Tell Me :
Talk
Those figures are too low.
you do understand the kinks had hits for about 20 years right?
Go hang out at Guitar Center, if it's still around where you live.
WHACK.
True!
I remember "Come Dancing" in the 80's. I wasn't born until the 70's but know of "You Really Got Me", "All Day and All of The Night" and "Lola"... I admit I've never pursued their catalog as a 'fan'. It does suprise me that people would consider them up with Beatles, Stones or The WHo.
I'm not 'knocking' the Kinks at all, I like the few songs I know.
My "really??" wasn't sarcastic, it was genuine - I wasn't there to see or hear for myself.
[thepowergoats.com]
Yeah Gregg, it's a bit different here in Santa Cruz, the youngsters not only know Zeppelin but they are playing them and requesting them at my shows and wearing the Swan Song t-shirt to proudly show their loyalties.
In fact at a recent gig to promote and raise funds for the Wild cat research the hall was filled with wealthy patrons of the arts, gambling tables set up, good wine flowing. In order to bring the place togethera bit I asked the farthest away kid (he was polishing washing wine glasses in the very back) to call his friends on his cell phone and request a song. He called and the answer was Hey Hey What Can I Do! Luckily I knew it and we ripped it for the patrons of that event. peace
Nice. I'm too far removed from the spotlight right now. I suppose hanging around musical sources you might get more recognition. When I used to rip into the 'Over The Hills' acoustic intro riff it was instantly recognizable and people loved it!
The first thing they would say is how do you play that? Show me!! Same with something as simple as '10 Years Gone'...instantly recognizable. You're still in that dream Tod. Good one ya...
Do you remember when "Hey Hey What Can I Do" was only available on import 45? Now kids are calling out for it!?!?
According to my LZ book for guitar, it states that the tuning is DGCGCD (L-H)
The same guitar book has Ten Years Gone as DADGBE (L-H). Yeah, Page is one of my favorites, a little sloppy in concert (what I like). Was lucky to see Zeppelin in 1972 and 1975.
In case you never saw this, check out 4+20 from 1969 (right after Woodstock) on the Dick Cavett show. The same version is on the three DVD - "CS&N, The DVD Collection" which I highly recommend. Talk about inspiration, makes me want to dig out my Taylor that I have not played in a few years. Also Neil Young's - "Sugar Mountain - Live At Canterbury House 1968" - Love those acoustic Buffalo Springfield songs..
Ask your Led Zepplin-loving friends, "Which band did Spinal Tap model itself after?"
Case closed.
Of course they would sell out in minutes- because they haven't toured in over thirty years. If The Stones hadn't toured since 1981 they would sell out in microseconds.
yeah why is nirvana even on that list
I would rather scour through iorr and make personal apologies for anything negative I've ever said about them... then even THINK about putting Nirvana on the same list as Stones, Zep, Beatles or Who.
I think that Pink Floyd should be the fifth band in there.
Nirvana for me would be waaaaaay down there. WELL below Foo Fighters.
[thepowergoats.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-04-26 02:49 by jamesfdouglas.
pink floyd or deep purple of the kinks
Because it's basti's list of his favorites and he can put whatever he likes. Not everyone chooses to follow the Classic Rock Common opinion cliche thank goodness .
pink floyd and jerry lee lewis were derivative? jerry lee lewis has songs in 1952 that sound like what elvis was doing 4 years later
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: October 10, 2012 21:14
Quote
buttons67
just looking at the discography of led zeppelin.
seems that the band made the same amount of songs in their entire short career than the stones made since 1989, when obviously the stones were a lot older and no need to be nearly as motivated as they had little left to prove.
also heard that led zeppelin only gigged around 250 times, which is about 1/8th of that the stones done in their entire career and about the same amount as the stones done since around 2002 when the stones were already old men.
obvious zeppelin wernt up to the stones pace.
overrated mince if you ask me.
Those figures are too low.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
keefriffhard4life
()
Date: October 11, 2012 03:44
Quote
jamesfdouglasQuote
keefriffhard4lifeQuote
jamesfdouglasQuote
keefriffhard4life
its funny when you look at he 4 major british invaion bands (stones, who,beatles, kinks)
Er... one of these things is not like the other...
sorry but those are the big 4 mid 1960's british invasion bands
Then the gap between #3 and #4 is HUGE. The Kinks? really???
you do understand the kinks had hits for about 20 years right?
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: October 11, 2012 05:44
Quote
MunichhiltonQuote
Naturalust
What I find refreshing is the number of kids in the 16-25 year old category that are HUGE Zepplin fans. They are like a cult amoung the young stoner crowd out here on the West coast. You can't walk far on the UCSC campus without seeing some kid with a Led Zepplin tee shirt on.
With today's ease of musical acquirement hopefully some of these 16-25 year olds have heard led zep and are not following a river they know nothing about.
When kids come to me to learn guitar they inevitably have never heard a good Stones or Zep tune, but they have heard OF a good Stones or Zep tune.
Lime In The Coconut is popular right now though...
Go hang out at Guitar Center, if it's still around where you live.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: October 11, 2012 05:46
Quote
buttons67
just looking at the discography of led zeppelin.
seems that the band made the same amount of songs in their entire short career than the stones made since 1989, when obviously the stones were a lot older and no need to be nearly as motivated as they had little left to prove.
also heard that led zeppelin only gigged around 250 times, which is about 1/8th of that the stones done in their entire career and about the same amount as the stones done since around 2002 when the stones were already old men.
obvious zeppelin wernt up to the stones pace.
overrated mince if you ask me.
WHACK.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
wildwildhorses
()
Date: October 11, 2012 10:34
deleted, got in wrong thread.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-11 11:08 by wildwildhorses.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-11 11:08 by wildwildhorses.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
RG
()
Date: October 11, 2012 13:24
Quote
keefbajaga
Love Led Zep, but no way that they are the "Greatest R&R Band In The World", they were just a bunch of good guys
True!
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
jamesfdouglas
()
Date: October 11, 2012 22:48
Quote
keefriffhard4lifeQuote
jamesfdouglasQuote
keefriffhard4lifeQuote
jamesfdouglasQuote
keefriffhard4life
its funny when you look at he 4 major british invaion bands (stones, who,beatles, kinks)
Er... one of these things is not like the other...
sorry but those are the big 4 mid 1960's british invasion bands
Then the gap between #3 and #4 is HUGE. The Kinks? really???
you do understand the kinks had hits for about 20 years right?
I remember "Come Dancing" in the 80's. I wasn't born until the 70's but know of "You Really Got Me", "All Day and All of The Night" and "Lola"... I admit I've never pursued their catalog as a 'fan'. It does suprise me that people would consider them up with Beatles, Stones or The WHo.
I'm not 'knocking' the Kinks at all, I like the few songs I know.
My "really??" wasn't sarcastic, it was genuine - I wasn't there to see or hear for myself.
[thepowergoats.com]
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: October 12, 2012 18:13
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
MunichhiltonQuote
Naturalust
What I find refreshing is the number of kids in the 16-25 year old category that are HUGE Zepplin fans. They are like a cult amoung the young stoner crowd out here on the West coast. You can't walk far on the UCSC campus without seeing some kid with a Led Zepplin tee shirt on.
With today's ease of musical acquirement hopefully some of these 16-25 year olds have heard led zep and are not following a river they know nothing about.
When kids come to me to learn guitar they inevitably have never heard a good Stones or Zep tune, but they have heard OF a good Stones or Zep tune.
Lime In The Coconut is popular right now though...
Go hang out at Guitar Center, if it's still around where you live.
Yeah Gregg, it's a bit different here in Santa Cruz, the youngsters not only know Zeppelin but they are playing them and requesting them at my shows and wearing the Swan Song t-shirt to proudly show their loyalties.
In fact at a recent gig to promote and raise funds for the Wild cat research the hall was filled with wealthy patrons of the arts, gambling tables set up, good wine flowing. In order to bring the place togethera bit I asked the farthest away kid (he was polishing washing wine glasses in the very back) to call his friends on his cell phone and request a song. He called and the answer was Hey Hey What Can I Do! Luckily I knew it and we ripped it for the patrons of that event. peace
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
Munichhilton
()
Date: October 12, 2012 18:25
Quote
NaturalustQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
MunichhiltonQuote
Naturalust
What I find refreshing is the number of kids in the 16-25 year old category that are HUGE Zepplin fans. They are like a cult amoung the young stoner crowd out here on the West coast. You can't walk far on the UCSC campus without seeing some kid with a Led Zepplin tee shirt on.
With today's ease of musical acquirement hopefully some of these 16-25 year olds have heard led zep and are not following a river they know nothing about.
When kids come to me to learn guitar they inevitably have never heard a good Stones or Zep tune, but they have heard OF a good Stones or Zep tune.
Lime In The Coconut is popular right now though...
Go hang out at Guitar Center, if it's still around where you live.
Yeah Gregg, it's a bit different here in Santa Cruz, the youngsters not only know Zeppelin but they are playing them and requesting them at my shows and wearing the Swan Song t-shirt to proudly show their loyalties.
In fact at a recent gig to promote and raise funds for the Wild cat research the hall was filled with wealthy patrons of the arts, gambling tables set up, good wine flowing. In order to bring the place togethera bit I asked the farthest away kid (he was polishing washing wine glasses in the very back) to call his friends on his cell phone and request a song. He called and the answer was Hey Hey What Can I Do! Luckily I knew it and we ripped it for the patrons of that event. peace
Nice. I'm too far removed from the spotlight right now. I suppose hanging around musical sources you might get more recognition. When I used to rip into the 'Over The Hills' acoustic intro riff it was instantly recognizable and people loved it!
The first thing they would say is how do you play that? Show me!! Same with something as simple as '10 Years Gone'...instantly recognizable. You're still in that dream Tod. Good one ya...
Do you remember when "Hey Hey What Can I Do" was only available on import 45? Now kids are calling out for it!?!?
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
2000 LYFH
()
Date: October 12, 2012 18:28
Quote
NaturalustQuote
Munichhilton
Rain Song was a good song. Very 70's dramatic. [You are the sunlight in my growing].
I was the guy at the guitar store surrounded by dudes playing Stairway. I ripped into Rain Song and nobody else could do it. Those were the days. [Naturalust are you listening?]
But Brown Sugar was true rock.
Some of Zeps stuff was kind of Dungeons and Dragons...
Hear you loud and clear munichhilton! The Rain Song is still one that has lasted in my live repertoir, although I usually play it as an instrumental. The music is so damn good it carries the tune with or without singing/lyrics. Although I did get a request from a 20 year old kid from Indiana last weeked to play Stairway...I played the intro, first verse, all the way to she makes me wonder and then quickly morphed into something else..lol
I heard that Jimmy Page wrote and performed that song is some strange tuning, maybe DADGAD or a bastardization of it. I learned it and continue to play it in standard tuning. You too? peace
According to my LZ book for guitar, it states that the tuning is DGCGCD (L-H)
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: October 12, 2012 19:05
Yeah I must have seen that Zep guitar book at one time too. I figured The Rain Song out in standard tuning long ago but am often told it was originally played in that non-standard tuning. Steven stills was another great inspiration for me and I recently found out he too plays songs like Suite Judy Blue Eyes and 4+20 in a non-standard tuning. Whatever it takes to inspire sounds like the rule.
It has been raining here in California for the last 3 days, the first rain of the season, everything is clean and wet and lots of mud on the ranch. It's a good thing for the vegetables and the surfs up and not blown out, wild mushrooms are thinking about showing their caps above the forest floor, I love it all.
Oh Yeah 10 Years Gone! I friggin love that tune too. I play it as an instrumental. Near the end I loop the rhythm part and play those bendy lead parts over the top. Just a great guitar song. Jimmy Page wasn't the most precise guitar player but he sure knew how to craft good guitar songs. I am forever grateful for his inspiration. peace
It has been raining here in California for the last 3 days, the first rain of the season, everything is clean and wet and lots of mud on the ranch. It's a good thing for the vegetables and the surfs up and not blown out, wild mushrooms are thinking about showing their caps above the forest floor, I love it all.
Oh Yeah 10 Years Gone! I friggin love that tune too. I play it as an instrumental. Near the end I loop the rhythm part and play those bendy lead parts over the top. Just a great guitar song. Jimmy Page wasn't the most precise guitar player but he sure knew how to craft good guitar songs. I am forever grateful for his inspiration. peace
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
2000 LYFH
()
Date: October 12, 2012 19:40
Quote
Naturalust
Yeah I must have seen that Zep guitar book at one time too. I figured The Rain Song out in standard tuning long ago but am often told it was originally played in that non-standard tuning. Steven stills was another great inspiration for me and I recently found out he too plays songs like Suite Judy Blue Eyes and 4+20 in a non-standard tuning. Whatever it takes to inspire sounds like the rule.
It has been raining here in California for the last 3 days, the first rain of the season, everything is clean and wet and lots of mud on the ranch. It's a good thing for the vegetables and the surfs up and not blown out, wild mushrooms are thinking about showing their caps above the forest floor, I love it all.
Oh Yeah 10 Years Gone! I friggin love that tune too. I play it as an instrumental. Near the end I loop the rhythm part and play those bendy lead parts over the top. Just a great guitar song. Jimmy Page wasn't the most precise guitar player but he sure knew how to craft good guitar songs. I am forever grateful for his inspiration. peace
The same guitar book has Ten Years Gone as DADGBE (L-H). Yeah, Page is one of my favorites, a little sloppy in concert (what I like). Was lucky to see Zeppelin in 1972 and 1975.
