Printable View
As an annendum to the Doors/ Creedence Clearwater poll, which turned into a Zeppelin/ Who debate, I will post a new poll for all the Hippies and Music enthusiasts out there. (I can't really vote on this one; I don't like Zeppelin, but I have not gottena round to listening to the Who.)
It would have to be Led Zeppelin. The Who were ok, did some good tunes, i like that one called "Teenage Wasteland" or i think thats what it was called
The Who were a great band, but Jack Black said it best:
"Lords of rock Led Zeppelin...!!"
You just cannot beat the amazing stuff Zep did, as their transcendent popularity shows.
It's Baba O'Reily.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Blind King of Bohemia
Led Zeppelin would win, if it weren't for the fact that they 'borrowed' a lot of their best known tunes-although this has mostly been rectified now, so it's not that much of an issue
It's really too close to call for me-although if you asked me in the street, I would say Zeppelin.
This one isnt even tough. The Who are great but Zep outclass them by miles!
Zeppelin every time
But my wife would say the Who
I'd have to go with Led Zeppelin as the better of the two but to the Who's credit they were able to change or alter their sound dramatically over the course of their existence and still produce outstanding music. The stylistic difference between 'My Generation', 'Tommy' and 'Who's Next' is absolutely startling. The Who managed to changed their trademark sound a number of times without alienating their fan base and the public at large which is no small feat, only a handful of successful bands (i.e. Beatles, Rolling Stones) have been able to do this without being labeled as 'sellouts', 'too experimental' (in the negative sense) or simply 'done'.
Led Zeppelin however was a rock/blues band to its core and their biggest successes came when they stuck to their roots. Zeppelin's first four albums are absolutely drenched in rock/blues and so is 'House of the Holy' for the most part. Sure albums like Physical Graffitti', 'Presence' and 'In Through the Out Door' have splashes of brilliance but when you listen to those albums (especially the last two) you can sort of feel that the band's creative juices were in decline.
One thing for sure is that Led Zeppelin peaked and burnt out much faster than the Who. It's perfectly understandable when you consider the jaw dropping content of Zeppelin's first five albums. I guess that's what happens when you burn the candle at both ends like they did. On the other hand the Who managed to churn out quality music for a much longer period of time even though they were never able to produce as many great back to back albums as Led Zeppelin did. While the Who was able to spread its successes out over time they only have one or two albums that are crammed with first rate songs. Now in this regard Led Zeppelin is virtually unmatched. I know so many people (myself included) who have said they can listen to every single track on every Led Zeppelin album up to and including Houses of the Holy and actually feel bad about skipping a song! There hasn't been a single rock band in the history of the genre that has been able put so much quality music into that many back to back albums as Led Zeppelin did, it's simply an astounding accomplishment.
lets get the led out :yes:
Led, but that's too old for me...
Led Zeppelin for sure
Anyway I heard about them appearing at Live Aid and supposedly they showed so much contempt for each other that they have banned all footage of it. So what exactkly hapened
kinda hard to compare those two band even though they are both rock there just complety different like do the who vs the guess who
Meatwad I think you have hit your stride with this one, very tough call.
I'm going to go with the Who. Both are brilliant bands, but maybe its the Who's attitude that shades it for me.
Besides everyone else is saying Zep.
Led Zep...
Gah!
zeppelin
I can't quit you baby, so I'm gonna have to put you down for a while
Zep, THE best
Both for different reasons/moments...
Led Zeppelin all the way. The Who were good, but Zeppelin was incredible. It's probably because Zeppelin's style is what I love, blues/rootsy rock. Incredible.
No way, I love Physical Graffitti. Incredible stuff on that one. If you said they started to go down with Presence, I might agree, but Physical Graffitti is incredible. Besides, a bunch of those songs were recorded early, either in the Houses of the Holy or the Zeppelin III sessions.Quote:
Led Zeppelin however was a rock/blues band to its core and their biggest successes came when they stuck to their roots. Zeppelin's first four albums are absolutely drenched in rock/blues and so is 'House of the Holy' for the most part. Sure albums like Physical Graffitti', 'Presence' and 'In Through the Out Door' have splashes of brilliance but when you listen to those albums (especially the last two) you can sort of feel that the band's creative juices were in decline.
Physical Graffiti is a great album, but it should have been a single album, not a double-it's the first Zeppelin album with any filler. Cutting it down to one record would have made the album overall much better
Led Zep by far ! In my book its a no contest.
Where's Gawain? He's the biggest Who fan around here.
The Who... 1969 back in those days when there was real music...
O tempora o moras like my latin teacher always says ~:)
Right here. Listen to the lyrics in the Whos music(all of which they wrote themselves) it blows Zeps away. The Who always had a message Zep had none. Keith Moon was a better drummer, Entwistle a far better bass player and Daltry arguably had the best voice in Rock and Roll. The only place their better is on lead guitar but Towsend plays better rythm guitar and his power chords cant be beat. The Who are a far mor intellectual band than Zep with a much more variety a greater writting talent. Ill take Whos Next over any Zepplin album. Zepplin arived at the end of an era and cashed in on all that had done before them.Quote:
Where's Gawain? He's the biggest Who fan around here.
YUp. I love dazed and confused the best. However even as this type of music goes give me Cream anyday. The real rock/blues band .Quote:
Led Zeppelin however was a rock/blues band to its core and their biggest successes came when they stuck to their roots
I love them both in different ways and for different moments as Moromete
posted earlier. ~;) , but the Who gets the edge with me.
I heard 'Boris the Spider' and 'Pinball Wizard' yesterday on the Two for Tuesday radio special. ~:cheers: Terrific.
