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

[Stashman]

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?

 

[MaryL]

The Beatles.

 

[Wickerthing]

I remember when the Beatles were compared to the Rolling Stones and of course we heard "who's better?" And someone said (I don't remember who) "It's like comparing Rembrandt to a house painter. They are both painters but not in the same way." That's a good way to look at this argument. Call both rockers but not in the same way. The Beatles ran the gamut from Metal to Classical and Zeppelin remained in the rock world for the most part. I think history will tell the story in that Beatles music is timeless to a greater degree. I love them both but for different reasons. I only wish that The Beatles had lasted as long. Zep's rendition of "Kashmir" live from Celebration Day reminded me that greatness can indeed endure time.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I saw LZ at MSG in 73 and 75. It was a music orgy.

 

[Gracie]

Never was a huge beatles fan. Their stuff was ok, but only ok. Zep did some awesome stuff. Kashmir is just an example.

 

[Stashman]

I saw LZ at MSG in 73 and 75. It was a music orgy.

The 73 MSG concert was amazing and the world is lucky it was caught on film. I think "Since I've Been Loving You" was great at that show, and "Stairway To Heaven" is probably the best rendition to that song I have heard.

 

[DudleySmith]

Beatles were a marketing gimmick laid out by George Martin. Zeppelin was a rock band, and not ever going to sell as many records to 12 year old middle girls; the Beatles were an updated barbershop quartet who did pop music, and really weren't original; the Dave Clark Five paved the way for their stylizations. The reason the DC 5 didn't succeed nearly as much in sales as the Beatles was their vocals were too masculine and 'old sounding' than the girly man Beatles pop tones, same with the fluffy lyrics.

Even the Ronettes were more adult sounding than the Beatles, and could probably kick their asses in a bar fight.

Britney Spears appeals to the same demographics as the Beatles did in their day; Zeppelin sells to the same demographics that would buy a Janis Joplin album. Guess which demographic has always bought the most records since the 1940's, and always will. Album rock became popular with the advent of FM stereo radio, and the proliferation of decent stereo systems at reasonable prices; pop music was tuned to what sounded better on cheap car radios and portables, i.e. a narrow high range in vocals and instrumentation.

 

[Wickerthing]

Beatles were a marketing gimmick laid out by George Martin. Zeppelin was a rock band, and not ever going to sell as many records to 12 year old middle girls; the Beatles were an updated barbershop quartet who did pop music, and really weren't original; the Dave Clark Five paved the way for their stylizations. The reason the DC 5 didn't succeed nearly as much in sales as the Beatles was their vocals were too masculine and 'old sounding' than the girly man Beatles pop tones, same with the fluffy lyrics.

Britney Spears appeals to the same demographics as the Beatles did in their day; Zeppelin sells to the same demographics that would buy a Janis Joplin album. Guess which demographic has always bought the most records since the 1940's, and always will?

Marketing gimmick? Seriously? Have you listened to their whole portfolio?

 

[DudleySmith]

Marketing gimmick? Seriously? Have you listened to their whole portfolio?

Yes. George Martin changed up their sound, image, and production values. Without Martin they would still be just another garage band playing bars on weekends. As already mentioned, he also spent a lot on advertising and marketing and promotion, which in those days meant bribing a lot of DJ's, like Dick Clark and others. Martin was purely interested in pop rock for the money, same as everybody else in that line, including 'musicians'; he needed money to produce his classical music recordings and comedy albums. He had better tastes than the demographics the Beatles were targeted at separating their allowance money from.

 

[Wickerthing]

Yes. George Martin changed up their sound, image, and production values. Without Martin they would still be just another garage band playing bars on weekends. As already mentioned, he also spent a lot on advertising and marketing and promotion, which in those days meant bribing a lot of DJ's, like Dick Clark and others.

Okay partner. Did Ringo piss in your corn flakes?

 

[DudleySmith]

Okay partner. Did Ringo piss in your corn flakes?

Did Ringo let you blow him once?

 

[Canon Shooter]

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..

Are you sure about that? I count 13:

• Please Please Me
• With The Beatles
• A Hard Day's Night
• Beatles For Sale
• Help
• Rubber Soul
• Revolver
• Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
• Magical Mystery Tour
• The Beatles (aka: White Album)
• Yellow Submarine
• Abbey Road
• Let It Be

 

[Mac-7]

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

What do you say?

The Beatles were bigger and better

 

[Likkmee]

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?

Cream

 

[wamose]

Personally, I liked the Who best. The Beatles and Zeppelin were both great but if you put those three in the same venue, the Who would blow them both outta' the place. I say that having seen the WHO three times, Zeppelin once but not the Beatles. But in the end, it's just my opinion.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Who Is The True Rock G.O.A.T.?

