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

[sealybobo]

And that is your basis for ranking bands?

No ,well, yes. I don't even base my decision my my own taste. From a non bias perspective, and I think the vast majority of Americans on the planet would agree, Led Z is not the GOAT.

 

[sealybobo]

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

The Beatles songs which are many also stand the test of time. So do some of Zeppelin's songs but I don't even know if I can name 5 Zeppelin songs.

I know they are one of the greatest. I'm not saying they aren't up there. You can put them anywhere 2-10 I don't care. Just not 1. LOL

 

[sealybobo]

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

I can see why. I LOVED the young Beatles. Listen, ew ah ew do you want to know a secret. ew ah ew do you promise not to tell whoa whoa whoa closer, ew ah ew. What a great song. And there were so many others.

I remember I didn't like it when the Beatles changed. I liked the older stuff the older people liked.

And I hated Led Zeppelin growing up. Same with all the other 80's hair bands. What's that band with the one arm drummer? Bands like that. I hated them. Billy Squire. Remember that guy? Hated that shit. ACDC, Motley Crew, etc. Just hated this genre.

I liked Journey, Jethro Tull, the Scorpions.

But mostly I was listening to Easy Rock when all my friends were listening to Metalica. The first time I liked Metalica was the album where their fans said they sold out. Enter Sandman. That was good.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The Beatles songs which are many also stand the test of time. So do some of Zeppelin's songs but I don't even know if I can name 5 Zeppelin songs.

I know they are one of the greatest. I'm not saying they aren't up there. You can put them anywhere 2-10 I don't care. Just not 1. LOL

If you can't name 5 Led songs than you laughably can't assume anyone to take your opinion seriously about Rock N Roll.
That is simply true.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I can see why. I LOVED the young Beatles. Listen, ew ah ew do you want to know a secret. ew ah ew do you promise not to tell whoa whoa whoa closer, ew ah ew. What a great song. And there were so many others.

I remember I didn't like it when the Beatles changed. I liked the older stuff the older people liked.

And I hated Led Zeppelin growing up. Same with all the other 80's hair bands. What's that band with the one arm drummer? Bands like that. I hated them. Billy Squire. Remember that guy? Hated that shit. ACDC, Motley Crew, etc. Just hated this genre.

I liked Journey, Jethro Tull, the Scorpions.

But mostly I was listening to Easy Rock when all my friends were listening to Metalica. The first time I liked Metalica was the album where their fans said they sold out. Enter Sandman. That was good.

AC/DC wasnt a hair band.....

 

[alang1216]

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

That competition lasted months not years and the Stones were their only competition after that.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

LED was a 80s hair band????????

Please go on..... HAHAHAHA

 

[Mac-7]

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?

I think Beatles music will still be remembered 100 years from now

Not all their songs, maybe only a few

But most Mozart music is no longer played

Led Zeppelin probably will not be remembered that long

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I think Beatles music will still be remembered 100 years from now

Not all their songs, maybe only a few

But most Mozart music is no longer played

Led Zeppelin probably will not be remembered that long

Hard to say... it may all die out in this generation.
They are all about shitty rap, pop or bubble gum country.
Millennials still favored Classic Rock more than anything else, Gen Z - not at all.
If you look at most popular bands now - you probably wouldn't recognize any of them.
BTS is the most popular apparently - and they sound EXACTLY like Back Street Boys. And I mean exactly the same bubble gum beats.
There is nothing in the least artistic or imaginative about them whatsoever. Sad.

 

[konradv]

That competition lasted months not years and the Stones were their only competition after that.

They had 17 Top 40 hits in the US from ‘64-‘67(Wiki). That does sound like years.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

They had 17 Top 40 hits in the US from ‘64-‘67(Wiki). That does sound like years.

The Stones is, IMO, the most overrated band in world history.
And I say that knowing Some Girls is one of my all time favorite albums.
Just about everything Stones did was on 3 albums. And none of them are newer than 40 years.

 

[TeeDub]

Songwriting? The Beatles!

Performance? Led Zeppelin!