Zep intentionally made sure their music didnt have any socio-political messages. It was meant to deal with the basic feelings and emotions in life, not be a political diatribe. If you want intellectual, read an essay. Long after people start asking "Whats that supposed to mean?" about Who songs, Zep songs will still have meaning as they are not tied to a specific political era.Quote:
Right here. Listen to the lyrics in the Whos music(all of which they wrote themselves) it blows Zeps away. The Who always had a message Zep had none. Keith Moon was a better drummer, Entwistle a far better bass player and Daltry arguably had the best voice in Rock and Roll. The only place their better is on lead guitar but Towsend plays better rythm guitar and his power chords cant be beat. The Who are a far mor intellectual band than Zep with a much more variety a greater writting talent. Ill take Whos Next over any Zepplin album. Zepplin arived at the end of an era and cashed in on all that had done before them.
Also, I would put Bonham and JPJ against their counterparts in The Who anyday. Voice is pretty subjective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Although I agree with you somewhat, K.Moon was the master ~;) . I don't
care what the song 'means' anyway, the 'sound' is what I want. ~D
I agree that Moon and Entwistle were superior to their counterparts in Led Zeppelin and I would also put forward the statement that Townsend was a better lyricist than Plant however...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
What is this bunk about which is the more intellectual band?!? We're talking about rock and roll, hardly the medium for intellectual material! And who the hell cares what a musician has to 'say'? If an incredibly profound and moving message is set to awful, eardrum piercing, mind meltingly bad music then nobody but flaky beatniks, coffee shop intellectuals and modern art flunkies will possess the tolerance, let alone the patience required to listen to such music for an extended period of time.
Music is about the music, not the message or the verse. On the other hand poetry and literature are completely about the message and the verse. Ode To Joy, the highlight of Beethoven's 9th Symphony, has some seriously cheesy lyrics about brotherhood and whatnot, most of which were literally grafted from beer hall songs of that era! Imagine if those same lyrics were matched to music composed by some gimpy halfwit who specialized in Albanian military marches instead of by a musical genius of the ages?
Message my foot, if a tune isn't catchy nobody is going to give a damn about the message.
Much of the music I love has great messages. Bob Dylan kicks anyone elses ass. But the Who's message, I don't like. Townsend is an ass, and I strongly disagree with him. I like his music, but I much prefer Zeppelin's lack of politics than the Who's.
Besides, Zeppelin was a blues band. Blues doesn't have a message, and it never has.
Plant kicks Daltrey's ass, Page kicks Townsend's, JPJ kicks Entwistle, and Bonham kicks Moon's. No question.
I would hardly say that there is 'no question' about it. Vocals are an entirely subjective thing, personally I feel that Geddy Lee has the best voice in rock music (I know he sounds like a girl, so sue me). Whilst Page was undeniably a superior lead guitarist, Townshend is scarily good where rhythm playing is concerned. Entwhistle was a truly remarkable bass player, and I would rate him higher than Jones, personally, whilst Bonham versus Moon is, in my opinion, too close to call, with Bonham's superior technical playing butting heads against Moon's explosive and insane fills.Quote:
Plant kicks Daltrey's ass, Page kicks Townsend's, JPJ kicks Entwistle, and Bonham kicks Moon's. No question.
Any credibility you had on this matter just went out the window with that statement. Also the Whos lyrics werent all or even mostly political but addressed the problems we all face as we grow up.Quote:
JPJ kicks Entwistle
JPJ vs Entwistle is debatable, but you cannot say Entwistle is a better musician than JPJ. Besides being an excellent writer and producer, I believe JPJ could play just about any key-type instrument and several different string instruments aswell. Some of his solos on No Quarter are amazingly intricate.
To be honest, Im sure JPJ could play anything Entwistle could, but Zeps music focused a lot more on Page's guitar, with some exceptions.
Bonzo was just the greatest.
Bull. He wasnt even considered a great bass player. In fact they didnt even feel he was needed on their later tours and replaced him.Quote:
To be honest, Im sure JPJ could play anything Entwistle could,
I can and shall continue to do so.Quote:
but you cannot say Entwistle is a better musician than JPJ
Same with Entwistle and he played brass instruments also.Quote:
I believe JPJ could play just about any key-type instrument and several different string instruments aswell.
How many albums of original stuff has JPJ got?
Not even close. No rock and roll musicians are the best at the instrument they play. Not on Guitar, drums, keyboads,bass or anything else. That includes the Who and the Beatles Floyd or any others as well. You want the best look at Zappa or fusion bands. Are you going to tell me Bonzo is better than Lenny White or Terry Bozio?Quote:
Bonzo was just the greatest.
Out of the drummers who palyed with Zappa, Vinnie Coliuta is my favourite. That guy can play.
Top all-time, best-selling bands, based on U.S. album sales (in millions):
1. The Beatles 163.5
2. Led Zeppelin 103.5
3. Eagles 83.5
4. Pink Floyd 68.5
5. AC/DC 63.0
6. Aerosmith 59.5
7. The Rolling Stones 53.5
8. Van Halen 50.5
9. Metallica 48.0
10. Fleetwood Mac 46.0
*Recording Industry Association of America
The Who come in at 20.0 million, ahead of the Monkees and the Grateful Dead, but behind Jimi Hendrix and Barry Manilow
ichi :bow:
For drummers, I'd say that Carl Palmer is the best technical drummer in rock.
Overall, for sheer skill and talent, the late Elvin Jones who was drummer in the Coltrane Quartet takes the ultimate prize for best in any genre of music, I think.
Woo, an ELP fan. Yes, Palmer does rule. That whole band were astonishing-I'm always amazed by how well Greg Lake can sing, how well he can play bass, and how he can do both at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
As far as good rock drummers go, I'd also advance Neil Peart's name. The best drummers are in Jazz or fusion though. Some of those guys are just sensational-Buddy Rich, for example. He was a bit of a Prima Donna, mind.
