Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It was a contractual matter.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.
GH's songs that were recorded by the Beatles were just as good as L&Ms.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.
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.
When was that?Much better musically and lyrically than the Beatles. The Beatles crashed and burned when Top Forty pop no longer dominated the business.
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.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.
PM has been so-so since Venus and Mars.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.
It had nothing to do with GH.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.
Russians have always loved The Beatles.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?
But he was able to do great come backs time after time as Tag of war, Flowers in the dirt, Flaming piePM has been so-so since Venus and Mars.
Flowers in the dirt, Flaming pie, upon 3 listenings, were good.But he was able to do great come backs time after time as Tag of war, Flowers in the dirt, Flaming pie
It is one of the best PM LPsTug of War pleasant muzak.
Nah!It is one of the best PM LPs
Can't stand this LP. Same as Press to playBack To The Egg with several songs left off.
I think part of the issue is aging.Can't stand this LP. Same as Press to play
But Tug oW is 100% perfect songs.
You analysis omits the musical compositions.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?
Led Zeppelin Vs. The Beatles
Who Is The Rock-N-Roll G.O.A.T.?
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?
Great guitarist, but I find a whiny edge to his music, very much like himself.If you’re talking pure volume AND quality, Neil Young has to be in the conversation.
I think the feeling was and is mutual.Russians have always loved The Beatles.
Beatles rule. LZ is #2! Totally agree!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.
