[QUOTE]and...i dont think they are good enough technically because of the quality of there work..its not as diufficult as other great artists[/QUOTE]

Have you heard the album Blues for Allah? It would not be an outlandish statement to say that it is technically ahead of anything Led Zeppelin or Cream has put out.

[QUOTE=magicbus]Man you are gonna get ripped.

I wouldn't rate Zeppelin higher than the Dead. As for Cream, I like them more, but that doesn't mean the Dead aren't as good (or better, to avoid conflict).[/QUOTE]


ok im not one of those zeppelin f@gs who all they listen to is that.... but zeppelin is undoubtidly the greatest band or one of the greatest (not including the dead) bands ever

[QUOTE=ScuzzBucket89]ok im not one of those zeppelin f@gs who all they listen to is that.... but zeppelin is undoubtidly the greatest band or one of the greatest (not including the dead) bands ever[/QUOTE]

I don't believe that. We could go into plenty of reasons why they aren't the greatest band ever, but that could take all day. When you use words like "undoubtidly" to describe your opinion of them, you [I]do [/I]sound like one of those "zeppelin f@gs".

What's wrong with Zeppelin? Zeppelin rocks :(

It seems to me you're highly ignorant to music.

[QUOTE=ScuzzBucket89]well... from the people i have talked to they seem to rate the dead with zeppelin cream and the other greats..

and...i dont think they are good enough technically because of the quality of there work..its not as diufficult as other great artists[/QUOTE]
Have you ever heard of the beatles?

I'm not going to sit here and argue with you about the technicality of the dead's work. I will however tell you technicality is not and ends its a means. And the thing is as long as you get to the same end the means is hardly of importance (speaking amorally here). If you could work out how much you're really paying for your mortgage using simple addition only the more powwer to you.

Their are only two good reasons to learn to play technically. The first is for fun, for the heck of it, because you enjoy it, and it's part of the art for you. The other is to develop the abilities which will allow you to play the great music you are yearning to write and play, to expand your vocabulary, be innovative, interesting, new, and help you express yourself.

If you're writing great music without being technical it's not a bad thing. If you're going to the same place it doesn't matter if you get there via helicopter or walking, just remember the helicopter can take you alot more places. And that is why "their music is not technical enough" is in no way shape or form a valid argument against the quality of a band.

[QUOTE=rock not roll]What's wrong with Zeppelin? Zeppelin rocks :([/QUOTE]
It's okay man. I'm with you.

[QUOTE=rock not roll]What's wrong with Zeppelin? Zeppelin rocks :([/QUOTE]

Nothing's wrong with Zeppelin. I don't think they're the greatest band in the world. I also don't like them as much as I used to. Probably because I don't like Page.

[QUOTE=Badmoon]Well, for one, do not state your opinion as fact; it's subjective. And too claim that they aren't good enough musicians is pure ignorance. The amount of talent in the Dead's playing is among the highest in Rock music; I'm sure most around here would agree. With the exception of Bob Weir and Pigpen, each musicians' technical skill was proficient and great. That being said, why could a band that wasn't technically be highly praised? The Beatles were not the most instrumentally talented group of guys, but they're the most popular band in the world.

I believe you're lack of knowledge and interest in the Grateful Dead allows to ignore how revolutionary they were in the Rock world and how important they are to today's music.[/QUOTE]
here we go...
look i know one of the biggest dead heads you will ever meet in fact he is my best friend and we discuss this non stop so if you think im ignorant to the deads music you have another thing comin..thats first offf
i know that this is alll sublective you are right every one is entitled to there opinion
but when i rank a band i do not included exceptions like pigpen or wier(and yes i know who they are)
and how dare you compare the greatest song writers in the history of mankind with the greatful dead

your right about... how the dead influenced JAM BANDS like phish and others they did do that and i also agree that they are great musicians but not the greatest of all time

[QUOTE=magicbus]Nothing's wrong with Zeppelin. I don't think they're the greatest band in the world. I also don't like them as much as I used to. Probably because I don't like Page.[/QUOTE]
Really, I find usually plant gets picked on by people who "grow tired" of zeppelin.

[QUOTE=magicbus]Nothing's wrong with Zeppelin. I don't think they're the greatest band in the world. I also don't like them as much as I used to. Probably because I don't like Page.[/QUOTE]

wait, when did anyone say that they had to be the greatest band ever? I certainly don't think that they are but that doesn't stop me from liking them.

edit: I'm probably missing something here so i'm just going to say for the record: zeppelin rocks but there are some better bands out there.

Carry on.

The Beatles comparison was perfectly legitimate, you're the one who brought up the point about "technical ability=good music".

RockandRoll: I like Plant. In fact, I like JPJ and Bonham too. Just not Page. :p

RockNotRoll: I agree with your statement, except mine would be "I enjoy Zeppelin from time to time, but there are some better bands out there."

