Beatles vs. Led Zeppelin

[pzarquon]

Another podcast my wife and I listen to proposed this simple "this or that" conversation starter: Beatles or Led Zeppelin? I thought it was interesting because, for one, the usual match up is Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones. Secondly, we had a pretty good discussion simply because the parameters of the comparison weren't set.

Are we talking musical versatility, skill with a specific instrument, overall impact on popular music, stage persona, vocal strength, what? We found our answers differed depending on what we decided mattered most.

So. Who gets your vote, and why? And even if you're one-hundred percent a fan of one band, what about the other band do you appreciate, if anything?

Basically, I said Led Zeppelin was the more "rockingest" band, and the band I'd listen to more and would love to see in concert. Page on guitar, Bonzo on drums, Plant's voice? Whew. But from a more academic standpoint, I felt the Beatles had more impact and probably influenced more of the bands that followed. Lennon, Harrison, McCartney... they wrote music, you know?

[Linkmeister]

Re: Beatles vs. Led Zeppelin

"Stairway to Heaven" has been covered at least 101 times, but "Yesterday" has had more serious covers, I'd bet.

I'd say the Beatles will have the more lasting impact. Many of their songs will be part of the "Great Standards Songbook" 75 years from now, like Berlin and Gershwin and Porter.

[cezanne]

Re: Beatles vs. Led Zeppelin

Love LZ but.... BEATLES.

[lavagal]

Re: Beatles vs. Led Zeppelin

I'm waiting for Kimo.


I think the Beatles opened the door for rock. I don't have an appreciation for Elvis Presley, I was too young for him. I think I was in first grade when the Beatles appeared on Ed Sullivan. In fact, my office mate was AT THAT SHOW. An insanely screaming teenager!
But I think Led Zepelin plunged us deeper into rock. The Stones, yeah, they're rock...but LZ took its mission of heavy metal seriously. I'm thinking the Immigrant Song. Who wrote those lyrics? That wail? What an attention getter, to this DAY!
There's The Who, too. But I think LZ showed garage bands the way. I don't think the Beatles were emulated much in garage bands. But LZ? Definitely.

[jdub]

Re: Beatles vs. Led Zeppelin

I must get in on this almost impossible call. I reckon Page's licks and knack for savage, iconic riffs were better than both George and John. However, the brilliant sensitivity to arrangement award must go to Paul, John, George and Ringo (in that order).

Beatles lyrics are more poignant, I do suppose. Plant, bless his golden god heart, could (and still can) slip into cloying metaphor and coarse liberty with the language. I think Paul et al had a more reverent, literary approach to assembling words (See: "Rocky Racoon vs. Lemon Song").

The fact that any top 500 classic rock radio flog-a-thon will inexorably grind to an end with "Stairway" and "Day in the Life" in the top three tells me that the Beatles and Zep were the two best ever, as far as the listening public has determined. The Beatles didn't have as long, illustrious or legendary a touring history as Zep, but even Page and John Paul Jones didn't get what The Beatles did out of a four-track.

So, to conclude my ramblings, I'll submit that "Beatles vs Zeppelin" could go either way for me. Sometimes "Blackbird" is the best song ever written, sometimes it's "In the Light"...Or "Paperback Writer"...Or "When the Levee Breaks."

Music is only as important as the context in which it is perceived. I think that is why people have "my songs" and "our songs." Different songs resonate differently for reasons that can generally be boiled down to the one time a song spoke to the part of us that makes us as individuals entirely unique. I think The Beatles and Led Zepplin were equally skilled as technicians of that internal resonance.

Thanks for the ramble fodder, PZ!

[Mahi Waina]

Re: Beatles vs. Led Zeppelin

Tough call! I wouldn't compare Page against Harrison, though, because of the technology gap. Listening to "She Loves You" on a transistor radio is a lot different than "Dazed and Confused" through Crown Amps at 200 watts per channel.

[tikiyaki]

Re: Beatles vs. Led Zeppelin

Apples and Oranges....I say Zep AND the Beatles :-) I'd say my life would be missing something without either of them.

Zep, tho they were known for the more harder rocking stuff, could hit a nerve with their more heartfelt stuff in the same way the Beatles could.
Examples : Ten years Gone...My personal Fave by them. Also, the Rain Song...both songs give me goosebumps.

Lyrically tho' , the Beatles songs spoke more to and from the heart than just about anybody else's. Examples : In My Life, For No One, Yesterday, Let It Be...there's so many.

The thing is, not since this era of rock/pop music has any band covered so much diversity in music. Between The Beatles and Zep, they covered just about every style of music...
You put on Houses of the Holy, and you're hearing rock, folk, Jamaican reggae, Funk, balladry, and a wide array of moods, and textures.

You put on Any Beatle record after Rubber Soul and you get the same variation and more.

Now let's compare....Put on the latest record by say, Fallout Boy. You;ll get probably 15 songs, and 13 of them will sound pretty much the same, maybe the obligatory "slow song" and tha's it.

That's why those bands are still being played to death on the radio today...Substance. Funny, but with all todays technology, the substance has really almost disappeared. PZ, you really opened a can of worms with this one :-)
I can see this thread going on for months !

[mel]

Re: Beatles vs. Led Zeppelin

This is kind of like comparing Apples to Oranges. Both are from the same stock but definitely different flavors. Comparisons between the Beatles and early Stones are probably closer than Beatles vs. Led Zeppelin. I will echo those people who say that The Beatles music will be remembered more into the future along the lines of classical music composers and well established popular standards.

