Beatles, Stones or Led Zeppelin? (or someone else?)

This was a great idea. I don't think there's any doubt that the Beatles had the biggest impact.
Maybe it's because the Beatles were so overplayed in my youth, but today, I would probably rather listen to the Stones or Zep.
And the Robert Plant-Alison Krauss album is amazing, by the way.

 

I'm sick of Queen and The Doors. Find 'em both overrated.

 

I'm with you on The Doors. As for Queen ... well ... you're dead to me, f_t. ;D

 

Of the three I'm going to say the Beatles.

However, to say Zeppelin and the Stones wouldn't have happened, or had the ability to do what they did without the Beatles is wrong.

I would also put up there The Yardbirds (all incarnations) and Cream.

 

You're flat wrong about what Zep or Stones would have done without the Beatles.
In fact, the Stones were signed on the recommendation of the Beatles.
I think Zep and the Stones would have been bands, but they wouldn't have had anywhere near the success if execs weren't looking at England to copies the success of the Beatles, plus there is massive, massive Beatles inspiration present in both bands.

 

I just think the Beatles were a different band stylistically, especially to Zeppelin.

The whole hype about them when the came to the U.S. was that they were bringing the blues back to America.

Maybe it makes a difference to the Stones, but as was noted earlier the quality of the music would have shone through no matter where they came from and who recommended them.

 

I agree with that, but they might have been like a billion other bands that didn't last because they didn't have the album sales because they never got a truly fair shot at it.
I assume you at least agree with me that, even if we were in an alternate universe where there were no Beatles but Zep and the Stones had produced identical work to what we have now, they still wouldn't have had as many album sales.
Think about how low album sales kills/changes a band, and you see my point.

 

Low album sales kills a band nowadays. Back then, the band had to actually die/split to get killed off. Record companies were a lot more patient than they are nowadays.

 

Fetch me a beer, newb!

 

But are you certain they wouldn't have split if they weren't rolling in drugs, excuse me, dough so early on?

 

Metallica is my favorite band to listen to, both on album and live bootleg.

Rush is my second favorite, in the same way.

But Led Zeppelin is the greatest band of all time. They changed the way the business was, as they were one of the first to gain most of the receipts for the band, not the venue. They innovated in recording in the studio, though not to the extent of the Beatles. Their live shows were legendary . . George Harrison famously said, hangign out backstage at one of their shows in response to someone telling him they played three hours: "Fuck me! We'd play about 30 minutes, and get back to the hotel!"

Page is seen as one of the great guitarists. Bonham as one of the best drummers. Plant as a great vocalist with range. Jones was an overall excellent musician who held the whole thing together.

They didn't presume to try to change the world, so they're not overly pretentious or dated for their time. As Plant said in a 1970 interview, their whole message "is the message of enjoyment." They helped finance Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and appreciated good humor to the point where Plant signed off of a 1975 show at earl's court (their last of the year) with, "Good night . .and watch for the Holy Grail."

They moved between styles and influences constantly, never even producing an entire album with songs that all sounded similar. It was as if they changed eras and influences from tune to tune.

They helped invent a genre I happen to love, heavy metal. They eschewed singles in favor of the album as art form, yet never got sucked into the whole "let's get stoned and do a concept album!" craze of the 1970s. And when they broke up, they didn't do it in rancor because they couldn't control their egos like the Beatles. They never had a petering-out period like the Stones have had for two decades and counting, they never toured with a bunch of musicians who never recorded with them.

Their road presence was legendary, and they never insulted their legacy with a bunch of reunions and bad albums.

The Beatles were great, but their individual musicians didn't compare. Ditto the Stones. Zep had no weak link, no Ringo, no . . name your Stone other than Jagger, Richards and Brian Jones.

Led Zeppelin is the best band that ever was, and ever will be.

 

Honestly, yes. The money wasn't as infinite as it was now, and the fact that they had a record deal, and got developed by the label would almost certainly have kept them together.

And can you imagine Mick and Keith hanging out with anyone else?