Led Zeppelin Led Zeppelin IV
» Back to review

Comments:Add a Comment 
stompybeardo
June 28th 2006


746 Comments


"yesterday" is one of the most covered songs in history for one- a macca
composition. Plant refined a lot of his stuff on led zep (apart from some great
acoustic numbers) to blues based playing. George moved from simple 50s rock to
psychedilia and blues and pop among others. The beatles worked as a band (note
the dip in quality of all their solo albums over the years). anyways still a good reviewThis Message Edited On 06.28.06

Bron-Yr-Aur
June 28th 2006


4405 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

As long as this is going full steam anyway, Zeppelin is better at playing their respective instruments, no doubt. But the Beatles were far better songwriters, and judging by your analysis and the conclusion that they were nothing without Lennon, I'm led to the conclusion that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. The Beatles most certainly wouldn't have been "another forgotten British Invasion" group, because you're over-looking the fact that they pretty much single-handedly created the British Invasion. Every band that followed (even your/my beloved Zeppelin) owes more to the Beatles, who were vastly more consistent musically (I.E. Zeppelin mis-stepped with Presence, the Beatles never released an album that isn't classic), anyway.This Message Edited On 06.28.06

Rocksta71
June 28th 2006


1023 Comments


^^
I agree with most of what you say, the beatles were more consistant producing at least a hit per album. They were two bands nearly ten years apart, led zeppelin took the lead when their second album was released. Zeppelin worked on the base the beatles and other invasion bands laid, they then moved on from there and became innovators themselves who laid the blueprint for future trends.
Stairway to heaven is the most requested radio song of all time. That alone makes a point.

Bron-Yr-Aur
June 28th 2006


4405 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

They were bands nearly ten years apart




led zeppelin took the lead when their second album was released.




Led Zeppelin II was released the same month as Abbey Road. Not hard to tell which one is superior.



the beatles were more consistant producing at least a hit per album.




There were albums where the Beatles didn't release any singles, and Zeppelin never willingly (only twice being jipped into it) did, either. What I meant by consistent is that they consistently put out better albums.This Message Edited On 06.28.06

Rocksta71
June 28th 2006


1023 Comments


Stairway is the most requested song on radio but thats not why I listen to them, I prefer thier more obscure tracks(if any are?) The Beatles were falling apart at the time Abbey road was released, Zeppelin had only just started off. What I meant by "they were bands nearly ten years apart" is that they were musically ten years apart. The beatles started off playing late 50's pop songs and mved on to Psycadelic stuff. Zeppelin Started off on Blues based music and moved on to hard rock, and then early 80's pop in "in through the out door"

Bron-Yr-Aur
June 28th 2006


4405 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

The Beatles were falling apart at the time Abbey road was released




Actually, they weren't. You're thinking of Let It Be, which was the final album released, but not recorded. I've read in a book by Tony Bramwell (Childhood friend of the Beatles and Apple associate) that Abbey Road went over very well, as there was a feeling of closure to the group, which is in stark contrast to Let It Be. They weren't falling apart, they were already done.



What I meant by "they were bands nearly ten years apart" is that they were musically ten years apart. The beatles started off playing late 50's pop songs and mved on to Psycadelic stuff. Zeppelin Started off on Blues based music and moved on to hard rock, and then early 80's pop in "in through the out door"




The Beatles played everything from 50's pop/rock and roll to psychedelic and more modern (for the time) rock. Zeppelin, while always remaining firmly rooted in blues, were also experimenting in a different psychedelic format on songs such as "Dazed and Confused" and "Whole Lotta Love". This Message Edited On 06.28.06

Rocksta71
June 28th 2006


1023 Comments


It's an opinionated arguement, There is no winner or loser, beside your'e a Beatles fan aren't you?

Bron-Yr-Aur
June 28th 2006


4405 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

The argument isn't what I'm... well, arguing. I've long since accepted that there is really no definitive right or wrong answer. I was merely pointing out factual flaws in what you were saying.



Iluvatar is going to say something completely wrong very soon.This Message Edited On 06.28.06

Activista anti-MTV
June 28th 2006


3154 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5 | Sound Off

Rush is under appreciated.



Rocksta71
June 28th 2006


1023 Comments


Don't know much about them, sorry.

stompybeardo
June 29th 2006


746 Comments


Who are these "rush" fellows? I have to say at least there arent people on this site like my brother who thinks that 50 cent has more talent than led zep, hendrix and the beatles combined-no joke!

Foreskin Fondler
June 29th 2006


279 Comments


like my brother who thinks that 50 cent has more talent than led zep, hendrix and the beatles combined-no joke!

yeah your bro really needs to take some sort of test to check like if he's retarted. who knows maybe he's just borderline retarted.


Bron-Yr-Aur
June 29th 2006


4405 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

Except they're five times better than Zep.




Nah, the best thing about Rush is Peart. They do kick some ass but not more than Zeppelin.



Bron-Yr-Aur
June 29th 2006


4405 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

See here's the thing about all that... You're wrong. Jones and Lee would have to fight to the death to see who's better, and I think Jones would win. And as for philosophical lyrics, Zeppelin only sort of did that in the latter years of their career, the rest were "straightforward rather kicking ones". And Jimmy and Lifeson? Lifeson's good, but Page is far better.



And I'll concede 2112 is godly. But not godly enough.This Message Edited On 06.29.06

Bron-Yr-Aur
June 29th 2006


4405 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

Hmm... Perhaps. Lee does deserve loads of credit, but let us not forget that John Paul does mroe than just bass.

stompybeardo
June 29th 2006


746 Comments


Unless this "rush" band are what iluvatar says they are then it seems zeppelin were probably the best group of musicians working together in the 70s, well maybe bootsy collins and eddie hazel offer some competition

Jacaranda
June 29th 2006


684 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

Nah pretty sure the Who take that cake.

stompybeardo
June 29th 2006


746 Comments


a cake of competition

Rocksta71
June 29th 2006


1023 Comments


Lee has nothing on Jones as Bron put it "let us not forget that John Paul does more than just bass."
Can Lee play a mellotron, or Triple neck mandolin?
I don't think so...


Rocksta71
June 29th 2006


1023 Comments


Okay, just calm down, after all it's all a matter of opinion, you like Rush I like Zeppelin. Obviously we're gonna back the members of our respective bands. Anyway Lee still doesn't play a Triple headed mandolin.



You have to be logged in to post a comment. Login | Create a Profile





STAFF & CONTRIBUTORS // CONTACT US

Bands: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z


Site Copyright 2005-2023 Sputnikmusic.com
All Album Reviews Displayed With Permission of Authors | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy