Album Rating: 4.0
And so it t'was.
|
| |
hey hey, what can I do.
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
Led Zeppelin is the GREATEST BAND OF ALL TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
That's DEBATABLE!!!!!!!!!!
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
...but to be fair, I think I may agree with you. Sans Beatles, of course.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
It's possible.
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
I dunno...definitely one of the most successful, though.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
Because The Beatles are friggin' amazing. There are numerous examples of The Beatles putting Zeppelin to shame.
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
What do you mean by the Beatles putting Zep to shame?
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
I mean that while Zeppelin were better at playing their instruments, the Beatles were far more innovative. There are instances where the Beatles created better and more clever songs. I still love Zeppelin, though.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
That is quite simply a false statement.Look at my user name. I obviously love Zeppelin. But i'm also willing to admit that not everything they ever did is the best. Some of their stuff is at the top of the list, but not all of it.This Message Edited On 05.24.06
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
Sure you can.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
In some ways, yes. But you can compare different things. Sure, musically they may have been nothing alike. But in terms of innovation, influence, and ingenuity, Zeppelin can't touch the Beatles.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
As a musician, death metal guitarists are far better than, say, George Harrison, but that doesn't mean shi for their songwriting ability.
Sure, they're more technical, but who's better?
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
With technical ability, all the members of Zeppelin were better than the Beatles. Songwriting wise, they were both fantastic, but the Beatles were more innovative and consistent.
|
| |
The Beatles didn't have boring 20 minute drum solos either.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
My opinion on who is better varies quite often. Alot of times I find Zeppelin better. Others it's the Beatles. And Jesus, quit freaking out because he doesn't think like you.
|
| |
The Beatles didn't have boring 20 minute drum solos either.
Only because they weren't talented or innovative enough to do so.
Overall Zeppelin are better musicians but the Beatles were better with the media.
|
| |
there both so different in styles and roots that you can't technically compare them. It's like saying Led Zeppelin is better than Gorillaz because LZ has better guitar solos.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
innovative enough to do so.
You can't seriously say the Beatles weren't innovative. Zeppelin were far from better musicians. They were far better at playing their instruments, but in terms of songwriting, they can't even compare.
|
| |
|
|
