were no different as they admit. _ Just Like Me_ is an interesting love song, not unlike the early Beatles pop hits.  The difference is that the Beatles evolved beyond their roots.  They did things with their sound and lyrics (Penny Lane is not a love song and has instruments never heard in Rock before) that had not been done before.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Sep 2, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> And the reason is because it is true.
> 
> 
> Every artist starts with what came before and the Beatles were no different as they admit. _ Just Like Me_ is an interesting love song, not unlike the early Beatles pop hits.  The difference is that the Beatles evolved beyond their roots.  They did things with their sound and lyrics (Penny Lane is not a love song and has instruments never heard in Rock before) that had not been done before.


Of course they did things not done before.
Everyone was doing things not done before. Ha Ha!!
It was a new genre - it wouldn't have been a new genre if everything was the same.
I can absolutely provide 20 songs where The Hollies did things no one else had done before, as Jimi Hendrix, as Eric Clapton, as Led Zeppelin. They were all doing things not done before.

I would be disingenuous, obviously, if I was to attempt to say Beatles never did anything good. Of course they did. They had a lot of _really_ good songs - that was crowded and surrounded by bubble gum pop songs. That is really what Paul was interested in - hits.
The other band members desperately wanted to expand and write meaningful stuff. And that is what ended the Beatles. Paul's insistence on writing "Silly little love songs"


----------



## Indeependent (Sep 2, 2022)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Harrison was the better Beatle. That is basically generally excepted.
> He was the most talented musician and songwriter. His songs were typically less bubble gum pop fare - and more complicated than McCartney's "teeny bop" hits.
> McCartney was a hit song writing machine. He could care less how simple, kiddie like they were - just wanted to churn out hits after hits. His ego is legendary. Lennon was the 2nd best Beatle, also a better song writer than McCartney's "3 minute hits".
> You can watch the videos on YouTube of their last recording sessions. Lennon and Harrison both had it up to their ears with Paul insisting on only producing bubble gum. In one video Paul wants to make the guitar sound different, and Lennon says" why does it matter, none of our songs are about anything really are they? We haven't made a meaningful song in so long, I have forgotten it".
> And the next day is the famous video where Harrison quits. Disgusted with how the band was not progressing, and bone tired of McCartney's songs that sounded like children's nursery rhymes.


Lennon was able to conjure up images well beyond any band that simply complained about not enough sex.
I’m sure Can’t Buy Me Love and You Can’t Do That weren’t as kick ass as anything that came 6 years later.
Helter Skelter was also lame, wasn’t it?

Sarcasm intended.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Sep 2, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> Lennon was able to conjure up images well beyond any band that simply complained about not enough sex.
> I’m sure Can’t Buy Me Love and You Can’t Do That weren’t as kick ass as anything that came 6 years later.
> Helter Skelter was also lame, wasn’t it?
> 
> Sarcasm intended.


Then you agree with me... awesome!
Like I said... Beatles made a lot of really good songs.
Completely surrounded by McCartney's bubble gum pop hits.
Yellow Submarine, Maxwell's Silver Hammer, Ol la di, Ob la da, Wild Honey Pie.... barf!!  What were they thinking???!!
I'


----------



## Indeependent (Sep 2, 2022)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Then you agree with me... awesome!
> Like I said... Beatles made a lot of really good songs.
> Completely surrounded by McCartney's bubble gum pop hits.
> Yellow Submarine, Maxwell's Silver Hammer, Ol la di, Ob la da, Wild Honey Pie.... barf!!  What were they thinking???!!
> I'


When the Beatles got their 2nd contract in 1967, Lennon pretty much stopped writing after Strawberry Field Forever and wrote to keep up with PM.
The fact is that anyone’s lyrics are banal compared to Lennon’s.
The lyrics of most Top 100 songs from 1966 and on were quite syrupy and those who attempted to match Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds sound pretty paltry.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Sep 2, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> When the Beatles got their 2nd contract in 1967, Lennon pretty much stopped writing after Strawberry Field Forever and wrote to keep up with PM.
> The fact is that anyone’s lyrics are banal compared to Lennon’s.
> The lyrics of most Top 100 songs from 1966 and on were quite syrupy and those who attempted to match Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds sound pretty paltry.


