Zeppelin versus Sabbath?

Probably Black Sabbath. Zeppelin was huge, of course, but I bet more metal bands can trace musical roots to Sabbath. Not just bands like Candlemass or old ones like St. Vitus, but across the board.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #3
Probably Black Sabbath. Zeppelin was huge, of course, but I bet more metal bands can trace musical roots to Sabbath. Not just bands like Candlemass or old ones like St. Vitus, but across the board.

I agree.

Throughout the 80's Zeppelin's influence reigned supreme. But from grunge forward, I hear Sabbath influences more than any other.
 
Sabbath is the root of all things metal.


your question reminds me of the ole "which is the greatest rock band: the rolling stones or the beatles"


the answer, of course, being the stones since the beatles were a pop band making hits while the stones were stealing American blues.
 
eesh.. I was hoping that would suffice since I can't decide.



My conundrum lately has been which is the greater musical genius: Stevie Wonder or Willie Nelson. my first instinct is to say Stevie.. but then I listen to the Red Headed Stranger album by willie and take a gander at the list of songs he wrote.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #7
eesh.. I was hoping that would suffice since I can't decide.



My conundrum lately has been which is the greater musical genius: Stevie Wonder or Willie Nelson. my first instinct is to say Stevie.. but then I listen to the Red Headed Stranger album by willie and take a gander at the list of songs he wrote.


That's actually a tough call.

But as long as we can all agree that U2 sucks donkey balls and Bono suffers from a messiah complex, then I think we'll have made real progress. :D
 
That's actually a tough call.

But as long as we can all agree that U2 sucks donkey balls and Bono suffers from a messiah complex, then I think we'll have made real progress.
:D

I have just gained a new level of respect for you, dude! I've ALWAYS hated that band. The Edge? gimme a break... The Suck is more like it.
 
Which band do you think has a bigger influence on new music today?

You would have to define "new music today." What genre? LZ was by far the more popular band, but I really wouldn't classify them in the same genre as Black Sabbath. Zeppelin was more of a druggie-head music type band with some metal than heavy metal. Their style of music, IMO, was in its heyday then and they were just one of the best at it.


Sabbath was more of an early heavy metal band. You didn't put on the Sabbath LP to mellow out in the corner. Most of their stuff is good to work out on the heavy bag to.
 
Sabbath is the root of all things metal.


your question reminds me of the ole "which is the greatest rock band: the rolling stones or the beatles"


the answer, of course, being the stones since the beatles were a pop band making hits while the stones were stealing American blues.

I disagree. The Beatles made rock music what it is today. They trasnformed the genre from 50s-60s American pop to drug influenced heavy rock.

The Stones, IMO, are the flipside. They started out racier than the Beatles, but end up a pop band in the 80s.

I DO think they are a better inter-genre comparison than Zeppelin and Sabbath.

Whereabouts in there would you toss The Who? They were pretty badass until someone told Roger Daltrey he could act.:badgrin:
 
I disagree. The Beatles made rock music what it is today. They trasnformed the genre from 50s-60s American pop to drug influenced heavy rock.

The Stones, IMO, are the flipside. They started out racier than the Beatles, but end up a pop band in the 80s.

I DO think they are a better inter-genre comparison than Zeppelin and Sabbath.

Whereabouts in there would you toss The Who? They were pretty badass until someone told Roger Daltrey he could act.:badgrin:
I agree regarding the Beatles, and even though Sgt Pepper came out before I was born, I can play it today and it still sounds brand new. I find it hard to categorize The Who other than to say that their best work is very original. I find little derivative about Who's Next, and Quadraphenia towers about most contemporary music. The Stones...Exile on Main Street is simply some of the best Rock/Blues music ever created.
 
I agree regarding the Beatles, and even though Sgt Pepper came out before I was born, I can play it today and it still sounds brand new. I find it hard to categorize The Who other that to say that their best work is very original. I find little derivative about Who's Next, and Quadraphenia towers about most contemporary music. The Stones...Exile on Main Street is simply some of the best Rock/Blues music ever created.

I actually listen to all four groups (5 if you include The Who) regularly. I honestl don't think there is a real comparison here beyond a matter of personal preference. I woudl further add that personal preference is sometimes dictated by memories -- the times and events that surrounded certain music. It's hard for people from different generations to relate to the tastes of those that preceeded/followed them.

Not having a real idea of anyone's age in this thread, I find it interesting in and of itself that people I KNOW (especially if you were born after Sgt Pepper - braggart) are from different generations can actually appreciate the same music from the same groups. THAT, to me, is what makes each of the groups mentioned great in their own right -- that they transcend time.

Face it, most groups belong to an era and are stuck there. You can take Zeppelin, Sabbath, the Stones and the Beatles and stand them up against today's music.

As far as Manifold is concerned -- he can take U2 and stand them up against a wall with blindfolds. Probably ought to negrep him for defiling his own thread by even including them.:evil:
 
I disagree. The Beatles made rock music what it is today. They trasnformed the genre from 50s-60s American pop to drug influenced heavy rock.

That's true BUT this is a Zeppelin v Sabbath thread.

Ozzy said that the Beatles were the biggest influence on him.

I'd say Sabbath, but maybe that's because I liked them better. But I think they had more influence in heavy metal than Zeppelin.
 