Ok, saying no question was not fair. It would be more fair if you look at them all one on one. But Zeppelin as a whole is better than Who as a whole, IMHO.Quote:
I would hardly say that there is 'no question' about it. Vocals are an entirely subjective thing, personally I feel that Geddy Lee has the best voice in rock music (I know he sounds like a girl, so sue me). Whilst Page was undeniably a superior lead guitarist, Townshend is scarily good where rhythm playing is concerned. Entwhistle was a truly remarkable bass player, and I would rate him higher than Jones, personally, whilst Bonham versus Moon is, in my opinion, too close to call, with Bonham's superior technical playing butting heads against Moon's explosive and insane fills.
Well all I can say is that for My Generation(pun intended) those who were around for the British invasion. The Who were far more respected and liked than Zepplin.We thought of it as kids music ~:) Like I said. I always liked them and for what they do they are certainly the best. But overall the WHO are the more talented band and have had a bigger effect on future bands than Zepplin ever did. The Who once more were pioneers and Zepplin just another heavy metal band. Well the best heavy metal band but the WHO were much more than that. Zepplin again is way overrated. If I ever hear Stairway to heaven again I think ILL puke.
Yup they were great. I saw them a few times in the 70s. Unbelievable that all that sound comes from just three guys. I got a dvd of them in concert in 93 and they were still awsome.Quote:
Woo, an ELP fan. Yes, Palmer does rule. That whole band were astonishing-I'm always amazed by how well Greg Lake can sing, how well he can play bass, and how he can do both at the same time.
And Ichi there is no doubt that Zepplin was more of a commercial succes than. If that were so a Chevy would be a better car than a Mercedes.
The talent in the band means nothing if the band doesn't focus around it. Page solos are crazy and are what separate zeppelin from the crowd. Still Zeppelin is overated. For whatever reason Zeppelin 4 (or Zoso or whatever fits your fancy) is known as a classic when it sucks. Zeppelin is best at blues. Zeppelin 1 is prime, 2 is money, 3 has a few moments, 4 sucks and the rest have filler that spoils the albums. The Who have many good albums and many excellent albums but because of who else was around at the time (Beatles and Stones in the mid sixties and Hendrix and Cream along with Floyd later in the late sixties) they get overshadowed. In the End the winner would have to be Zeppelin simply because I don't own too much of the who.
And The Eagles would be better than Floyd; but, at the risk of alienating some people here, "...I hate the ****in' eagles!" Good point there, Gawain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Really, thats news to me. When did Zep replace JPJ?Quote:
Bull. He wasnt even considered a great bass player. In fact they didnt even feel he was needed on their later tours and replaced him.
More than you would think. He was the inspiration for a lot of Zep songs - plus hes produced since the break up.Quote:
How many albums of original stuff has JPJ got?
Fusion is so overrated. Almost as overrated as Zappa. ~:rolleyes:Quote:
Not even close. No rock and roll musicians are the best at the instrument they play. Not on Guitar, drums, keyboads,bass or anything else. That includes the Who and the Beatles Floyd or any others as well. You want the best look at Zappa or fusion bands. Are you going to tell me Bonzo is better than Lenny White or Terry Bozio?
Why did Zep far outshow the Who in concerts? Isnt that the real measure of how many people of that time respected the band? Zep had the biggest concerts since the Beatles.Quote:
The Who were far more respected and liked than Zepplin.We thought of it as kids music
Thats why heavy metal took off like it did? Zeppelin is the grandfather of heavy metal.Quote:
But overall the WHO are the more talented band and have had a bigger effect on future bands than Zepplin ever did.
According to who? The people who sold out their concerts or the people who put them second to the beatles? They simply had better music. You can blame that on "commercialness", but isnt that a measure of how good music is.. how many people spend their hard earned money on it. Its not as if the Who werent trying to be as successful as Zep. Townshend continually talks about how the Who werent what he wanted them to be.Quote:
Zepplin again is way overrated.
Now it can be argued back and forth who had the best members talent wise, but Zep managed to combine their talent better than The Who. So there.. ~D
The best drummer IMO would be Carlton Barrett and along with his bassist brother Aston Barrett, the best rhythm section ever. Dennis Bovell is bass god as well equal to Aston.
Here's a subjective list of (basically the most influential/popular, not necessarily the greatest) rhythm sections ever:
The 25 Greatest Rhythm Sections of All Time
Quote:
Our criteria? A few basic questions. Did they leave an indelible mark? Has their music endured? And ultimately, did they spark a movement that fundamentally changed the way a particular style of music was played?
If talent always equal popularity, Burning Spear and Linton Kwesi Johnson (backed by the Dennis Bovell Dub Band) would be popular. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Hey awesome. JPJ and Bonham made it on the list before Cream and The Hendrix Experience's rhythm sections. ~D
Quote:
11. John Bonham & John Paul Jones. Led Zeppelin's famous drummer and bassist have withstood the test of time with a reputation of being so much more than metal prototypes. A session player for years before becoming a founding member of Led Zeppelin, Jones was the picture of studio perfection, devising tasteful bass lines that lent legitimacy to the band's sound. Bonham was a bruiser. He didn't play drums faster than his peers, but certainly played them much harder. While his big drum sound and style has always been easy to identify, Bonham possessed an inventiveness that enriched every performance with its own personality. Their combined heaviness (mixed with lots of finesse) was awesome.
I'll agree on Peart being up there. I'm not a real big fan of Rush, liking the older stuff better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax
Heh, Buddy Rich. I used to stay up late when I was a kid and watch him whenever he was going to be on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. He was always a riot. Jazz has lots of incredible drummers. Alex Acuña with Weather Report, Lenny White with Return to Forever and of course, Billy Cobham with McLaughlin's Mahavishnu Orchestra. Man, I could go on forever about jazz.
As for best voice in rock, I think that has to go to Chris Cornell. ~;)
What list is this? Maybe a hint would help.Quote:
Hey awesome. JPJ and Bonham made it on the list before Cream and The Hendrix Experience's rhythm sections.