 I am just not a McCartney fan.
His ego was his main motivator, and his arrogance to the other members opinions is what limited and ultimately ended the Beatles.
PM wanted to be #1. Period. No room for anyone else. 
In an interview, he was asked a simple question... "Do you get any inspiration from The Hollies" In his answer you can feel his bristling and acrid answer "did you notice on their last album they all wore turtle necks? right after we had a photo shoot wearing turtle necks" - implying that The Hollies were copying them. That answer is quintessential McCartney. I am the best. As if it is impossible he could be inspired by a "competitor". 
  My favorite is Harrison. Lennon second. As far as Ringo... who doesn't like Photographs? Fantastic song.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Sep 2, 2022)

Not really related, as it is one of their "B" songs.... I always loved this song Tangerine by LED.
Great Lyrics... can mean a million different things to a million different people. (Skip to :15)

The lyrics of the first set... I don't know... I think a brilliant way to describe a summer love from years past gone:

_Measuring a summer's day, I only finds it slips away to grey
The hours, they bring me pain
Tangerine, Tangerine, living reflection from a dream
I was her love, she was my queen, and now a thousand years between_


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 2, 2022)

iamwhatiseem said:


> I would be disingenuous, obviously, if I was to attempt to say Beatles never did anything good. Of course they did. They had a lot of _really_ good songs - that was crowded and surrounded by bubble gum pop songs. That is really what Paul was interested in - hits.
> The other band members desperately wanted to expand and write meaningful stuff. And that is what ended the Beatles. Paul's insistence on writing "Silly little love songs"


Too simplistic a view.  It was many things that broke up the Beatles and Paul wrote plenty of Beatle songs that were not silly love songs beginning with Paperback Writer:
Every song Paul McCartney wrote for The Beatles:​
‘Love Me Do’
‘P.S. I Love You’
‘I Saw Her Standing There’
‘Hold Me Tight’
‘All My Loving’
‘Can´t Buy Me Love’
‘And I Love Her’
‘Things We Said Today’
‘Every Little Thing’
‘What You´re Doing’
‘Eight Days a Week’
‘I’ll Follow the Sun’
‘She’s A Woman’
‘Another Girl’
‘The Night Before’
‘Tell Me What You See’
‘I’m Down’
‘I´ve Just Seen a Face’
‘Paperback Writer’
‘Yesterday’
‘Drive My Car’
‘I’m Looking Through You’
‘Michelle’
‘You Won’t See Me’
‘Got To Get You Into My Life’
‘Eleanor Rigby’
‘For No One’
‘Yellow Submarine’
‘Good Day Sunshine’
‘Here, There and Everywhere’
‘Penny Lane’
‘Hello, Goodbye’
‘When I’m 64’
‘Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band’
‘Fixing a Hole’
‘Lovely Rita’
‘Getting Better’
‘She’s Leaving Home’
‘With a Little Help From My Friends’
‘Sgt. Pepper´s Lonely Hearts Club Band (Reprise)’
‘Magical Mystery Tour’
‘Your Mother Should Know’
‘The Fool on the HIll’
‘Blackbird’
‘Ob-la-di, Ob-la-da’
‘Helter Skelter’
‘Mother Nature’s Son’
‘Rocky Raccoon’
‘Wild Honey Pie’
‘Back in the USSR’
‘Lady Madonna’
‘Hey Jude’
‘I Will’
‘Birthday’
‘Honey Pie’
‘Martha My Dear’
‘Why Don´t We Do It in the Road?’
‘All Together Now’
‘Oh! Darling’
‘You Never Give Me Your Money’
‘Her Majesty’
‘Golden Slumbers’
‘Carry That Weight’
‘Maxwell’s Silver Hammer’
‘The End’
‘She Came In Through The Bathroom Window’
‘Get Back’
‘Two of us’
‘Let It Be’
‘The Long and Winding Road’


----------



## Indeependent (Sep 2, 2022)

iamwhatiseem said:


> I am just not a McCartney fan.
> His ego was his main motivator, and his arrogance to the other members opinions is what limited and ultimately ended the Beatles.
> PM wanted to be #1. Period. No room for anyone else.
> In an interview, he was asked a simple question... "Do you get any inspiration from The Hollies" In his answer you can feel his bristling and acrid answer "did you notice on their last album they all wore turtle necks? right after we had a photo shoot wearing turtle necks" - implying that The Hollies were copying them. That answer is quintessential McCartney. I am the best. As if it is impossible he could be inspired by a "competitor".
> My favorite is Harrison. Lennon second. As far as Ringo... who doesn't like Photographs? Fantastic song.


