Led Zepplin VS Guns N' Roses

[Jdog0830]

2. Achille's

that's Achilles, as in Achilles(') heel or tendon. name of a greek warrior in the trojan war.

What's your fucking point?

You of all people should not be correcting other peoples' spelling or grammar.  Your posts are barely comprehensible.  You make Timebomb look like a Rhodes Scholar.

Someone forgot there crack pipe before posting.

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

2. Achille's

that's Achilles, as in Achilles(') heel or tendon. name of a greek warrior in the trojan war.

What's your fucking point?

You of all people should not be correcting other peoples' spelling or grammar.  Your posts are barely comprehensible.  You make Timebomb look like a Rhodes Scholar.

Someone forgot there crack pipe before posting.

Gawsh j-dizzle, u r ril-E smArtur then I giv u creditz 4.

[BlowUpYourVideo]

2. Achille's

that's Achilles, as in Achilles(') heel or tendon. name of a greek warrior in the trojan war.

What's your fucking point?

You of all people should not be correcting other peoples' spelling or grammar.  Your posts are barely comprehensible.  You make Timebomb look like a Rhodes Scholar.

Someone forgot there crack pipe before posting.

lolwut?


Anyway, odd to see that this thread has turned into a discussion of Axl's fashion sense (or lack thereof at times). Plant definitely beats Axl in the 'looking cool onstage' category, surely the most important category when comparing two bands.

[ppbebe]

Plant definitely beats Axl in the 'looking cool onstage' category,

again tastes differ. Givenchy, Versace, galliano Alexander Wang  etc wouldn't agree with you. 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iOzLwIr1RNgbkcb1POT0-QmDE-rgD992M7JG0

http://www.vogue.co.uk/fashion/show.aspx/catwalk-report/id,7473

Thanks for another hearty dose of vague.

You lose.

you lost.

[Jdog0830]

 

2. Achille's

that's Achilles, as in Achilles(') heel or tendon. name of a greek warrior in the trojan war.

What's your fucking point?

You of all people should not be correcting other peoples' spelling or grammar.  Your posts are barely comprehensible.  You make Timebomb look like a Rhodes Scholar.

Someone forgot there crack pipe before posting.

Gawsh j-dizzle, u r ril-E smArtur then I giv u creditz 4.

Nice

[D]

Garry

no offense but you have lost your mind.

Axl running 100 mph and still singing, his dances, rants from the stage etc. he had a very interesting wardrobe that only he could pull off.

What the hell does Robert Plant do onstage other than sing that is awesome?

Axl looked cool onstage just from his wild fucking energy. CLothes don't make u cool onstage, its your attitude and how u rock the shit.

I don't think any frontman had the stage presence of Axl back in the late 80's early 90's.

[BlowUpYourVideo]

Axl had/has a different kind of cool than Plant. Axl is more of a "dangerous, I'll rant all motherf#!*&$ night if I want to" kind of cool. Plant had more of "calm and collected" cool.


I like both.

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

Garry

no offense but you have lost your mind.

Lost it a long time ago.

Axl running 100 mph and still singing, his dances, rants from the stage etc. he had a very interesting wardrobe that only he could pull off.

Very nice.

What the hell does Robert Plant do onstage other than sing that is awesome?

He doesn't have to do anything other than sing!  You watch those old Zeppelin tapes, the man just exudes awesomeness.  Substance over style.

Axl looked cool onstage just from his wild fucking energy. CLothes don't make u cool onstage, its your attitude and how u rock the shit.

If he didn't have his wild fawking rawking energy, where would he be?  And you just said he had a very "interesting" wardrobe.  Like when I read a horrible paper in school and I don't want to be mean, I call it "interesting."

I don't think any frontman had the stage presence of Axl back in the late 80's early 90's.

Nope, no frontman did.  He was king of the mountain in the time of Jani Lane, Sammy Hagar, and Kurt Cobain.  Such stellar competition.

With all that said, Led Zeppelin > Guns N' Roses of all eras and lineups.

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

Plant definitely beats Axl in the 'looking cool onstage' category,

again tastes differ. Givenchy, Versace, galliano Alexander Wang  etc wouldn't agree with you. 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iOzLwIr1RNgbkcb1POT0-QmDE-rgD992M7JG0

http://www.vogue.co.uk/fashion/show.aspx/catwalk-report/id,7473

Thanks for another hearty dose of vague.