When they went on tour after Bonzo died. The also formed Page and Plant . No JPJ there.Quote:
Really, thats news to me. When did Zep replace JPJ?
I dont know one solo song of his but I know plenty by Entwistle. Please name one we would all know.Quote:
More than you would think. He was the inspiration for a lot of Zep songs - plus hes produced since the break up.
Your still young. You still have time to learn musical appreciation ~DQuote:
Fusion is so overrated. Almost as overrated as Zappa
Everyone has had bigger concerts than the Beatles. And no thats not the real measure of how many people respect the band. Ive seen both in concert a few times and the Zep was medicore at best as Plants voice was already shot in the 70s. The Whos 10th aniversary concert was without a doubt one of the greatest Ive ever seen.Quote:
Why did Zep far outshow the Who in concerts? Isnt that the real measure of how many people of that time respected the band? Zep had the biggest concerts since the Beatles.
No the Who are. Who came first?Quote:
Thats why heavy metal took off like it did? Zeppelin is the grandfather of heavy metal.
Quote:
Now it can be argued back and forth who had the best members talent wise, but Zep managed to combine their talent better than The Who. So there..
No they didnt so there. Zepplin like most groups got worse with almost every album where as the Who got better. As far as lyrics go they suck major wind
Its the Who that are more influential to those who followed, Zepplin being one of them. And that is the true measure of how good a group was. The Who even beat floyd to using major sythns in their music. They went where no one else had ever gone before.
Here's another subjective list:
Best Rock Bassists ~:)
I think they were afraid of reforming LZ without Bonham, which is what Page, Plant & Jones would have been.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
I just want to mention something about Zeppelin borrowing/stealing other songs: everyone does that. For example:
Before I bought Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (so far my only Beatles album), I was always puzzled by a line in "Let There Be More Light", from Saucerful of Secrets: "The outer lock rolled slowly back, the servicemen were heard to sigh/ For there revealed in flowing robes was Lucy in the Sky". I could tell it was a wierd song about a psychedelic UFO landing, but why Lucy? Then I bought Sgt. Pepper- and there it was: "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds".
It happens all the time.
Thats not stealing their music ~:eek: How many songs have the same name for crying out loud and these arent even the same. Zep did a lot of other peoples material. Even alot of the stuff that they get credit for writting were really offshoots of old blues songs. George Harrisons My Sweet Lord is an example of this sort of thing and he got sued for it and lost.Quote:
Before I bought Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (so far my only Beatles album), I was always puzzled by a line in "Let There Be More Light", from Saucerful of Secrets: "The outer lock rolled slowly back, the servicemen were heard to sigh/ For there revealed in flowing robes was Lucy in the Sky". I could tell it was a wierd song about a psychedelic UFO landing, but why Lucy? Then I bought Sgt. Pepper- and there it was: "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds".
Zeppelin is heavy rock. So is the Who. Heavy Metal begins with Black Sabbath, developed with Judas Priest and reached its full early flowering with the NWOBHM. It has no grandparents. This is just a fact. You'll be calling Deep Purple heavy metal at this rate.Quote:
Zeppelin is the grandfather of heavy metal.
I would just like to take this rare opportunity to say I agree with everything Big G is saying in this thread and y'all should listen to him. Except where he calls Led Zep a heavy metal band.
Actually, I must disagree! If only because one of the original members of Blue Öyster Cult is a buddy of mine.
The term heavy metal music was first used by Sandy Pearlman when he was writing articles as a rock music critic for the great Crawdaddy! magazine in 1967.
It was Pearlman, in his association with Blue Öyster Cult, producing and writing much of their music that really started heavy metal music - called heavy metal music, anyway. Since Pearlman coined the term, and produced the music and wrote many of the songs for BÖC. I must say that he was the genesis of heavy metal.
Incidentally, Sandy Pearlman later managed Black Sabbath for a while, and the two bands did a tour together called the Black and Blue tour.
Heresy !! Heavy Metal comes from Birmingham ! (Not that I seriously want to take this argument too far, since presumably your buddy knows what he did when. Although come ti think of it Ozzy doesn't)
At work I have been forced to rely on Wiki, which reminds me that both Black Sabbath and Paranoid were released in 1970 but claims that Blue Oyster Cult was only released in 72. (both bands had been around since the 60s under different names I grant you) Mind you Wiki has this gem about Blue Oyster Cult:
Riiiight. So the genius who wrote that thinks that heavy metal was "tired and old fashioned" in the 1970s does he? The same 1970s that in fact saw the birth of the genre and the best work by the great original bands, culminating in the new wave at the end of the decade?Quote:
They became a successful heavy metal band during the 1970s. At a time when the genre seemed tired and old-fashioned, Blue Öyster Cult released records that combined powerful music and intelligent and funny lyrics
I suspect whoever wrote that can't tell the difference between an umlaut and his arse.
Well I really dont consider them that. They were a logical progression from groups like the Who and Cream. Heavy metal did indeed start with Sabbath but its roots lay with the Who . In the end it all goes back to some poor Black musicians playing blues in th South though.Quote:
Except where he calls Led Zep a heavy metal band.
Then you should now it was started by the Soft white underbelly then. I used to go see them in the local clubs here on LI back in the early 70s. They indeed came before Sabbath but were no where near as influential. (as far as the public goes) By the way their home base was near Stonybrook college. Thats the one I now work for. Its a lot like the Who and Zepplin. SWU indeed started it all but Sabbath is the band they all remember.Quote:
Actually, I must disagree! If only because one of the original members of Blue Öyster Cult is a buddy of mine
I guess not... I just thought that was an amusing story- that the Aliens in "Let There Be More Light" were all on acid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
It would explain Abokasee.
Oh back to who satarted it all. It was Blue Cheer like I originally said.
So you seee Zep was not the pioneer of this type of music in any way shape or form. In fact they were just about the last ones on the scene. Please remember people I have one major advantage over most of you. I actually lived through this stuff. ~DQuote:
The first was the advent of loud, distorted blues, which was pioneered by a mess of a band called Blue Cheer, who made braying, droning, grinding blues rock with the aid of deformed amplifiers and a passion for crudity. They were the vanguard of a range of electric blues bands from Cream to Jimi Hendrix to ZZ Top, and inspired much of the loud rock which followed, including proto-punk-rockers the Kinks and the Who. Much can be said about these bands, but what is most important is that they took the traditions of folk and blues improvisation and turned them into something technically on par with the jazz and big band acts of the day, adding guitar fireworks and lengthy songs to a genre that was otherwise strictly radio-play ditties.
The second tine of the fork was progressive rock, which in 1968 found its most extreme act in King Crimson, but which truly flowered during the early middle 1970s. Arguably, this genre was given impetus by a band overmentioned in any history of popular music because they were among the first to leave standard rock format, overcoming its novelty, namely, the Beatles. Their work was one of many that allowed bands to mix classical and jazz training into their rock, resulting in longer song structures, many of which were narrative or neo-operatic (Camel, Genesis, Yes) and the use of distortion and dissonance in artful ways. While these bands ultimately choked on their own "virtuosity," being nestled in a genre that could barely appreciate them but not reaching the level of complexity of classical works (in part because of a need to service the unending drumbeats and syncopated rhythms common to rock), they lived on in contributions to other genres.
Finally, there was a tradition of bands who grew from the surf and garage rock traditions into a technique-oriented neo-proto-punk-rock format, beginning with half-American Indian guitarist Link Wray and leading through surf guitar champion Dick Dale, both of whom were users of distortion. Psychedelic bands such as the 13th Floor Elevators and semi-punkers like Love and The Trees are worth mentioning here, but these bands had a foot as well in inspiration from the first dark rock band to exist, the Doors. Where other rock bands had focused on love or peace, the Doors brought a Nietzsche-inspired morbid subconscious psychedelia to rock music, and were the origins of much of the neo-Romanticism which later bloomed into metal, as well as many of the more inspired moments of progressive and punk rock.
By 1969, the influence of these artists had saturated the forms of public consciousness which were focused on rock music as a developing artform, and contributed to the explosion of hard rock (Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple) and proto-metal (Black Sabbath), both of which occurred simultaneously to the development of distorted, power-chord based technical music from King Crimson. This year was thus the watershed for loud forms of rock, as it started three threads which would run concurrently during the 1970s and hybridize in the next decade.
Historical View of Metal
LED ZEPPELIN IS NOT HEAVY METAL!!! :furious3:
Damn it, they are nothing near metal. They have at least two aucostic songs per album, and one album totally aucostic! There is nothing metal about them!
Very good! Sandy Pearlman was paying for his education at Stony Brook by writing for Crawdaddy!. That's how all of this comes together.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Donny Roeser ("Buck Dharma") and Albert Bouchard met while going to school at Clarkson College. The formed various bands at the time, like The Disciples and Travesty. Donny met Sandy and another critic and friend of Sandy's, Richard Meltzer. Another guy he regularly jammed with, John Wiesenthal, brought in Allen Lanier. and another friend of Donny's, Andy Winters. Pearlman named them Soft White Underbelly, and off they went. This was in late 1967, early 1968. At that same time, Black Sabbath was in its early stages too and called Earth, I believe, and playing blues-oriented rock. They opened, thanks to Sandy's connections, for Muddy Waters and the Grateful Dead. They hooked up with Les Braunstein, another guy at Stony Brook, as a lead singer. A friend of his, my buddy Eric Bloom, was in the local music scene, playing in various bands and he also had a lot of equipment and worked in a music store. So he started doing sound for the band. Right in the middle of making their first recording for Elektra, Braunstein quit. That's how Eric got involved as frontman. They convinced Elektra to record a new album with Eric singing, and changed their name to The Stalk-Forrest Group and went to California to record it. During the California trip, Winters was fired and Albert brought his brother Joe on board. Thus you have the original lineup which became BÖC. Eric, Donny, Allen, Joe and Albert. Elektra never released the album, they changed their name to BÖC and off they went, touring and playing from 1970-1971. But they didn't record and put out their first album until 1972, and Black Sabbath had already changed their name to its final form and put out their first album. So I will continue to claim, because of the association with Pearlman that BÖC and Pearlman were the genesis of heavy metal. ~:)
Hey, Gawain. The guys all still live on Long Island to this day. I didn't meet Eric until much later, thanks to a shared addiction to online gaming.
And you're right, Led Zep is not heavy metal. It is blues-rock.
Oh, and English Assassin! Wikipedia is a mess. Having articles written by just whomever means a lot of their information is inaccurate. Most of it is good, but not all. It's always a good idea to corroborate it with some other source.
You know what? Suddenly, in these last few posts, the org (OK, the tavern) redeems itself.
And, Big G, you know that other post, where I said I had a grudging respect for you but I didn't know why? This is why.
Listen to the man, my Org friends.Quote:
Heavy metal did indeed start with Sabbath but its roots lay with the Who
But your politics still (mostly) suck.
Excellent. We are both right. The best sort of argument.Quote:
Eric, Donny, Allen, Joe and Albert. Elektra never released the album, they changed their name to BÖC and off they went, touring and playing from 1970-1971. But they didn't record and put out their first album until 1972, and Black Sabbath had already changed their name to its final form and put out their first album. So I will continue to claim, because of the association with Pearlman that BÖC and Pearlman were the genesis of heavy metal.
Yeah, I know. On the other hand my experience with ephemeral print media is that 100% of the information I know about is wrong. Wiki's not that bad. And at least with Wiki I can correct it. Briefly.Quote:
Oh, and English Assassin! Wikipedia is a mess. Having articles written by just whomever means a lot of their information is inaccurate. Most of it is good, but not all. It's always a good idea to corroborate it with some other source.
Like many things they were being discovered shall we say on both sides of the Atlantic simutaleously.Quote:
Excellent. We are both right. The best sort of argument.
:bow:Quote:
And, Big G, you know that other post, where I said I had a grudging respect for you but I didn't know why? This is why.
Quote:
Heavy metal did indeed start with Sabbath but its roots lay with the Who
Listen to the man, my Org friends.
.
I like to think I know a bit about rock and roll. Ive been around since before its inception you know. Now thats a truly scary thought.
What age might you be if you don't mind me asking? ~:cheers:
57 its right there in my profile. I also worked as a stage hand since 1968 for groups like Floyd, Deep Purple, the Birds and 10 years after to name a few. I still do it now and then. More recently Ive done shows for Mariah Carey and Phish.
I'm sorry, I looked over your stuff and didn't see your birthday :embarassed: .Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
As to your previous work, extra coooool. ~:pimp: .
Gah. Sorry that was in the old forums. My bad. :tomato:Quote:
I'm sorry, I looked over your stuff and didn't see your birthday
Well it seems the new line of conversation is "Whoever came first is best!".
First of all, thats not accurate. The Who and Zep both made music during the 70s, and Zeps was much better. Popular opinion, critical opinion, and every other opinion constantly put Zep on or near top and the Who somewhere down the list of best rock and roll bands.
Second, all of the members of Zep were seasoned veterans of the 60s. Simply because Zep was not formed doesnt mean all the members werent "on the scene" during that era.. do you think all that talent came out of thin air? Page, Bonham and JPJ were all known and recognized in the community as great artists. Plant was a little more obscure. Bonham was actually fought over quite a bit. Zep may have come after the Who but its members were veterans of that era just as much as the Who.
Excuse me. The Who made music in the 60s. The early 60s and as the Who.Quote:
The Who and Zep both made music during the 70s,
Thats just wrong. Popular opinion yes but not critical opinion. I venture most musicians and critics rate the Who higher.Quote:
Popular opinion, critical opinion, and every other opinion constantly put Zep on or near top and the Who somewhere down the list of best rock and roll bands.
Really ? What were they doing while the Who were realeasing Albums. The Who are a 60s band with their roots in the 50s where as Zep is a 70s band with its roots in the 60s. The Who were formed in 62 and Zepplin in 68 or 69. The Who are also a much more well rounded and diverse band than Zepplin.Quote:
Second, all of the members of Zep were seasoned veterans of the 60s.
Bull. They were playing as session workers while the Who were putting out albums . To try to deny that that the Who set the stage for Zepllin is beyond belief. Who do you think were the first to really bring synthizers to the forefront?Quote:
Second, all of the members of Zep were seasoned veterans of the 60s.
PS the true easure of how good a band is is how the play in concert. Having seen both these bands in their prime I can tell you there is no comparison. The Who blow them off the stage with their sheer energy alone. No one to this day brings down the house like the Who did. Watch a few dvds of the Who in concert and you will see what I mean.
I've seen the Who and Zeppelin DVDs. And I've listened to their albums extensivly. And I think that Zeppelin is better. The Who were good. But I just don't think they were better.
So you think that Zepplin was as exciting in concert as the Who? You need help my friend. Do you see page jumping through the air or making great windmilling motions. Do you see Bonham pounding his drum relentlesly fillling every little nook and cranny. Do you see Plant swing the mic in a 50ft arc above his head and then tossing it into the air and catching it. Do you see JPJ fingers runnning up and down the neck of his bass like a mad man. And then at the end do they smash all thier instruments or even the concert hall itself ? No you dont see any of these things. They basically just stood there and played. Again Ive seen them LIVE and there is no comparison. Zepplin is the worst super band Ive ever seen in concert. They were good in concert but not great. Their best work is in the studio. Also who invented the Marshall stack without which very little rock would sound as it does today? The Who are also the prototype for all punk rockbands that followed.Quote:
I've seen the Who and Zeppelin DVDs. And I've listened to their albums extensivly. And I think that Zeppelin is better. The Who were good. But I just don't think they were better.
Right, I hate when bands that smash their instruments. It's so stupid and wasteful. It's probably comes from the fact that I'd give a lot to have one of those babies that they smash so carelessly. I hate that, and that is a big reason why the Who loses points.
And I don't care about exciting. I don't care about fanciness. I just want good music. My favorite band is the Dead, rember? ~;) I like when bands just stand and play. It is far more sincere and likeable for bands who try and put on a show.
Do you know why they smashed their instruments?Quote:
Right, I hate when bands that smash their instruments. It's so stupid and wasteful. It's probably comes from the fact that I'd give a lot to have one of those babies that they smash so carelessly. I hate that, and that is a big reason why the Who loses points.
I thought you said you just want good music ~D I take back my previous statement that Zep was the worst superband I saw in concert. The Dead win that one hands down. I did two hits of acid and they still managed to put me to sleep.Im serious the girl I went with had to wake me up at the end. She was a deadhead and talked me into going.Quote:
And I don't care about exciting. I don't care about fanciness. I just want good music. My favorite band is the Dead, rember?
I've heard numerous tales of why Pete started. But later on, it became a gimmick, at least as far as I can tell.Quote:
Do you know why they smashed their instruments?
Well you're just nuts, so there isn't much of a point trying to argue with you. ~DQuote:
I thought you said you just want good music ~D I take back my previous statement that Zep was the worst superband I saw in concert. The Dead win that one hands down. I did two hits of acid and they still managed to put me to sleep.Im serious the girl I went with had to wake me up at the end. She was a deadhead and talked me into going.
Are you sure?Quote:
Excuse me. The Who made music in the 60s. The early 60s and as the Who.