Also I think more people cover Beatles songs vs. those of Led Zeppelin. Plus you get a great variety of different musical styles represented by the many various Beatles songs that have been covered over the years... decades. The few Led Zeppelin covers that I have heard more or less echo the same rock style pioneered by this legendary heavy metal rock group... which means generally, more rock songs... I haven't heard too many or even any Led Zeppelin songs that have been adopted by say, 100 Strings or Richard Clayderman.

This is a tough call. I love all of The Beatles music but when I want to hear great hard rock n roll, Led Zeppelin (among others) get the call.

[Menehune Man]

Re: Beatles vs. Led Zeppelin

I think it's more like comparing Sashimi and Lau Lau.

The Beatles are like Sashimi at Todai's... Very tasty (well written music that makes you think), a little lighter (in sound and jovial spirit), But you can keep filling your plate up and never grow tired of feasting on it.

Led Zeppelin on the other hand are like Lau Lau's... Most of us love them, wouldn't think of turning them down and were probably raised on a steady diet of their music.

I have owned more Led Zeppelin music in my life and have more great memories (some faded) of house and beach parties rocking to them.
so my final answer is...

Led Zeppelin!

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Beatles vs. Led Zeppelin

This is kind of like comparing Apples to Oranges.

An unexpected pun from Mel? Apples...Beatles...I like it, but how do you link oranges to Led Zep?

Oh, and I'd have to vote Beatles, simply based on their having had a bigger influence on the music world - not to denigrate the power of the Zep in any way. (Ever heard "Immigrant Song" played on a couple `ukulele? Kinda loses something in the translation - though "Stairway To Heaven" can work...some.)

[timkona]

Re: Beatles vs. Led Zeppelin

I never quite understood the fascination with the Beatles. It's likely that I am too young to know any better & Mom loved Elvis.

But Zep ruled ever since I discovered what music was in the 4th grade. I can still shred Stairway note for note.

Gotta go with Led Zeppelin.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Beatles vs. Led Zeppelin

I never quite understood the fascination with the Beatles. It's likely that I am too young to know any better.

I think you summed it up right here, Tim; this question can probably be used to delineate age groups with some success.

As someone a little older than you, I recall finding the Beatles "safe" and LZ "scary" --- before I found out how earth-shakingly good "scary" could be. From then on, most "safe" music was POP to me, while the "scary" stuff was ROCK, and the two rarely mixed (well, they sometimes did, but usually with embarassing results, such as the KISS song "Beth.")

Beatles songs are deceptive - they seem rather simple up front, but when you get into their musical structure, the complexity can surprise you and trip you up. Zep seemed to get a little too much of the pretentiousness of "progressive rock" into some of their great works, such as "Kashmir" (and don't get me wrong, I'm a big prog-rock fan), yet "Bron-Y-Aur Stomp" has a special hold on me, because it's the only song my brother taught me on guitar.

But again, I feel the Beatles knocked down more doors than LZ, in who they were, what they did, and where they came from in the musical world of the time --- and maybe you had to be in that world to grasp the effect they had at a visceral level; otherwise, it just becomes academic.

[Erika Engle]

Re: Beatles vs. Led Zeppelin

Wow there are some GREAT posts in this thread! I mean, to the point that I wanted to pull multiple quotes into this post. That would take too long, so just THANK YOU everyone for such thoughtful discussion about two such important bands.

Timkona and my sister ARE too young to "get" how groundbreakingly, door-openingly important the Beatles were. Someone in that demo hears, "I Wanna Hold Your Hand," for example, and it's meaningless pop drivel ... but just like with drug dealers who offer "the first one free" ... that song was one of those gateway drugs to America's (well, the world's) Beatles addiction which grew and evolved and went in deliciously different directions over the years.

Their importance, as I explained to my sister, also has to do with what was happening socioeconomically, politically and "other-aspectally" in America at that time.

Led Zep -- where would Cadillac be without them?
Seriously -- where would I be without them?
Definitely missing a part of who I am.
Harder and "scarier" than the Stones ... I love them as much as I love The Who ... for different reasons, I think.

I recently posted about purchasing a greatest hits dual-disc set that's been out for awhile, but which is new (and delightful) to me. There's nothing like rocking out in the kitchen while rustling up some grub ... unless it's pretending I know how to salsa in the kitchen while rustling up some grub during Ray Cruz's "Sabor Tropical" on KIPO Sat. eves.

But I digress.

I agree that music would not be what it is -- and probably, multiple GENRES of music would not be what they are, were it not for the Beatles (who also had influences, of course -- not all of them pharmaceutical or herbal).

I daresay Led Zep might have had a harder time of it, had it not been for the four lads from Liverpool.

[Pua'i Mana'o]

Re: Beatles vs. Led Zeppelin

ah, the importance of genealogy in rock&roll. the devil was first backmasked in big band/jive and swing. Liverpool wouldn't have produced squat if not for that music.

the real battle here should be to arrange in order of impact:

Tina Turner
Dianna Ross
Aretha Franklin
Gladys Knight

discuss.

[tikiyaki]

Re: Beatles vs. Led Zeppelin

An unexpected pun from Mel? Apples...Beatles...I like it, but how do you link oranges to Led Zep?

Oh, and I'd have to vote Beatles, simply based on their having had a bigger influence on the music world - not to denigrate the power of the Zep in any way. (Ever heard "Immigrant Song" played on a couple `ukulele? Kinda loses something in the translation - though "Stairway To Heaven" can work...some.)

Jimmy Page played through ORANGE amplifiers (brand name, not color, tho they WERE orange in color) sometimes :-)