I think they stopped being a band because they were no longer restricted to having to perform in order to pay their bills.
They had different interests and places they wanted to live.
Paul’s biggest issue, as highlighted by session musicians, is that he played a section of a song 1,000 times until he would go onto the next part of the song and that pissed people off.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Sep 2, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Too simplistic a view.  It was many things that broke up the Beatles and Paul wrote plenty of Beatle songs that were not silly love songs beginning with Paperback Writer:
> Every song Paul McCartney wrote for The Beatles:​




‘Love Me Do’ - yuck. Great example of McCartney super simple bubble gum.
‘P.S. I Love You’ - ugh... very 1950ish. And yet another drippy dippy teen  song
‘I Saw Her Standing There’ - heads above the previous two. One of his better lovey dovey songs
‘Hold Me Tight’ - horrendous
‘All My Loving’ - Quintessential McCartney. Simple silly love song
‘Can´t Buy Me Love’ - ditto
‘And I Love Her’ - sappy on steroids
‘Things We Said Today’ - palatable, probably because Lennon was also involved.
‘Every Little Thing’ - yuck
‘What You´re Doing’ - bearable for 20 seconds... must turn it off
‘Eight Days a Week’ - One of his best. Not yet another sappy bubble gum song
‘I’ll Follow the Sun’ - sappy song #41
‘She’s A Woman’ - never heard it till now, sounds like a cover of a blues song
‘Another Girll
Bored of doing this now... but, you only reiterated what I was saying McCartney was a bubble gum hit machine.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Sep 2, 2022)

Now let's look at Harrison


‘Don’t Bother Me’ – _With The Beatles_
‘I Need You’ – _Help!_
_‘_You Like Me Too Much’ – _Help!_
_‘_Think For Yourself’ – _Rubber Soul_
‘If I needed Someone’ – _Rubber Soul_
‘Taxman’ – _Revolver_
‘Love You To’ – _Revolver_
‘I Want To Tell You’ – _Revolver_
‘Within You Without You’ – _Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Heart’s Club_
‘Blue Jay Way’ – _The Magical Mystery Tour_
_‘_While My Guitar Gently Weeps’ – _The White Album_
‘Piggies’ – _The White Album_
‘Long, Long, Long’ – _The White Album_
‘Savoy Truffle’ – _The White Album_
‘It’s All Too Much’ – _The Yellow Submarine_
‘Only A Northern Song’ – _The Yellow Submarine_
‘Something’ – _Abbey Road_
‘Here Comes The Sun’ – _Abbey Road_
_‘_I, Me, Mine’ – _Let it Be_
‘Dig It’ – _Let it Be_
‘For You Blue’ – _Let it Be_
 Do I even need to do an opinion here?
I mean c'mon... the quality of what he did is lightyears better than McCartney


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Sep 2, 2022)

And I don't think you even want to list Lennon


----------



## Indeependent (Sep 2, 2022)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Now let's look at Harrison
> 
> 
> ‘Don’t Bother Me’ – _With The Beatles_
> ...


The only problem is that GH couldn’t write 10+ songs a year like Lennon could.
I hold that pissed off GH was a much better composer than meditating GH.


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 2, 2022)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Now let's look at Harrison
> 
> 
> ‘Don’t Bother Me’ – _With The Beatles_
> ...


Great stuff but apples and oranges.  Most of these songs were Rubber Soul and later.  Compare them to PM's Rubber Soul and later songs and you see why I think PM was one of the best of all time.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Sep 2, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> The only problem is that GH couldn’t write 10+ songs a year like Lennon could.
> I hold that pissed off GH was a much better composer than meditating GH.


yeah GH got a little trippy after Beatles.
Who the hell knows what Wonderwall was all about?


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Sep 2, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Great stuff but apples and oranges.  Most of these songs were Rubber Soul and later.  Compare them to PM's Rubber Soul and later songs and you see why I think PM was one of the best of all time.


I will never accept PM as one of the best of all time.
As a hit machine for teenagers? - hell yes. Probably the best ever. The boy could have recorded a fart and girls would still line up to buy it back then.
As a serious song writer and composer?.... not even in the top 20.
  Compare him to say Billy Joe, not even in the same solar system.
Bob Segar - again, light years better than Paul.
   No one could come up with little pop songs like PM. No one. Closest would be Paul Williams maybe.