It seems they made plenty of music during the 70s, maybe even their best. So my point still stands. The Who and Zep directly competed during the 70s. Both bands were famous, why didnt The Who do as well as Zep if they were such a better band?Quote:
By late 1970 Pete had the idea for the next project. Kit had made a film deal with Universal Studios for a Who film which he hoped would be "Tommy" with him directing. Pete instead came up with his own idea called "Lifehouse." It would be a science-fiction story about virtual reality and a boy who rediscovers rock music. The hero would hold an endless concert and at the end find the Lost Chord which would take them all to nirvana.
Pete had The Who perform at open door concerts at the Young Vic Theatre in London. People were supposed to wander in and out of the concert while they and the band were filmed. Audience members would become part of the film, their life stories changed into computer sequences to be played on the synthesizer. What resulted was disappointing. The audience just called out for Who favorites and the rest of the band grew quickly bored.
Pete's project was put on hold and The Who went into the studio to record the songs Pete had written for "Lifehouse." The two-record length work was whittled down to one album and the result was released as "Who's Next." It became another international hit and is considered by many as The Who's best album. "Baba O'Riley" and "Behind Blue Eyes" were radio staples and "Won't Get Fooled Again" became the band's closing song for the rest of their career.
With growing fame, the members of The Who began to chafe under the burden of being the voice for Pete's songs. John was the first to launch a solo career with the album "Smash Your Head Against The Wall" released shortly before "Who's Next." He would continue to record solo albums through the early 1970's, giving vent to his dark humorous songs. Roger also began a solo career after building a studio in his barn. His album "Daltrey" yielded a Top Ten British single "Giving It All Away" and gave him a power in the band he hadn't had since he'd had to beg for his job at the end of 1965.
Roger used his new power to launch an investigation into managers Kit Lambert's and Chris Stamp's financial practices. He discovered they had been misusing The Who's funds for years and worked to get rid of them. Pete, who looked on Kit as an artistic mentor, took Kit's side leading to a rift in the band.
Pete, meanwhile, began work on the next Who rock opera. It was to be a history of The Who, but after a meeting with Irish Jack, who had followed the band since their Detours days, Pete made it into the story of a Who fan. It concerned Jimmy, a mod fan of The High Numbers in 1964. He works a dirty job to make money to buy a GS motorscooter, hip mod clothes and enough leapers to get him through the weekend. The heavy doses of speed cause his personality to split four ways, each personality represented by a member of The Who. His parents discover his pills and kick him out of the house. He travels to Brighton to relive Mod's glory days but finds the head Mod reduced to a lowly bellboy. In despair he takes a boat out to a rock in the sea in a violent storm and has an epiphany ("Love, Reign O'er Me").
"Quadrophenia" developed problems shortly after recording. It was to have been mixed for the new four-channel quadrophonic system, but the technology was too inadequate. Once mixed down to stereo, the rich sound tended to bury the vocals, to Roger's consternation. On stage The Who tried to recreate the sound by playing along to backing tapes. The tapes, however, refused to cooperate and often led to chaos. In addition to all this, Keith's wife left him shortly before the tour taking their daughter with her. Keith drowned his sorrows in booze and whatever else he could get his hands on. At the San Francisco show that opened the U.S. tour, Keith passed out in the middle of the show and was replaced by Scott Halpin, a member of the audience.
Pete got no rest on his return to London. Production began immediately on the film of his rock opera "Tommy." Control of the film had been taken away from manager Kit Lambert and given to madman British filmmaker Ken Russell. Russell turned the work into a glittering comic book with guests stars like Elton John, Eric Clpaton, Tina Turner, Ann-Margaret and Jack Nicholson. The result was very gaudy and although it pleased few Who fans, it was a hit with the public. Two after-effects were that, playing the lead role, Roger became a star apart from the band which gave him much more leverage than he had had since 1965, and Pete worked himself into such a state that he had a nervous breakdown and began drinking even more heavily than usual.
It all came to a head at the Madison Square Garden concerts held in June 1974. When the audience called for Pete to "jump, jump" he realized he no longer wanted to. The passion of performing with The Who was beginning to fade for him. This led to the next Who album, "The Who By Numbers." A dark, bitter look at Townshend's soul, the album was heralded by a vicious shouting match between Pete and Roger carried out in the British music press.
The tours that followed in 1975 and 1976 seemed much more successful than the album. But there was a growing emphasis on playing the band's oldies and short shrift given to the new. After a particularly loud concert on this tour, Pete noticed he had a ringing in his ears that wouldn't stop. A trip to the doctor revealed that he tinnitus and would soon go deaf if he didn't cease touring.
After 1976, The Who did stop touring. All that was left was the final break between The Who and their old managers. In early 1977 Pete signed the final papers dissolving The Who's ties to Lambert and Stamp. He left the meeting only to run into two members of the Sex Pistols, the new punk sensation that seemed to be the new broom that would finally sweep The Who away. It ended with Pete drunk in a doorway told to move on by a policeman.
This became the song "Who Are You" the title track of the next Who album. After a two-year break from the recording studio, activity for the band began to increase. In addition to a new album, The Who were having a film made of their history that would eventually be released as "The Kids Are Alright." The Who even bought Shepperton Studios to film it in. However, when Keith returned from America after the hiatus, he was in sorry shape. He had gained a lot of weight, had become a severe alcoholic, and looked a decade older than his true age of 30.
The Who completed the album and the film in 1978 with a concert held at Shepperton for Who fans on May 25th, 1978. Three months later the album was released to massive sales. Twenty days after that, on September 7th, Keith Moon died of an accidental overdose of pills he had been prescribed to control his alcoholism.
Its not as if Zep was "commercial" and The Who were some obscure - but awesome - band only music junkies listened to. Both bands were very famous and liked it that way. Zep was just better. ~;)
(Also another little tidbit in that piece that I didnt know about. The Who played with background tapes? Like Ashlee Simpson?)
