Led Zeppelin Vs. The Beatles - Who Is The True Rock G.O.A.T.?

[Harry Dresden]

I'm sorry, you can't use the little catch hits that McCartney would write for the Beatles, and himself. Yeah, there are hundreds!

But that's not what it's about. The Beatles made many of the greatest songs in rock history. Nobody has made more.

You can't call Let it Be, Hey Dude, Yesterday, and countless other songs as "paul fluff". And that's not even including John and George. They made the most iconic songs, and they are all still with us today. They haven't lost a "beat". Greatest band of all time. Even though they did a lot of ballads.

Which brings me to something I was thinking out. Ballads. The Beatles were Rock&Roll, but they played a lot of ballads, and a lot of different style music. So did Led Zeppelin, Stones, and Floyd. So did Elvis!

But everyone calls Elvis the King of R&R, but most of his songs were ballads. Not even written by him.

So it's hard to pigeon hole, "Best Rock and Roll Band", because there's a lot of ballads in the greatest groups.

If we want to go groups that did only R&R, there are very few... Besides heavy metal, and even they did ballads, there's none I can think of!

But everyone calls Elvis the King of R&R, but most of his songs were ballads. Not even written by him.
i agree he wasnt the king.....if he was he would have been in the Song Writing Hall Of Fame.....something he will never be in....

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Led Zeppelin Vs. The Beatles
Who Is The Rock-N-Roll G.O.A.T.?
​

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?
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?

Zep

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Led Zeppelin Vs. The Beatles
Who Is The Rock-N-Roll G.O.A.T.?
​

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?
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?

Beatles were great no doubt but they are not even my second choice for G.O.A.T. I've never thought about it but i'm not sure they crack my top 5

 

[Canon Shooter]

so i was right?....zep was a greater influence in the hard rock world....

Correct, but primarily because The Beatles weren't hard rock.

And it probably bears pointing out that the thread has nothing to do with who had a bigger influence on hard rock...

 

[Harry Dresden]

Correct, but primarily because The Beatles weren't hard rock.

And it probably bears pointing out that the thread has nothing to do with who had a bigger influence on hard rock...

the thread is about Zeppelin and Beatles....two groups who are nothing alike...one is hard rock the other just moderate rock....so yea hard rock gets to be mentioned....

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Beatles were great no doubt but they are not even my second choice for G.O.A.T. I've never thought about it but i'm not sure they crack my top 5

Same here...half the songs McCartney wrote sound like children sing-a-longs.
And it was that bubble gum music that ended the band when both Lennon and Harrison had it up to their ears in sappy, meaningless jingles that defined Paul's music.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Same here...half the songs McCartney wrote sound like children sing-a-longs.
And it was that bubble gum music that ended the band when both Lennon and Harrison had it up to their ears in sappy, meaningless jingles that defined Paul's music.

the Beatles were in the right place at the right time.....if the Stones showed up first they would be talked about like the Beatles are....

 

[iamwhatiseem]

the Beatles were in the right place at the right time.....if the Stones showed up first they would be talked about like the Beatles are....

Maybe- maybe not.
The record companies and the all powerful radio companies wanted wholesomeness.
And early Beatles were dripping wet with it. They looked like a collection of well behaved ivy league kids.
And they sang songs about puppy love and nonsensical "happy music".

And in that same year (1964).... Here is Rolling Stones

And this is about as "dressed up" as they got.
Shaggy hair, photos with cigarettes hanging out of their mouths... they hardly looked like the pristine white boys the industry was after. And their songs were about straight up sex and protesting the man.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Maybe- maybe not.
The record companies and the all powerful radio companies wanted wholesomeness.
And early Beatles were dripping wet with it. They looked like a collection of well behaved ivy league kids.
And they sang songs about puppy love and nonsensical "happy music".

View attachment 674122

And in that same year (1964).... Here is Rolling Stones

View attachment 674119


And this is about as "dressed up" as they got.
Shaggy hair, photos with cigarettes hanging out of their mouths... they hardly looked like the pristine white boys the industry was after.

the Beach Boys had them both beat with the wholesome look....

 

[iamwhatiseem]

the Beach Boys had them both beat with the wholesome look....

Well there is that

 

[Frankeneinstein]

And it was that bubble gum music that ended the band when both Lennon and Harrison had it up to their ears in sappy, meaningless jingles that defined Paul's music.

They certainly have their place atop the rock-n-roll hierarchy and they were phenoms, but they owe a lot to the timing....
... their music was groundbreaking at the time which also means the competition was thin...by the end of the decade though everyone from the "STONES" to ZEP to THE WHO to FLOYD et al were replacing those, [as Lenon put it], "silly little love songs" with what would become "classic" music and make themselves super bands by the end of the next decade.

 

[BothWings]

Songwriting? The Beatles!

Performance? Led Zeppelin!

 

[sealybobo]

Songwriting? The Beatles!

Performance? Led Zeppelin!

The Beatles are number 1. There is no denying it. Even if you don't like the Beatles, you understand they are number 1. It goes

1. Beatles






2-10 (Zepplin, Stones, Doors, Cars, Aerosmith, Jethro Tull, whoever else you want to put in lines 2-10)

So your question should be, besides the Beatles, who is the GOAT. Then MAYBE Zepplin. Even without the Beatles that is debatable. Not saying they aren't number 2. They could be. But they most certainly aren't number 1.

 

[konradv]

Maybe- maybe not.
The record companies and the all powerful radio companies wanted wholesomeness.
And early Beatles were dripping wet with it. They looked like a collection of well behaved ivy league kids.
And they sang songs about puppy love and nonsensical "happy music".

View attachment 674122

And in that same year (1964).... Here is Rolling Stones

View attachment 674119


And this is about as "dressed up" as they got.
Shaggy hair, photos with cigarettes hanging out of their mouths... they hardly looked like the pristine white boys the industry was after. And their songs were about straight up sex and protesting the man.

At the time the Beatles competition for teen idol status wasn’t the Rolling Stones, but the Dave Clark 5.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

At the time the Beatles competition for teen idol status wasn’t the Rolling Stones, but the Dave Clark 5.

I would think The Hollies even more so wouldn't you say?

 

[sealybobo]

At the time the Beatles competition for teen idol status wasn’t the Rolling Stones, but the Dave Clark 5.

34 Top 10 hits

Rolling Stones 23 top 10s

Not one of Led Zeppelin's 16 singles has reached No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100.​

Led Zeppelin's highest-charting song is 1969's "Whole Lotta Love," which peaked at No. 4.

 

[Ralph Norton]

34 Top 10 hits

Rolling Stones 23 top 10s

Not one of Led Zeppelin's 16 singles has reached No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100.​

Led Zeppelin's highest-charting song is 1969's "Whole Lotta Love," which peaked at No. 4.

And that is your basis for ranking bands?

 

[konradv]

I would think The Hollies even more so wouldn't you say?

I saw something a while back that said in ‘64 you were just as likely to see DC5 on TV as the Beatles. Gotta see if I can find that.

Update: According to Wiki they appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show 18 times, not all in ‘64.

 

[Harry Dresden]

34 Top 10 hits

Rolling Stones 23 top 10s

Not one of Led Zeppelin's 16 singles has reached No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100.​

Led Zeppelin's highest-charting song is 1969's "Whole Lotta Love," which peaked at No. 4.

the Beatles had a bigger fan selection.....many older people at the time liked the Beatles but would never listen to Zeppelin..

 

[Harry Dresden]

I saw something a while back that said in ‘64 you were just as likely to see DC5 on TV as the Beatles. Gotta see if I can find that.

that was true....i seen the DC5 a few times on TV back then.....