|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: 5 vs 12 | |||
| Neo |
   
|
83 | 69.75% |
| Papa Smurf |
  
|
36 | 30.25% |
| Voters: 119. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#3
05-05-2005, 07:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Beatles vs. Led Zeppelin
[ QUOTE ]
It's a tough one, since they're my two favorite bands, but I had to go with Zeppelin for their superior musical ability. [/ QUOTE ] Other than Bonzo clearly being better on the drums than Ringo, I don't see how any Zeppelin member is better than any Beatle member in musical ability. George > Jimmy (guitar) Paul > John Paul (bass) John > Robert (vocals) Don't even get started on songwriting ability. This one should be a slam dunk for the Beatles. 
|
|
#6
05-05-2005, 08:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Beatles vs. Led Zeppelin
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] It's a tough one, since they're my two favorite bands, but I had to go with Zeppelin for their superior musical ability. [/ QUOTE ] Other than Bonzo clearly being better on the drums than Ringo, I don't see how any Zeppelin member is better than any Beatle member in musical ability. George > Jimmy (guitar) Paul > John Paul (bass) John > Robert (vocals) Don't even get started on songwriting ability. This one should be a slam dunk for the Beatles. [/ QUOTE ] You're kidding right? George was a run of the mill guitarist, and Jimmy was one of the greatest. John Paul Jones was a much better bassist and pianist than McCartney(sp?). Robert Plant was a more talented vocalist by far. You might actually have somewhat of an argument if you include the small period where Eric Clapton played with the Beatles. The Beatles do have the edge in songwriting.
|
|
#7
05-05-2005, 08:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Beatles vs. Led Zeppelin
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It's a tough one, since they're my two favorite bands, but I had to go with Zeppelin for their superior musical ability. [/ QUOTE ] Other than Bonzo clearly being better on the drums than Ringo, I don't see how any Zeppelin member is better than any Beatle member in musical ability. George > Jimmy (guitar) Paul > John Paul (bass) John > Robert (vocals) Don't even get started on songwriting ability. This one should be a slam dunk for the Beatles. [/ QUOTE ] You're kidding right? George was a run of the mill guitarist, and Jimmy was one of the greatest. John Paul Jones was a much better bassist and pianist than McCartney(sp?). Robert Plant was a more talented vocalist by far. You might actually have somewhat of an argument if you include the small period where Eric Clapton played with the Beatles. The Beatles do have the edge in songwriting. [/ QUOTE ] John Paul Jones was not a better bassist than McCartney. Not even close. McCartney was a much, much better musician in general as well. Plant vs. Lennon is close but that's JMO. They aren't really comparable as the music is so different.
|
|
#8
05-05-2005, 09:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Beatles vs. Led Zeppelin
[ QUOTE ]
John Paul Jones was not a better bassist than McCartney. Not even close. McCartney was a much, much better musician in general as well. Plant vs. Lennon is close but that's JMO. They aren't really comparable as the music is so different. [/ QUOTE ] I can agree with you about JPJ vs. McCartney being close. Plant vs. Lennon is close simply because Lennon has a more enjoyable voice IMO. However, when it comes to vocal range and such, Plant is more talented.
|
|
#9
05-06-2005, 07:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Beatles vs. Led Zeppelin
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It's a tough one, since they're my two favorite bands, but I had to go with Zeppelin for their superior musical ability. [/ QUOTE ] Other than Bonzo clearly being better on the drums than Ringo, I don't see how any Zeppelin member is better than any Beatle member in musical ability. George > Jimmy (guitar) Paul > John Paul (bass) John > Robert (vocals) Don't even get started on songwriting ability. This one should be a slam dunk for the Beatles. [/ QUOTE ] You're kidding right? George was a run of the mill guitarist, and Jimmy was one of the greatest. John Paul Jones was a much better bassist and pianist than McCartney(sp?). Robert Plant was a more talented vocalist by far. You might actually have somewhat of an argument if you include the small period where Eric Clapton played with the Beatles. The Beatles do have the edge in songwriting. [/ QUOTE ] John Paul Jones was not a better bassist than McCartney. Not even close. McCartney was a much, much better musician in general as well. Plant vs. Lennon is close but that's JMO. They aren't really comparable as the music is so different. [/ QUOTE ] Evidence in favor of JPJ: -Ramble On -Lemon Song (great blues playing) -Good Times, Bad Times -Immigrant Song -Black Dog (He wrote the riff) -The Song Remains the Same -Achilles Last Stand I will say that Lennon/McCartney wrote better lyrics. I don't think it's as important as the musical songwriting.
|
|
#10
05-06-2005, 03:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I like arguments about bass players!
No one who wasn't a musician already (or deeply knowledgeable of music) could truly hear what the damn dork was playing on the bass yet we could be arguing about who's the best bass player until morning!
Face it, all those Best (Instrument player) polls are nothing but about who's the most popular or most revered at the time. The best polls are those among the musicians themselves. They know what they are talking about. BTW, here's my deal: Guitarist: Page over Harrison (come on!) Guitarist: Lennon - by default! Bassist: Macca over Jones, and it's not even close. Drummer: I don't mind having Bozo over Starr, but let it be known that Mr Starkey was a vastly underrated drummer! (Check him out, for instance, in "I Saw Her Standing There" which is restrained yet pure, pure testosterone drumming.) Overall output in music: Fab over Zep, and it's not even close.
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