That would be the Rock Crawl mode on those sixth-generation Ford Broncos that are equipped with it.

https://www.ford.com/support/how-tos/more-vehicle-topics/engine-and-transmission/ford-bronco-terrain-management-system/

What do you feed a goat? Well, in the case of Ford Bronco™ G.O.A.T. Modes™ (Goes Over Any Type of Terrain), the answer is almost anything the road, or trail, can put on its plate. That means, no matter where the adventure takes you, your Bronco Terrain Management System™ will automatically adapt and optimize its steering, handling and powertrain performance in response.

The Modes include*:

• Eco – For efficient driving. This mode helps deliver maximum fuel efficiency and helps to increase driving range.
• Sport – For sporty driving with improved performance handling and response. This mode increases accelerator pedal response and provides a sportier steering feel. The powertrain system holds onto lower gears longer, helping the vehicle accelerate faster.
• Normal – For everyday driving. This mode is a balance of excitement, comfort and convenience. This is the default mode after each ignition cycle.
• Mud/Ruts (available) – For off-road driving. This mode enhances vehicle performance to traverse muddy, rutted or uneven terrains. Mud/ruts mode engages the four-wheel drive lock.
• Slippery – For less than ideal road conditions, such as snow or ice-covered roads. This mode can be used for crossing terrain where a firm surface is covered with loose, wet or slippery material. Slippery mode lowers throttle response and optimizes shifting for slippery surfaces.
• Sand/Snow – Sand mode is for off-road driving on soft, dry sand or deep snow. Sand mode engages the four-wheel drive lock.
• Rock Crawl (available) – For optimum rock-climbing ability. Rock crawl mode engages the four-wheel drive lock and the rear differential lock feature. It also activates the front trail camera at slow speeds.
• Baja (available)** – On Bronco Badlands,™ Wildtrak™ and First Edition models, it optimizes suspension and other systems for improved performance on loose terrain and sand. (Baja mode is not available on Bronco Sport).

​

 

[Ringtone]

Beatles were a marketing gimmick laid out by George Martin. Zeppelin was a rock band, and not ever going to sell as many records to 12 year old middle girls; the Beatles were an updated barbershop quartet who did pop music, and really weren't original; the Dave Clark Five paved the way for their stylizations. The reason the DC 5 didn't succeed nearly as much in sales as the Beatles was their vocals were too masculine and 'old sounding' than the girly man Beatles pop tones, same with the fluffy lyrics.

Even the Ronettes were more adult sounding than the Beatles, and could probably kick their asses in a bar fight.

Britney Spears appeals to the same demographics as the Beatles did in their day; Zeppelin sells to the same demographics that would buy a Janis Joplin album. Guess which demographic has always bought the most records since the 1940's, and always will. Album rock became popular with the advent of FM stereo radio, and the proliferation of decent stereo systems at reasonable prices; pop music was tuned to what sounded better on cheap car radios and portables, i.e. a narrow high range in vocals and instrumentation.

The Beatles a mere gimmick?! Unoriginal?! Merely appealed to teeny boppers, mere bubblegum pop?! A narrow range of vocals and instrumentation?!

You're outside your mind. Either you really don't know dick about good music or you don't know dick about the post-Fab Four Beatles', who revolutionized the sound and scope of rock-n-roll. The Beatle's transformation began in 1965 with Rubber Soul, the first of what was, in fact, a jaw-dropping new sound, followed by one "FM-album" revelation after another: Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, White Album. . . .

 

[DudleySmith]

The Beatles a mere gimmick?! Unoriginal?! Merely appealed to teeny boppers, mere bubblegum pop?! A narrow range of vocals and instrumentation?!

You're outside your mind. Either you really don't know dick about good music or you don't know dick about the post-Fab Four Beatles', who revolutionized the sound and scope of rock-n-roll. The Beatle's transformation began in 1965 with Rubber Soul, the first of what was, in fact, a jaw-dropping new sound, followed by one "FM-album" revelation after another: Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, White Album. . . .

lol the 'post Fab Four' Beatles were chasing changing fashions, not innovators; they were just adapting to newer market demands. You clearly don't know shit about pop music and rock history.

lol @ 'jaw dropping'. Stones, Jimi Hendix, Uriah Heep, and scores of others were already out and touring in 1965; 'Rubber Soul' was candy pop. They started marketing themselves as 'hippies n stuff' trying to keep up. Bob Dylan was already well known.

 

[Ringtone]

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?

Per my taste: Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd.

 

[Ringtone]

lol the 'post Fab Four' Beatles were chasing changing fashions, not innovators; they were just adapting to newer market demands. You clearly don't know shit about pop music and rock history.

lol @ 'jaw dropping'. Stones, Jimi Hendix, Uriah Heep, and scores of others were already out and touring in 1965; 'Rubber Soul' was candy pop. They started marketing themselves as 'hippies n stuff' trying to keep up. Bob Dylan was already well known.

You're a silly-ass snob of a know-nothing. I laugh at you. I open my mouth and guffaw.