You lose.

you lost.

Holy crap!!!!!  I urge everyone to look at those links!!!!!  Laughter is the best gift, thank you ppbebe!

Some character was listening to GN'R during his productive session, and somehow or another Axl had a direct effect on fashion!!!!!  And the other one created a checkered shirt that is a tribute to Axl.

I dedicate my next bowel movement to Axl Rose.  It will be the greatest bowel movement of all time.  This next bowel movement will influence future bowel movements.

[Jdog0830]

Axl had/has a different kind of cool than Plant. Axl is more of a "dangerous, I'll rant all motherf#!*&$ night if I want to" kind of cool. Plant had more of "calm and collected" cool.


I like both.

True thats why I favor Axl here.

[Bodhi]

Wearing underwear on stage?

Fish net tops?  Kilts?

Axl was a walking fashion disaster.  Why would you even bring his wardrobe into a debate about music?

Keep digging that hole there.

it could have been even more embarrassing...Axl could have been riding a giant inflatable penis on stage..

all that crap aside, GNR are still the better band.  Heavier, better hooks, better solos, better everything.  Now I don't take drugs and Zeppelin was a big stoner band, so I am missing out on that aspect of it...Without Zeppelin there probably is NO GNR though...so that leaves us right where we started...

[ppbebe]

i doubt 5that. sure some songs by gnr would have sounded a bit different but zep isn't the only influence or the only good band from that era. 

[Bitch Slap Rappin]

Both bands have their own great contributions to the hard rock audience. I like both Zepp & Guns. Both bands were outlaws of the music industry as far as allowing the industry to shape them. Both had a huge impact on their audience but in different eras. I am a huge Zepp fan and the bands that came out of the 70's that ruled the music business. Early Aerosmith; Deep Purple and groups of that category were not posers and offered great rock & roll music with the heavy edge to it.
Than the eighties came in and there were an over abundant of heavy-metal bands that were certainly posers in my opinion. Most of them were over-blown by the music industry and the path of those bands went left to what great rock music was about.
Than....................one day a new signed group appeared on MTV that basically went back to the authentic formula of gut wrenching hard rock that was prominent in the 70's. That band was G&R.
When I saw the two videos) Welcome and Sweet -----that was it for me. They basically put those hair-bands in their place real fast.
The funny thing here is that G&R was drawing their style and authentic overall sound and attitude from Led Zepp; Aerosmith and the hard rock bands of the 70's but also adding a sprinkle of the edge that punk music offered. So it was a marriage of those two that set G&R apart from all the other heavy metal bands that were basically Bon Jovi-Poison-clone bands that saturated the radio and MTV. Some groups may have had one or two good songs but really if any of those groups were indeed something that would be listen still today was a fairy tale unknown to them.

As far as Led Zep. Many radio stations and every generation that came after their generation are still getting turned on by Led Zep. Let's face it. Zepp has a huge catalog of songs that offer different styles of music for the general public to love.

I wish that the original G&R members of the band had not been crushed so hard by the weight of sudden fame that broke their brotherhood as a band. If they had not have to experience the fast pace fame they might of stayed together and released five more lps to further their catalog of songs in comparison to Led Zepp.
For me G&R was the American Led Zepp; The Doors and Aerosmith/Lynerd Skynerd of the late eighties early nineties.

All we can do now is wait for the next unknown rock band to pick up the sword of rock and proclaim the thrown of ROCK

[Jdog0830]

Both bands have their own great contributions to the hard rock audience. I like both Zepp & Guns. Both bands were outlaws of the music industry as far as allowing the industry to shape them. Both had a huge impact on their audience but in different eras. I am a huge Zepp fan and the bands that came out of the 70's that ruled the music business. Early Aerosmith; Deep Purple and groups of that category were not posers and offered great rock & roll music with the heavy edge to it.
Than the eighties came in and there were an over abundant of heavy-metal bands that were certainly posers in my opinion. Most of them were over-blown by the music industry and the path of those bands went left to what great rock music was about.
Than....................one day a new signed group appeared on MTV that basically went back to the authentic formula of gut wrenching hard rock that was prominent in the 70's. That band was G&R.
When I saw the two videos) Welcome and Sweet -----that was it for me. They basically put those hair-bands in their place real fast.
The funny thing here is that G&R was drawing their style and authentic overall sound and attitude from Led Zepp; Aerosmith and the hard rock bands of the 70's but also adding a sprinkle of the edge that punk music offered. So it was a marriage of those two that set G&R apart from all the other heavy metal bands that were basically Bon Jovi-Poison-clone bands that saturated the radio and MTV. Some groups may have had one or two good songs but really if any of those groups were indeed something that would be listen still today was a fairy tale unknown to them.

As far as Led Zep. Many radio stations and every generation that came after their generation are still getting turned on by Led Zep. Let's face it. Zepp has a huge catalog of songs that offer different styles of music for the general public to love.

I wish that the original G&R members of the band had not been crushed so hard by the weight of sudden fame that broke their brotherhood as a band. If they had not have to experience the fast pace fame they might of stayed together and released five more lps to further their catalog of songs in comparison to Led Zepp.
For me G&R was the American Led Zepp; The Doors and Aerosmith/Lynerd Skynerd of the late eighties early nineties.

All we can do now is wait for the next unknown rock band to pick up the sword of rock and proclaim the thrown of ROCK

My dream is to actualy be a part of that band to clam the rock n' roll throne...

[ppbebe]

Both bands have their own great contributions to the hard rock audience. I like both Zepp & Guns. Both bands were outlaws of the music industry as far as allowing the industry to shape them. Both had a huge impact on their audience but in different eras. I am a huge Zepp fan and the bands that came out of the 70's that ruled the music business. Early Aerosmith; Deep Purple and groups of that category were not posers and offered great rock & roll music with the heavy edge to it.
Than the eighties came in and there were an over abundant of heavy-metal bands that were certainly posers in my opinion. Most of them were over-blown by the music industry and the path of those bands went left to what great rock music was about.
Than....................one day a new signed group appeared on MTV that basically went back to the authentic formula of gut wrenching hard rock that was prominent in the 70's. That band was G&R.
When I saw the two videos) Welcome and Sweet -----that was it for me. They basically put those hair-bands in their place real fast.
The funny thing here is that G&R was drawing their style and authentic overall sound and attitude from Led Zepp; Aerosmith and the hard rock bands of the 70's but also adding a sprinkle of the edge that punk music offered. So it was a marriage of those two that set G&R apart from all the other heavy metal bands that were basically Bon Jovi-Poison-clone bands that saturated the radio and MTV. Some groups may have had one or two good songs but really if any of those groups were indeed something that would be listen still today was a fairy tale unknown to them.

As far as Led Zep. Many radio stations and every generation that came after their generation are still getting turned on by Led Zep. Let's face it. Zepp has a huge catalog of songs that offer different styles of music for the general public to love.

I wish that the original G&R members of the band had not been crushed so hard by the weight of sudden fame that broke their brotherhood as a band. If they had not have to experience the fast pace fame they might of stayed together and released five more lps to further their catalog of songs in comparison to Led Zepp.
For me G&R was the American Led Zepp; The Doors and Aerosmith/Lynerd Skynerd of the late eighties early nineties.

for me gnr is becoming the american beatles. Not the sound or style wise no way but the evolution wise.
the difference is that Beatles lived and changed in a short period of time when rock music was growing fast. Rock Bands then were trying to create something new and inspiring each other.

[oldgunsfan]

I don't have any least "fav" songs.

My top 5, not in order.

1. Immigrant Song (that song got me into Led Zeppelin)
2. Achille's Last Stand
3. Out on the Tiles
4. All My Love
5. Kashmir (live)

That was harder than I thought.

out on the tiles is so underrated; as is gallows pole

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

I don't have any least "fav" songs.

My top 5, not in order.

1. Immigrant Song (that song got me into Led Zeppelin)
2. Achille's Last Stand
3. Out on the Tiles
4. All My Love
5. Kashmir (live)

That was harder than I thought.

out on the tiles is so underrated; as is gallows pole

There are so many great songs. 