As much as they were derivative, unoriginal and some say they actually stole a lot of their material, I think Zeppelin had far more influence on the people who followed.

Am I right? Dunno.... but it's my opinion on the subject.

As for innovation... but for the Beatles and Paul McCartney, we wouldn't even have lead guitarists.
 
I disagree. The Beatles made rock music what it is today. They trasnformed the genre from 50s-60s American pop to drug influenced heavy rock.

The Stones, IMO, are the flipside. They started out racier than the Beatles, but end up a pop band in the 80s.

I DO think they are a better inter-genre comparison than Zeppelin and Sabbath.

Whereabouts in there would you toss The Who? They were pretty badass until someone told Roger Daltrey he could act.:badgrin:



You know.. I always did like seeing Roger pop up in television. Ever catch the Highlander series? good stuff. Behind Blue Eyes is still one of my favorites. Roger may have been a mediocre actor but some of his music was a little thin too. Boris The Spider? eesh. I'm glad I missed that Mod era of british music.


Now, I totally disagree about the beatles and the stones.. The beatles were to their decade what 'nsinc is to this one. If they hadn't been caught up in a hippy tidal wave (that began regardless of them, no less) then the beatles would have become the new kids on the block of the 60s. Indeed, they became more real after they discovered the drugs but you can't tell me that "i wanna hold your hand" is not a pop tune.

the stones, while they did "roll with the flow" when it came to musical fads later on, were always entreanched in strait up blues oriented rock. Beatles songs are not rock anthems like Start Me Up or Cant Get No (Satisfaction).

Not that I'm shitting on the beatles.. I enjoy looking at that musical timeframe though the kelidascope of drug induced culture... But the key word to the original question is what ROCK band.. not some blue meany sgt pepper pop effort that reminds me more of Andy Worhall than robert Johnson
 
Also.. I just ahve to say.. I find it to be a graet rock and roll tragedy that the answer to sir Paul's question is No. Heather Mills should hop her one legged british ass off a cliff.



When I get older losing my hair
Many years from now
Will you still be sending me a valentine
Birthday greetings, bottle of wine?
If I'd been out till quarter to three
Would you lock the door?
Will you still need me, will you still feed me
When I'm sixty-four?


You'll be older too
And if you say the word
I could stay with you

I could be handy, mending a fuse
When your lights have gone
You can knit a sweater by the fireside
[ Find more Lyrics at www.mp3lyrics.org/aK ]
Sunday mornings go for a ride
Doing the garden, digging the weeds
Who could ask for more?
Will you still need me, will you still feed me
When I'm sixty-four?

Every summer we can rent a cottage in the Isle of Wight
If it's not too dear
We shall scrimp and save
Grandchildren on your knee
Vera, Chuck & Dave

Send me a postcard, drop me a line
Stating point of view
Indicate precisely what you mean to say
Yours sincerely, wasting away
Give me your answer, fill in a form
Mine for evermore
Will you still need me, will you still feed me
When I'm sixty-four?
Ho!
 
You know.. I always did like seeing Roger pop up in television. Ever catch the Highlander series? good stuff. Behind Blue Eyes is still one of my favorites. Roger may have been a mediocre actor but some of his music was a little thin too. Boris The Spider? eesh. I'm glad I missed that Mod era of british music.


Now, I totally disagree about the beatles and the stones.. The beatles were to their decade what 'nsinc is to this one. If they hadn't been caught up in a hippy tidal wave (that began regardless of them, no less) then the beatles would have become the new kids on the block of the 60s. Indeed, they became more real after they discovered the drugs but you can't tell me that "i wanna hold your hand" is not a pop tune.

the stones, while they did "roll with the flow" when it came to musical fads later on, were always entreanched in strait up blues oriented rock. Beatles songs are not rock anthems like Start Me Up or Cant Get No (Satisfaction).

Not that I'm shitting on the beatles.. I enjoy looking at that musical timeframe though the kelidascope of drug induced culture... But the key word to the original question is what ROCK band.. not some blue meany sgt pepper pop effort that reminds me more of Andy Worhall than robert Johnson

The Stones followed the Beatles, and broke into the same rock/pop genre the Beatles did. Even played the Ed Sullivan Show. Some of their music may have been racier, but their acceptable for AM radio play was the same bland stuff.

The Beatles set the trends, and everyone else played catchup. Both bands became successful pop bands and established themselves before going their own ways. Few bands are successful attempting to break into music by starting off trying to establish their own style. Especially during a time when media outlets were so limited and strictly controlled.

Agan, it all comes down to personal taste. I like some Beatles tunes. "An Octopus's Garden" is NOT one of them.:eusa_eh: I like some Stones tunes, but they have some stinkers too. *Get Off of My Cloud" is about as mindless as "She Loves You."
 
hehe.. oh yea.. that "Colors in the air" song by the stones is goofy as hell. And dont get me wrong, I do love some beatles... I just think that the Stones were more Rocknroll than the beatles. The Yellow Submarine just doesn't strike me as all that much derived from the blues. er, blue meanies maybe.

Current fav Stones song: Gimme Shelter
Current fav. Beatles songs: While My Guitar Gently Weeps and Why don't we do it in the road. The white Album in general.
 

Forum List

Back
Top