Led Zepplin VS Guns N' Roses

[journey]

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.

They don't play Zeppelin at sporting events. Maybe at a Lord of the Rings convention.

[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.

They don't play Zeppelin at sporting events. Maybe at a Lord of the Rings convention.

Uhhhh, Rock N' Roll?  Immigrant Song?  Kashmir?

You must not watch a lot of sports.

Nice reply.

[journey]

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.

They don't play Zeppelin at sporting events. Maybe at a Lord of the Rings convention.

Uhhhh, Rock N' Roll?  Immigrant Song?  Kashmir?

You must not watch a lot of sports.

Nice reply.

You got me on that. I don't watch a lot of sports. Stairway just makes me think of Lord of the Rings.

I think you're on this site too much to be so gung-ho Zeppelin.

[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.

They don't play Zeppelin at sporting events. Maybe at a Lord of the Rings convention.

Uhhhh, Rock N' Roll?  Immigrant Song?  Kashmir?

You must not watch a lot of sports.

Nice reply.

You got me on that. I don't watch a lot of sports. Stairway just makes me think of Lord of the Rings.

I think you're on this site too much to be so gung-ho Zeppelin.

I have no idea what that means.  But I keep hearing it from everyone.

[BlowUpYourVideo]

From a musical standoint, people are going to have their own opinions, which no one else can argue with. I would expect the majority of people on this site to like GNR's music more.

If by 'better', you mean which band has had the greater success and influence, Zeppelin winds hands down.

[Jdog0830]

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.

They don't play Zeppelin at sporting events. Maybe at a Lord of the Rings convention.

Uhhhh, Rock N' Roll?  Immigrant Song?  Kashmir?

You must not watch a lot of sports.

Nice reply.

True but I have heard more Welcome To The Jungle at sporting events well then those three combined.

[Jdog0830]

From a musical standoint, people are going to have their own opinions, which no one else can argue with. I would expect the majority of people on this site to like GNR's music more.

If by 'better', you mean which band has had the greater success and influence, Zeppelin winds hands down.

True but I just made it for the music but Led heads do at least have that huge influence and well success even if there not active...

[w.axl.rose]

damn garry, you've only started listening to Led Zepplin two years ago and you prefer them over gnr 

[Bodhi]

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

craziest thing I have read this year..The Beatles werent even the best band of their generation (Stones) let alone the last 50 years.

[ppbebe]

I prefer beatles to rs for the same reason i prefer gnr to rs.
everyone likes at least a few songs off any post rubber soul beatles album. if they hear it that is.

listen to the second link in my beatles heavy previous post.
If it still doesn't impress you, well that's a matter of taste.

[Jdog0830]

I prefer beatles to rs for the same reason i prefer gnr to rs.
everyone likes at least a few songs off any post rubber soul beatles album. if they hear it that is.

listen to the second link in my beatles heavy previous post.
If it still doesn't impress you, well that's a matter of taste.

either way you must love sympithy for the devil!!!

[w.axl.rose]

hmmm i dont know Garry, remember at the Adler show when you were on stage and tracii guns started playing in front of you and at the end of the show you told me you didn't know what he was playing and i had to tell you he was playing led zeppelin, then you said oh that was led zepplin  ...

[ppbebe]

George Martin was the fifth beatle.  and people on the sgt pepper cover were all included in the only lonely hearts club band. even rs.

that's why beatles is huge. they were inclusive.

rs choose fans. beatles didn't.

izzy said 'rock sucks since sex pistols'. john lydon said with sp he didn't mean that. He didn't intend to kill anything. He'd rather open then close. And that's imo what gnr's doing and Beatles had done while they could.

People that don't stop learning are ultimately for the win.

I like the jimmy page quote that states zep was alternative at that time.
From what i can gather, the classic hard rock sounds from the 70s weren't exactly the mainstream when gnr released afd and brought them back. Had gnr not made it or not been influenced by those old bands, maybe most of us wouldnt know of zep.who knows.

[ppbebe]

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.

it's not a whole biography. i posted that because I consider gnr as the latter day Beatles in the making.

zep sound is always heavy even when they took up reggae or james brown and gnr is more diverse. Zep songs are fantasy while gnr is more close to home as already mentioned.

Besides, you never know what are up gnr's sleeves.
GNR is there still growing while zep's been long dead and stopped growing when it started. zep's said to be the only band whose early days live were never improved on by themselves.

zep truly was a rock and not roll. They were even called as a fossil after punk took over.

[BlowUpYourVideo]

To be fair, LZ made the choice to disband.

Plus, they weren't "always" heavy. Just listen to Led Zeppelin III.

[Jdog0830]

To be fair, LZ made the choice to disband.

Plus, they weren't "always" heavy. Just listen to Led Zeppelin III.

Thats funny stuff man!!!

[don_vercetti]

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.

zep sound is always heavy even when they took up reggae or james brown and gnr is more diverse. Zep songs are fantasy while gnr is more close to home as already mentioned.

You can't really have listened to led zep properly.  zep songs are fantasy?  Just like GnR, most of their songs are about life stuff, they just don't use such in your face lyrics.  Drugs, Girls and partying are probably the two main topics (babe i'm gonna leave you, heartbreaker, dazed and confused, the lemon song, since i've been loving you, whole lotta love, etc).  I agree there are a certain number of fantasy songs that are well known (namely Immigrant Song, Stairway To Heaven) but they are relatively few, despite the reputation. 