Performance, I guess you never saw them live. I did 5 times and they were great the first time (their first tour) and they went downhill after that. Too much junk for Jimmy Page and you could see the rest of them were pissed!

 

[Borillar]

So? As I pointed out to someone claiming the Beatles were 'innovative' and big 'influencers', they weren't, they were just essentially a marketing gimmick, nothing original, and rock was already well on its way in other directions, more adult and not just more pablum pop. They Beatles couldn't keep up, all they had was some pathetic bubble gum stuff like Abbey Road and Let It Be. Their audience grew up and moved on, they didn't. They were just a pop Boy Band marketing business. They appealed to the same markets then that Britney Spears appeals to today.

Heh, yeah. Rock went from " I want to hold your hand" to "Squeeze my lemon til the juice runs down my leg". It changed from 3 minute pop tunes to 10+ minute epics. Late 60's rock was like a totally different genre from early 60's. Comparing the Beatles to Led Zeppelin is apples and oranges.

 

[Indeependent]

Heh, yeah. Rock went from " I want to hold your hand" to "Squeeze my lemon til the juice runs down my leg". It changed from 3 minute pop tunes to 10+ minute epics. Late 60's rock was like a totally different genre from early 60's. Comparing the Beatles to Led Zeppelin is apples and oranges.

That's also because Lennon or McCartney or Harrison could write a song with 4 melodies and Plant or Page wrote 2 melodies and played it for 10 minutes,

 

[DudleySmith]

The Stones is, IMO, the most overrated band in world history.
And I say that knowing Some Girls is one of my all time favorite albums.
Just about everything Stones did was on 3 albums. And none of them are newer than 40 years.

I've heard recordings of their concerts; they sound like shit live, which is why I never wasted money on their over-priced concert tickets. I like a lot of their studio works, but yes, I would only buy their 'greatest hits' compilation albums, and only those because unlike most knock off labels the Stones had sense enough to keep the rights to quality control on secondary releases of their music

I did spring for a box seat right over the right side of the stage when Hendrix came to town. Best concert I ever went to. No flashing lights, now scenery, just him and his crew with a few amps and spare guitars playing for over an hour, and sounding just like his records. Cosby, Stills, Nash, and Young was even better live; they did two sets, with a half hour break as their roadies changed up the sound equipment as they moved from covering their acoustic sets to their electric sets. They also sounded just like their records.

 

[DudleySmith]

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....

He had a great voice and a lot of stage presence; he didn't need to write songs, songwriters were beating down his door to write for him. Kings have other people to do the lugging.

 

[DudleySmith]

That's also because Lennon or McCartney or Harrison could write a song with 4 melodies and Plant or Page wrote 2 melodies and played it for 10 minutes,

lol Dolly Parton could out write both of them on a bad day, as could Tom T. Hall, or Bob Dylan. So did Barry Gordy's staff writers. They don't even make the Top 100 song writers.

 

[alang1216]

They had 17 Top 40 hits in the US from ‘64-‘67(Wiki). That does sound like years.

Also from DC5 Wiki: Their popularity in the US mostly dried up by 1967

As I recall, they were considered on par with the Beatles for only a short time as the Beatles evolved and they were just another British Invasion band.

 

[alang1216]

Heh, yeah. Rock went from " I want to hold your hand" to "Squeeze my lemon til the juice runs down my leg". It changed from 3 minute pop tunes to 10+ minute epics. Late 60's rock was like a totally different genre from early 60's. Comparing the Beatles to Led Zeppelin is apples and oranges.

The number of Beatles' firsts is impressive, they changed pop into rock.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The number of Beatles' firsts is impressive, they changed pop into rock.

They did not.
That is what Beatles fan boys say. And enough of them have been saying it for the past 60 years that non Beatles fans even believe it.

For instance - listen to this record by The Coasters in 1961.
One year before Beatles recorded a single record.



More importantly perhaps is The Hollies recorded a version of the same song in 1963, within months of Beatles first release. However The Hollies were playing this version - again - BEFORE Beatles made any splash whatsoever.



There is hype - and there is reality. And the reality is The Beatles were making music crafted from the sounds they were already hearing.