Haha, American Beatles.  The Beatles were four guys releasing great music every year.  And their lineup never "evolved"  .

Beatles > Guns N' Roses

Actually, the Beatles > anyone to pick up an instrument over the last 50 years.

[ppbebe]

already explained that they are in different times.

there're always cause and effect.
pop/rock/contemporary music keeps pace with the times but its pace isn't always fast.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoF-7VMMihA
beatles as a boyband of 4 in 1963
but, probably it was in the forefront of rock in roll then.

what's remarkable about beatles is that thay didn't rest on their initial huge success but kept evolving by absorbing influences from their contemporaries, as well as from exotic music and traditional music. they weren't ashamed of learning.
like guns n roses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBJj10rYmdg&NR=1
sgt peppers one and only (so many) lonely hearts club band. 1967 
i could spot mick jagger. they aren't wearing uniform anymore in there.

different look, different sound.  thanks to the psychedelic movement and flower power, the people and things at that day.

from wiki
"Beatles producer George Martin stated that "Without Pet Sounds, Sgt. Pepper wouldn't have happened... Pepper was an attempt to equal Pet Sounds." After Sgt. Pepper was released, Beach Boys' leader Brian Wilson was so despondent that he went to bed for months."

and

"Upon release, Sgt. Pepper received both popular and critical acclaim. Various reviews appearing in the mainstream press and trade publications throughout June 1967, immediately after the album's release, were generally positive. In The Times prominent critic Kenneth Tynan described Sgt. Pepper as "a decisive moment in the history of Western civilization". Others including Richard Poirier, and Geoffrey Stokes were similarly expansive in their praise, Stokes noting, "listening to the Sgt. Pepper album one thinks not simply of the history of popular music but the history of this century."

"One notable critic who did not like the album was Richard Goldstein, a critic for The New York Times, who wrote, "Like an over-attended child, "Sergeant Pepper" is spoiled. It reeks of horns and harps, harmonica quartets, assorted animal noises, and a 41-piece orchestra", and added that it was an "album of special effects, dazzling but ultimately fraudulent" . On the other hand, Goldstein called "A Day in the Life" "a deadly earnest excursion in emotive music with a chilling lyric", and that "it stands as one of the most important Lennon-McCartney compositions, and it is a historic Pop event."

did they stop evolving after this huge artistic achievement? no.

"One rock musician who apparently did not like the album was Frank Zappa, who accused the Beatles of co-opting the flower power aesthetic for monetary gain, saying in a Rolling Stone article that he felt "they were only in it for the money". That criticism later became the title of the Mothers of Invention album (We're Only in It for the Money), which mocked Sgt. Pepper with a similar album cover. Ironically, when recording of Sgt. Pepper was completed, McCartney said, "This is going to be our Freak Out!", referring to Zappa's 1966 debut album, which is considered by many as the first rock concept album."

"Within days of its release, Jimi Hendrix was performing the title track in concert, first for an audience that included Harrison and McCartney, who were greatly impressed by his unique version of their song and his ability to learn it so quickly[citation needed]. Also, Australian band The Twilights ? who had obtained an advance copy of the LP in London ? wowed audiences in Australia with note-perfect live renditions of the entire album, weeks before it was even released there."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edhifzxSfPw
cool ass.

back to the topic, zep didn't change from the start to the end much as beatles did. most bands don't. wouldn't dare.
guns n roses does.

[oldgunsfan]

I don't have any least "fav" songs.

My top 5, not in order.

1. Immigrant Song (that song got me into Led Zeppelin)
2. Achille's Last Stand
3. Out on the Tiles
4. All My Love
5. Kashmir (live)

That was harder than I thought.

out on the tiles is so underrated; as is gallows pole

There are so many great songs. 

Haha, American Beatles.  The Beatles were four guys releasing great music every year.  And their lineup never "evolved"  .

Beatles > Guns N' Roses

Actually, the Beatles > anyone to pick up an instrument over the last 50 years.

fans of michael jackson, prince and zep may disagree but thats not nearly the most outrageuos statement or opinion I've read on this board

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

I have no idea why you would post a whole biography on the Beatles when you are supposed to prove to me that GN'R is better than Led Zeppelin.

I am still waiting.