[QUOTE=Dark_Horse_335]The musical quality is always more important than instrumental talent, which would explain why RUsh is not the greatest band ever.

Also, what they played was way more difficult than, say, Stairway to heaven. Just try and Jam extensivley to hundreds of songs (It has to sound good)[/QUOTE]
are you saying that rush didnt have good music quality... the pure combination of neil peirt (the greatest) geddy lee, and alex lifeson is all the music quallity you need, i have seen them live and i can tell you your wrong

[QUOTE=Badmoon]Have you heard the album Blues for Allah? It would not be an outlandish statement to say that it is technically ahead of anything Led Zeppelin or Cream has put out.[/QUOTE]
are you serious blues for allah?

[QUOTE=ScuzzBucket89]are you saying that rush didnt have good music quality... the pure combination of neil peirt (the greatest) geddy lee, and alex lifeson is all the music quallity you need, i have seen them live and i can tell you your wrong[/QUOTE]
For starters I'd quarrel with the statement neil peart is the greatest. Secondly I can also tell you you're wrong, doesn't exactly mean much though.

[QUOTE=ScuzzBucket89]here we go...
look i know one of the biggest dead heads you will ever meet in fact he is my best friend and we discuss this non stop so if you think im ignorant to the deads music you have another thing comin..thats first offf
i know that this is alll sublective you are right every one is entitled to there opinion
but when i rank a band i do not included exceptions like pigpen or wier(and yes i know who they are)
[U][I]and how dare you compare the greatest song writers in the history of mankind with the greatful dead[/I][/U]

your right about... how the dead influenced JAM BANDS like phish and others they did do that and i also agree that they are great musicians but not the greatest of all time[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes: ++


Cmon man, internet website.

I should upload FotD, that will maybe change your mind.

[QUOTE=magicbus]I don't believe that. We could go into plenty of reasons why they aren't the greatest band ever, but that could take all day. When you use words like "undoubtidly" to describe your opinion of them, you [I]do [/I]sound like one of those "zeppelin f@gs".[/QUOTE]
when i say zeepelin f@gs i mean that zeppelin iss the only music they listen to

[QUOTE]and how dare you compare the greatest song writers in the history of mankind with the greatful dead[/QUOTE]

Greatest songwriters in the history of mankind?! Get the hell out of here. Many of their lyrics are stolen, fool. Have you heard the Grateful (Not greatful) Dead's lyrics; Robert Hunter is far more accomplished than Jimmy Page or Robert Plant. Listen to how silly their songs are (Ex. "Rock and Roll" what pointless lyrics). They're not something to get worked about, or even acknowledge.


[QUOTE]but when i rank a band i do not included exceptions like pigpen or wier(and yes i know who they are)[/QUOTE]

Yes, you do. John Paul Jones was technically not nearly as great as a bassist as the other players of his time. Other than that, technically I'd say the Dead just may rank higher than Led Zeppelin. Instrumentally, the Dead take it; for sure. Break it down if you wish.

[QUOTE=ScuzzBucket89]when i say zeepelin f@gs i mean that zeppelin iss the only music they listen to[/QUOTE]

Hmm. Well I'm just saying the way you are praising them as the greatest band in the world makes you seem like kids I might describe as "zeepelin f@gs", if I was a little less refined.

[QUOTE=RockAndRoll]For starters I'd quarrel with the statement neil peart is the greatest. Secondly I can also tell you you're wrong, doesn't exactly mean much though.[/QUOTE]
look neil peirt? not the greatest.. the only ones who rival ihim is bonzo tellme who you think is

hey, I like rock and roll, and I like it's lyrics. :angry:

[QUOTE=ScuzzBucket89]look neil peirt? not the greatest.. the only ones who rival ihim is bonzo tellme who you think is[/QUOTE]

Ginger Baker.

[QUOTE=ScuzzBucket89]are you serious blues for allah?[/QUOTE]

Yes, certainly technically ahead of anything L.Z. has released, lyrically also.

Other than being completely diverse (Reggae, Classical, Fusion, etc influences) it was one of the early albums that explored World Beat.

[QUOTE=Badmoon]Greatest songwriters in the history of mankind?! Get the hell out of here. Many of their lyrics are stolen, fool. Have you heard the Grateful (Not greatful) Dead's lyrics; Robert Hunter is far more accomplished than Jimmy Page or Robert Plant. Listen to how silly their songs are (Ex. "Rock and Roll" what pointless lyrics). They're not something to get worked about, or even acknowledge.
[/QUOTE]
WEll, they were great...

:eek: I thought that he was talking about the Beatles. If you think Zep are the greatest songwriters ever...

Also, much of Zeppelins music was stolen, not only the lyrics

I think this guy is full of **** but I do think Jerry Garcia is very overrated as a songwritter.

