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

Piotr, first of all, someone who dogs the LOTR books can't be that passionate about Zeppelin.
Secondly, you make a great argument, but I still can't see how you put them ahead of The Beatles. Aside from maybe Elvis, I don't think anyone has ever changed music like The Beatles.

 

I'm not certain they would have had a record deal without The Beatles (who, again, recommended them to begin with).
The record companies might not realize the market was even out there without the mop-tops.

 

I've said this before on a different thread, but as influential as the Beatles were, the more years that go by and the more music I'm exposed to, the less I think of them.

 

well, the newb did have a point, ft. ;D

 

That has the opposite effect on me, but to each his own, I guess.

 

The Stones would have gotten a deal in Britain, and been given the chance to take a crack at America. While the Beatles were pivotal in leading the British Invasion, is doesn't mean if they hadn't existed, American record companies wouldn't have taken a look to see whether the Stones could work in America.

 

Okie, I didn't dog the LOTR books. I dogged certain parts of them.

I love the Beatles . . . but I find it hard to believe their musicianship influenced anyone like The Who did in that era. McCartney was a nice musician, Lennon had passion as a guitarist that didn't come out until he was a solo act, Ringo . .um . . played drums, and George was merely passable, at least on their records. Good and great songs, yes. Studio experimentation, yes. Inspiration for possible musicians, yes.

But members of the Stones and the Who were doing things that took a guitar-bass-drum sound to a new level.

 

I would argue all four Beatles were better than you are giving them credit for, but here's what this argument gets down to: Do you credit the innovator or the perfecter more?
I choose the innovators. You are choosing those who built upon the innovation.
I don't think either is a wrong answer and I am a fan of Zeppelin as well, but if it's one or the other, I'll take John, Paul, George and Ringo every time.

 

I disagree. The Beatles stopped being a traditional guitar-bass-drums rock band somewhat early in their evolution. They never perfected that part, and certainly didn't innovate in that way.

Other bands did more to push the limits of that traditional lineup. The Beatles expanded beyond it before coming back to it in their later years.

 

I'm talking about their expansion beyond it. I believe they showed there was more possible than the traditional lineup you are talking about.
I still say no Beatles, none of the other bands mentioned on this thread turn out the way they did.
I'm really not trying to downgrade any other band, but please tell me you're not really trying to say that, in the grand scheme of things, Zeppelin or The Who are more influential than The Beatles.

 

I love Zep, I really do, but they had a falling off period. Presence is a total piece of shit album, and while In Through The Out Door is much better and is underrated in terms of its place in albums overall, it is not as good as Zep's first four out of five albums by a long shot. The only early one it surpasses in my mind is Led Zeppelin III.

They've had reunions where they've had Phil Collins play drums (Live Aid), Chester Thompson, and Jason Bonham. They've reunited at least four times off the top of my head (Live Aid, Atlantic Records '88, Knebworth '90 and last year), and that doesn't count the Plant-Page tour in the 90s, which was in essence a Zep tour designed to leave JPJ out of the monetary loop.

Also, Zep has been one of the most cynical bands in terms of re-issues, compilations, etc. Their original box sets were a joke since it was clearly designed to mix the tracks up to the point where someone would have to buy both to get some handle on their career.

Zep has had their sell-out moments just as much as the other two have. Doesn't diminish their greatness, but they've done it.

 

I considered mentioning the shameless re-releases of greatest hits packages, and I shoud have, for a fuller picture.

Zeppelin's petering-out period . . Presence was dog-average, but their 1977 tour wasn't bad, not bad at all. Even with Page being smacked out every night. Presence did have two of their all-time great songs on it. Can a U2 "Pop" or "Zooropa" say the same?

In Through the Out Door was a new direction that worked about half the time. But to me, a petering out period is a decade where new members come in, and albums are so bad that they're only there for an excuse to tour. The Stones have been doing that since Steel Wheels.

I dont count one-shot reunions as being nearly as sad as that current "Who?" Tour, or Pink Floyd's "20 musicians on stage" monstrosity. I once thought the stones now play at half-speed, but I have also heard that they're still amazing live.