Not the ones ive heard.Quote:
Thats just wrong. Popular opinion yes but not critical opinion. I venture most musicians and critics rate the Who higher.
No way.Quote:
Really ? What were they doing while the Who were realeasing Albums. The Who are a 60s band with their roots in the 50s where as Zep is a 70s band with its roots in the 60s. The Who were formed in 62 and Zepplin in 68 or 69. The Who are also a much more well rounded and diverse band than Zepplin.
And Zep has always been described as one of the most influential bands ever.Quote:
Jimmy Page, who had led the last incarnation of the Yardbirds and had been an extremely successful session guitarist (Who, Kinks, Them, Donovan, Joe Cocker), formed the band in 1968 with veteran session bassist/keyboardist John Paul Jones, 19-year-old singer Robert Plant and Plant’s friend, drummer John Bonham. Commenting upon Page’s low expectations for the success of the band, Keith Moon suggested the name “Led Zeppelin.”
This bit describes their "well-roundedness".
Compare Led Zep 1 to Physical Graffiti and tell me they werent well rounded! Hrrumph!Quote:
Over a 10-year, nine-album career from 1969-79, Led Zeppelin was the most popular rock group in the world, ultimately selling more than 50 million records in the U.S. alone (more than 200 million worldwide), developing the blues-based power trio-plus-lead singer archetype in many directions including mystical English folk-rock, Middle Eastern-influenced exotica, quirky pop and every manner of heaviness. They also came to symbolize the Dionysian excesses of the rock lifestyle.
The Who set the stage just as much as the Beatles or the myriad of other rock bands before Zep. And The Who's stage was set by bands before them.. thats meaningless really. Again, what does being first have to do with being better? You would think since the Who had more years to grow and develope they would far outshine Zep by the 70s.Quote:
Bull. They were playing as session workers while the Who were putting out albums . To try to deny that that the Who set the stage for Zepllin is beyond belief. Who do you think were the first to really bring synthizers to the forefront?
Also, to my knowledge Plant never used synth - which is a positive thing.
Luckily both bands were filmed, so ive seen them both and I would say they both rock hard live. I prefer Zep but the Who live was much better than their studio recordings in my opinion and was awesome. I definately wouldnt say they were more energetic or better live though!Quote:
PS the true easure of how good a band is is how the play in concert. Having seen both these bands in their prime I can tell you there is no comparison. The Who blow them off the stage with their sheer energy alone. No one to this day brings down the house like the Who did. Watch a few dvds of the Who in concert and you will see what I mean.
Er, not quite. If you ever listen to Quadrophenia, there are lots of sound effects on the album-waves splashing, recording of old BBC radio announcements, rain falling, that kind of thing. They used tapes to provide these effects during the tour.Quote:
(Also another little tidbit in that piece that I didnt know about. The Who played with background tapes? Like Ashlee Simpson?)
Yes. I didnt say they stopped in the early 60s. They were still going in the 90s for Petes sake(pun intended). My pont is they were a succesful band before Zep was ever formed.Quote:
Excuse me. The Who made music in the 60s. The early 60s and as the Who.
Are you sure?
The point is they wer far more commercial than the Who. The Who were just better.Quote:
Its not as if Zep was "commercial" and The Who were some obscure - but awesome - band only music junkies listened to. Both bands were very famous and liked it that way. Zep was just better.
AAh so theres no synths on Zepplin albums.I could have sworn JPJ played them.Quote:
Also, to my knowledge Plant never used synth - which is a positive thing.
You see he was a session guy just like I said. Of course playing with the Who had no effect upon him.Quote:
Jimmy Page, who had led the last incarnation of the Yardbirds and had been an extremely successful session guitarist (Who
Your still young. Look around.Quote:
Not the ones ive heard.
I love this onw
Quote:
No way.
And then you go on to prove me right. ~D
So they got worse .That doesnt make them well rounded.Quote:
Compare Led Zep 1 to Physical Graffiti and tell me they werent well rounded! Hrrumph!
It has to do with who was more influential and theres no doubt in that repect that the Beatles are number one and the Who number 2. They brought the instruments to the front. Invented the marshall stack. Brought the synth to mainstrean use and were the prototype for all the punk and hard rock bands that followed including Zepplin.Quote:
The Who set the stage just as much as the Beatles or the myriad of other rock bands before Zep. And The Who's stage was set by bands before them.. thats meaningless really. Again, what does being first have to do with being better
Well Panzers right but not really as is BKS. Yes they did indeed play with tapes but it wasnt just effects. I saw them numerous times and they had no keyboard player on many of these occassions so the synths would be taped. Townsend said this made it very difficukt as if you made a mistake it would throw everything off. It showed their talent not their lack of it to be able to stay so tight.Quote:
(Also another little tidbit in that piece that I didnt know about. The Who played with background tapes? Like Ashlee Simpson?)
Er, not quite. If you ever listen to Quadrophenia, there are lots of sound effects on the album-waves splashing, recording of old BBC radio announcements, rain falling, that kind of thing. They used tapes to provide these effects during the tour.
PS I hear the best band ever to play Zepplins kind of music is reforming. Their called Cream and the blow Zepplin away in every manner.
Gawain, I think we just have to disagree on this. For the record, my dad and one of my brothers agree with you. Of course, they like punk and a lot of music I don't, so they're nuts. ~D
"Cream" is reforming? Wow. They did some of the best blues of the period- but will they still be able to do so well after so many years? (Then again, Floyd went far above my expectations at Live 8; I kind of wish they had been the only band there. They could have at least taken the Stone's slot. ~D)
Hey, the Stones were awesome. They could have taken Madonna's spot, or any of the rappers or pop people. Stones rock!
And I wish I could see Cream... the tickets would be insanely expensive, though...
Where is the option that says "Meatwad you are a hippie"
Jk
I like Led Zeppelin better. Idk why, just like their songs better.