----------



## DudleySmith (Sep 2, 2022)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Harrison was the better Beatle. That is basically generally excepted.
> He was the most talented musician and songwriter. His songs were typically less bubble gum pop fare - and more complicated than McCartney's "teeny bop" hits.
> McCartney was a hit song writing machine. He could care less how simple, kiddie like they were - just wanted to churn out hits after hits. His ego is legendary. Lennon was the 2nd best Beatle, also a better song writer than McCartney's "3 minute hits".
> You can watch the videos on YouTube of their last recording sessions. Lennon and Harrison both had it up to their ears with Paul insisting on only producing bubble gum. In one video Paul wants to make the guitar sound different, and Lennon says" why does it matter, none of our songs are about anything really are they? We haven't made a meaningful song in so long, I have forgotten it".
> And the next day is the famous video where Harrison quits. Disgusted with how the band was not progressing, and bone tired of McCartney's songs that sounded like children's nursery rhymes.



McCartney and Lennon just did formula writing. They knew a lot of teenage girls and closeted homos would buy anything they put out there, no matter how insipid it was. And they always had George Martin to critique and edit their stuff.


----------



## DudleySmith (Sep 2, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> And the reason is because it is true.
> 
> 
> Every artist starts with what came before and the Beatles were no different as they admit. _ Just Like Me_ is an interesting love song, not unlike the early Beatles pop hits.  The difference is that the Beatles evolved beyond their roots.  They did things with their sound and lyrics (Penny Lane is not a love song and has instruments never heard in Rock before) that had not been done before.



They got taken in by a serious music producer and had their image polished and marketed.


----------



## DudleySmith (Sep 2, 2022)

Lennon-McCartney's best song was Eleanor Rigby, and of course it was produced by George Martin. Nothing else they did came close to a real song.


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 2, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> They got taken in by a serious music producer and had their image polished and marketed.


Half right.  They were taken in by the owner of a local record shop but he did get them out of leather and into suits and ties.  If you listen to some of their early press conferences they were just irreverent and having a good time.  Pot, acid, and a meeting with Dylan changed them and music forever.


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 2, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> Lennon-McCartney's best song was Eleanor Rigby, and of course it was produced by George Martin. Nothing else they did came close to a real song.


Great song but their best song was Day in the Life on the best album of all time, Sgt. Peppers.  IMHO.


----------



## BothWings (Sep 6, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> The Beatles are number 1.  There is no denying it.  Even if you don't like the Beatles, you understand they are number 1.  It goes
> 
> 1.  Beatles
> 
> ...


Then of course there were people like Clapton fucking all their wives and making massive hits in his own right Clapton made just about as big an impact in several bands that he played in. He was was like one dude that jam with all the best and still maintains his identity. And later by himself long after the the others had expired he kept putting out the hits. Just about everything he does is musically commensurate with the type of life that he lives at the time. I really wonder when he's going to put an album out about fishing. Like for trout and salmon and shit....


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 7, 2022)

BothWings said:


> Then of course there were people like Clapton fucking all their wives and making massive hits in his own right Clapton made just about as big an impact in several bands that he played in. He was was like one dude that jam with all the best and still maintains his identity. And later by himself long after the the others had expired he kept putting out the hits. Just about everything he does is musically commensurate with the type of life that he lives at the time. I really wonder when he's going to put an album out about fishing. Like for trout and salmon and shit....


Can you tell me 3 songs of his I need to listen to that are great?  I appreciate him but can't think of any songs I LOVE of his.

The one song I play of his on guitar is You Look Wonderful Tonight.

Layla is good.

But besides those.  Give me 3 other must hear's.  His BEST.


----------



## BothWings (Sep 8, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> Can you tell me 3 songs of his I need to listen to that are great?  I appreciate him but can't think of any songs I LOVE of his.
> 
> The one song I play of his on guitar is You Look Wonderful Tonight.
> 
> ...


Well, I'm a keyboardist.... But some people call me "the keyboardist that should have been a guitarist". I guess some of my favorite songs to play by him...(when alone and recording for fun I do ALL parts) ...are My Father's Eyes, White Room, Presence of the Lord, Let it Grow, Bad Love, Old Love, Bell Bottom Blues, Layla..... Change the World (I used to know but I have to relearn)....