[QUOTE=Badmoon]Greatest songwriters in the history of mankind?! Get the hell out of here. Many of their lyrics are stolen, fool. Have you heard the Grateful (Not greatful) Dead's lyrics; Robert Hunter is far more accomplished than Jimmy Page or Robert Plant. Listen to how silly their songs are (Ex. "Rock and Roll" what pointless lyrics). They're not something to get worked about, or even acknowledge.




Yes, you do. John Paul Jones was technically not nearly as great as a bassist as the other players of his time. Other than that, technically I'd say the Dead just may rank higher than Led Zeppelin. Instrumentally, the Dead take it; for sure. Break it down if you wish.[/QUOTE]
no no no i was saying that the beatles were.... absolutely not zeppelin when it comes to lyrics

[QUOTE]look neil peirt? not the greatest.. the only ones who rival ihim is bonzo tellme who you think is[/QUOTE]

Bonham is behind many drummer within various genres even including Rock. Moon, Baker, Peart, etc. I would even mention Hart, being that he is much more of a World Beat drummer than Rock.

[QUOTE=ScuzzBucket89]are you saying that rush didnt have good music quality... the pure combination of neil peirt (the greatest) geddy lee, and alex lifeson is all the music quallity you need, i have seen them live and i can tell you your wrong[/QUOTE]
I haven't heard enough to judge them, but I do like them. What I was saying was if instrumental talent = greatness, Rush would be the best. THey're not the best so that statement is false.

[QUOTE=magicbus]Ginger Baker.[/QUOTE]
thought you were going to say that and i absolutely agree your right he did pull cream together as well as neil did... both of them being in a three part band

[QUOTE=Schyma]I think this guy is full of **** but I do think Jerry Garcia is very overrated as a songwritter.[/QUOTE]

Well, I would hope so. After all, Jerry usually wrote the music and lended help to the lyrics; Robert Hunter wrote the lyrics most of the lyrics. But of course when a CD booklet says "Songs writtin by Hunter and Garcia" people figure Jerry Garcia also wrote the songs.

[QUOTE]no no no i was saying that the beatles were.... absolutely not zeppelin when it comes to lyrics[/QUOTE]

Woops, sorry.

[QUOTE=Badmoon]Bonham is behind many drummer within various genres even including Rock. Moon, Baker, Peart, etc. I would even mention Hart, being that he is much more of a World Beat drummer than Rock.[/QUOTE]
DO you think HArt was the better of the two GD drummers? (IN there prime)

[QUOTE=Badmoon]Bonham is behind many drummer within various genres even including Rock. Moon, Baker, Peart, etc. I would even mention Hart, being that he is much more of a World Beat drummer than Rock.[/QUOTE]
look my dad is a drummer so i think i know a little.... for bonhams sake i want you too listen to goodtimes bad times and see if you recognize the foot pettle work in the background...impossible listen to that song then talk to me

[QUOTE=ScuzzBucket89]look neil peirt? not the greatest.. the only ones who rival ihim is bonzo tellme who you think is[/QUOTE]
:lol: oh you have soooooo much to learn.

you might want to consider greats such as....

Steve Gadd
John Bonham
Keith Moon
Ginger Baker
Ian Paice
Mitch Mitchell
Stewart Copeland
Buddy Miles

Are all of those guys better than peart? Certainly not. I'm willing to bet Gadd for one could give peart more than just a run for his money though.

[QUOTE=ScuzzBucket89]look my dad is a drummer so i think i know a little.... for bonhams sake i want you too listen to goodtimes bad times and see if you recognize the foot pettle work in the background...impossible listen to that song then talk to me[/QUOTE]

I've listened to the song; there are better drummers.

[QUOTE]DO you think HArt was the better of the two GD drummers? (IN there prime)[/QUOTE]

Overall, yes. But Billy definitely is better in some categories.

[QUOTE=Badmoon]Yes, certainly technically ahead of anything L.Z. has released, lyrically also.

Other than being completely diverse (Reggae, Classical, Fusion, etc influences) it was one of the early albums that explored World Beat.[/QUOTE]
your right on that it was very diverse and thats hard to do musicians please name another album

[QUOTE=Schyma]I think this guy is full of **** but I do think Jerry Garcia is very overrated as a songwritter.[/QUOTE]
look you can think what you want but this is what i feel

Wake of the Flood.

He's pretty impressive, gotta give him that. But I've heard better.

[QUOTE=Badmoon]I've listened to the song; there are better drummers.



Overall, yes. But Billy definitely is better in some categories.[/QUOTE]
I really do hate when people underrate bonham though.

[QUOTE=Dark_Horse_335]I haven't heard enough to judge them, but I do like them. What I was saying was if instrumental talent = greatness, Rush would be the best. THey're not the best so that statement is false.[/QUOTE]
yes