Besides, you never know what are up gnr's sleeves.

You've obviously trying to call led zeppelin predictable, but you can't compare them to gnr in that respect, you weren't around back in the day were you?  Led Zeppelin pulled unprecedented moves like not releasing singles, and releasing an album without any reference to themselves on it whatsoever (let the music do the talking) or after two albums of bludgeoning hard rock, releasing Led Zeppelin III, an acoustic folk album.  Or despite being the biggest band in the world, a band who had the self respect to realise that carrying on without a central member was pointless, and call it a day. 

GNR is there still growing while zep's been long dead and stopped growing when it started. zep's said to be the only band whose early days live were never improved on by themselves.

How is this even a criticism?  The band, led zeppelin, are no longer together, so how would they be growing now?  I don't see your precious beatles growing much these days either.  At least led zeppelin have released some awesome posthumous material (Led Zeppelin DVD, HTWWW).  And I don't think many people say that they didnt improve live, most people say that '71-'73 were their finest days live, after three years of solid touring.  And there was definetely major development from Led Zeppelin I to Physical Graffiti, and then a synth album (very ahead of its time).   

zep truly was a rock and not roll. They were even called as a fossil after punk took over.

I've heard people say that led zeppelin had no groove, which is what i assume you're trying to say.  Again, wrong, just listen to The Lemon Song, What Is And What Shall Never Be, The Ocean, or Rock and Roll.  As for being called a fossil, so what?  Indeed, there are parallels to be drawn with Guns N' Roses and grunge.  And a lot of punk people (e.g. Joe Strummer of The Clash, Brian James of the damned) were big fans of Led Zeppelin.  And punk was half invented on the first zeppelin album, with communication breakdown. 

So, that is why Led Zeppelin are better than Guns N' Roses. 

[ppbebe]

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.

zep sound is always heavy even when they took up reggae or james brown and gnr is more diverse. Zep songs are fantasy while gnr is more close to home as already mentioned.

You can't really have listened to led zep properly.  zep songs are fantasy?  Just like GnR, most of their songs are about life stuff, they just don't use such in your face lyrics.  Drugs, Girls and partying are probably the two main topics (babe i'm gonna leave you, heartbreaker, dazed and confused, the lemon song, since i've been loving you, whole lotta love, etc). 

Aren't those also fantasy? fanciful stuff. And what's wrong with fantasy in art?

I enumerated the general differences for comparison. quite roughly cos I didn't think anyone would like to see a book of my rambling on zep. Or would you?

Besides, you never know what are up gnr's sleeves.

You've obviously trying to call led zeppelin predictable, but you can't compare them to gnr in that respect, you weren't around back in the day were you?  Led Zeppelin pulled unprecedented moves like not releasing singles, and releasing an album without any reference to themselves on it whatsoever (let the music do the talking) or after two albums of bludgeoning hard rock, releasing Led Zeppelin III, an acoustic folk album.  Or despite being the biggest band in the world, a band who had the self respect to realise that carrying on without a central member was pointless, and call it a day. 

sorry but zep wasn't the biggest band in the world then. What can be up zeps sleeve when it's no more? Nothing.

GNR is there still growing while zep's been long dead and stopped growing when it started. zep's said to be the only band whose early days live were never improved on by themselves.

How is this even a criticism?  The band, led zeppelin, are no longer together, so how would they be growing now?  I don't see your precious beatles growing much these days either.  At least led zeppelin have released some awesome posthumous material (Led Zeppelin DVD, HTWWW).  And I don't think many people say that they didnt improve live, most people say that '71-'73 were their finest days live, after three years of solid touring.  And there was definetely major development from Led Zeppelin I to Physical Graffiti, and then a synth album (very ahead of its time). 

 

Yea how can it be criticism when it's not.
You could have read my other posts in this thread.

'71-'73 are their early days. it is said by the people who followed zep realtime

zep truly was a rock and not roll. They were even called as a fossil after punk took over.

I've heard people say that led zeppelin had no groove, which is what i assume you're trying to say. 

yes you're really assuming. That's a phrase from stairway.

As for being called a fossil, so what?  Indeed, there are parallels to be drawn with Guns N' Roses and grunge.  And a lot of punk people (e.g. Joe Strummer of The Clash, Brian James of the damned) were big fans of Led Zeppelin.  And punk was half invented on the first zeppelin album, with communication breakdown. 

why should you skip a post before it? or rather, why did you skip all my other posts in this thread?

So, that is why Led Zeppelin are better than Guns N' Roses. 

Naa. that's why GNR is better than any other band right now.

[ppbebe]

To be fair, LZ made the choice to disband.

Plus, they weren't "always" heavy. Just listen to Led Zeppelin III.

Mmmaybe not so stately as their previous albums but I feel the sounds or the beatz on there still weighty. Like dragging led (pun intended) weights with shackler or dancing in armour. By heavy I don't mean heavy metal heavy. Their most lilting piece off the top of my head is night flight.

I don't think it's wrong for a band to everly sound so led heavy. It's fantastic to see the leaden object float in the sky in the music.

yea i say gnr is the best band and still I wouldn't say what music is better. It depends on the mood.

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

You obviously have no knowledge of music.  And now you keep contradicting yourself.  Slamming fantasy, and then being for it.

Please spin your Ting Ting records and let the grown ups talk about music.