Cant think of any others right now.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 8, 2022)

BothWings said:


> Well, I'm a keyboardist.... But some people call me "the keyboardist that should have been a guitarist". I guess some of my favorite songs to play by him...(when alone and recording for fun I do ALL parts) ...are My Father's Eyes, White Room, Presence of the Lord, Let it Grow, Bad Love, Old Love, Bell Bottom Blues, Layla..... Change the World (I used to know but I have to relearn)....
> 
> Cant think of any others right now.


I wonder how many of those I would know if I heard them. I’ll look them up.

Right now I’m learning 4 country songs. Or trying to memorize.

I learned a lot of Billy Joel songs learning guitar. Chord songs. But I can’t think of one I remember how to play.


----------



## gtopa1 (Sep 12, 2022)

Without a good melody a lot of Rock to me is just noise. Yes; technically BRILLIANT etc etc but sound like......................meh. Rubber Soul was as far as I am concerned The Beatles at their peak. After that they were experimental far too much but STILL GOOD. Led Zep had a few songs that I really like LOTS, but often just too much noise. 

Greg


----------



## Ringo (Sep 22, 2022)




----------



## Ringo (Sep 25, 2022)




----------



## Quasar44 (Dec 10, 2022)

Beattles cant be beaten I am afraid


----------



## miketx (Dec 10, 2022)

Quasar44 said:


> Beattles cant be beaten I am afraid


Shooting the main one worked...


----------



## toobfreak (Dec 10, 2022)

Quasar44 said:


> Beattles cant be beaten I am afraid



I thought you said that 60's music sucked?

You can really compared LZ to the Beatles, the Beatles were a transitional evolutionary band starting with the pure mixed-acoustic rock & roll of the 1950s and gradually taking it through progressive pop rock all the way into eventually increasingly electrified psychedelic rock, even staged studio rock opera, whereas Led Zeppelin was an outshoot from all of that into an entirely different venue of pure HARD rock.


----------



## 1stNickD (Dec 18, 2022)

Reading this conversation made me think a bit about the music I listened to all of my life.  Most of the songs written in the 60's by anyone had to make it on the heavily censored AM radio airwaves, if the bands wanted to earn enough money to make it worth their time. Most young Americans had a one speaker 45 player at home or a one speaker AM radio in the car. So sure, when you listen to the music they made and songs they wrote, they were working with the mediums and society as they were. Each group had their own formulas for success and targeted different sections of the demographics of the day.  There were a lot of bests from the 60s and 70s. Even today, depending on the mood, or what I'm doing I think different bands rank at the top of the list. I also enjoy deeply the bands that incorporate orchestras into their music such as Chicago and Moody Blues, again depending on what I am doing or the mood at the time, and even who may be sharing my music at the time. The older artist that no longer gets the time he deserves on the airwaves today would be Seger, in my opinion, both his music and the song writing struck at the heart and soul of blue collar America as I knew it in the day. Then Mr. Fagan hit it well for the gritty city world. Just MHO.

I don't play an instrument and couldn't carry a tune in a bucket even if it had a handle, but I know what I enjoy, and sometimes what I feel like listening to on one day, I don't want to hear it at all on another.  All of the talent being mentioned here had/have a lot of talent and business acumen, cause if they didn't know how to do the business end, agents or not, no one would have ever heard of them outside of their garage or maybe a nearby tavern. 

All of that said, I'll take the music of that era over anything on the airwaves today, at any time in any mood.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 18, 2022)

Stashman said:


> *Led Zeppelin Vs. The Beatles
> Who Is The Rock-N-Roll G.O.A.T.?*​First off I have to say that I am an unapologetic Zep head, and get tired of hearing my whole life that the Beatles are the greatest rock band in history*. *But is this really true?
> 2nd off I want to say that the Beatles were a great band who were way ahead of their time. Their songs will ALWAYS be remembered as some of the greatest ever written. Someone would be hard pressed to find a greater collaboration as was the case with McCartney and Lennon.
> I will state my case for Zeppelin below, and would love to hear yours.
> ...


WTF are you talking about?  Zeppelin released singles!  Whole Lotta Love, was a single.  Immigrant Song, was a single.  What Zeppelin has, is the greatest song ever recorded in Stairway to Heaven.  However, the Beatles are the most covered band in history.  Zeppelin did replace the Beatles as the No.1 group in England in 1970.


----------