In case you never saw this, check out 4+20 from 1969 (right after Woodstock) on the Dick Cavett show. The same version is on the three DVD - "CS&N, The DVD Collection" which I highly recommend. Talk about inspiration, makes me want to dig out my Taylor that I have not played in a few years. Also Neil Young's - "Sugar Mountain - Live At Canterbury House 1968" - Love those acoustic Buffalo Springfield songs..
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: October 12, 2012 20:01
No I had not seen that. Sweet! Thanks for posting it. peace
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
Pietro
()
Date: October 12, 2012 21:02
Quote
jazzbass
For the true crown of Worlds Greatest Rock and Roll Band.
Obviously, the Stones are my choice, but one of my good friends argues that Zeppelin deserves the title.
I'm asking that you guys help me with some ammo to support my position for this debate.
Ask your Led Zepplin-loving friends, "Which band did Spinal Tap model itself after?"
Case closed.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
Havo
()
Date: October 12, 2012 21:07
i never liked led Zeppelin. no.2 and the third-one were their best!
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
YouBloodyDolt
()
Date: April 25, 2013 20:31
Well for starters Led Zeppelin broke up because their drummer john bonham died, Two Led Zeppelin only lasted 11 years and yet they are one of only three other bands to receive four diamond albums. Rolling Stone magazine described them as "the heaviest band of all time", "the biggest band of the '70s"and "unquestionably one of the most enduring bands in rock history".Led Zeppelin are widely considered to be one of the most successful, innovative and influential rock groups in history. They were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1995; the museum's biography of the band states that they were "as influential in that decade [the 1970s] as the Beatles were in the prior one".
So if your looking for the better rock band tell your friend he's got the proper answer. Besides Led Zeppelin was only around for 11 years and we are having an arguement to see if they are better than a band that was around for fourty. That should prove it right there.
So if your looking for the better rock band tell your friend he's got the proper answer. Besides Led Zeppelin was only around for 11 years and we are having an arguement to see if they are better than a band that was around for fourty. That should prove it right there.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: April 25, 2013 20:40
If there ever is going to be a Zeppelin reunion, I doubt they would pice their tickets as high as the Stones have.
But even if they did, I'm sure they would sell out every venue within minutes.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
But even if they did, I'm sure they would sell out every venue within minutes.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
FrankM
()
Date: April 25, 2013 20:51
"Besides Led Zeppelin was only around for 11 years and we are having an arguement to see if they are better than a band that was around for fourty. That should prove it right there."
I think this statement seems logical on the surface but it doesn't work that way with music. The Rolling Stones were as big in 1975 as they are now. They were already known as "The Worlds Greatest Rock And Roll Band" at that point (suprisingly Led Zeppelin was around at that time). They didn't become bigger and bigger over a forty year time period. They did add to their legend since they hung around for so long.
Sometimes a band can benefit from a short time period. As others have pointed out in this forum, Led Zeppelin is kind of stuck in time. They are seen as forever young and they continue to appeal to young people more than The Stones who are seen by some young people as old farts.
"Lyin' awake in a cold, cold sweat. Am I overdrawn, am I going in debt?
It gets worse, the older that you get. No escape from the state of confusion I'm in.
I think this statement seems logical on the surface but it doesn't work that way with music. The Rolling Stones were as big in 1975 as they are now. They were already known as "The Worlds Greatest Rock And Roll Band" at that point (suprisingly Led Zeppelin was around at that time). They didn't become bigger and bigger over a forty year time period. They did add to their legend since they hung around for so long.
Sometimes a band can benefit from a short time period. As others have pointed out in this forum, Led Zeppelin is kind of stuck in time. They are seen as forever young and they continue to appeal to young people more than The Stones who are seen by some young people as old farts.
"Lyin' awake in a cold, cold sweat. Am I overdrawn, am I going in debt?
It gets worse, the older that you get. No escape from the state of confusion I'm in.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
FrankM
()
Date: April 25, 2013 20:55
Quote
Hairball
If there ever is going to be a Zeppelin reunion, I doubt they would pice their tickets as high as the Stones have.
But even if they did, I'm sure they would sell out every venue within minutes.
Of course they would sell out in minutes- because they haven't toured in over thirty years. If The Stones hadn't toured since 1981 they would sell out in microseconds.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
BustedButton
()
Date: April 25, 2013 21:19
I also have a friend who is in love with LZ, and when all you know from the Stones is "Start Me Up" and "Satisfaction," you definitely like LZ better. So, I put together 3 CD's for my friend with a lot of deep cuts (e.g. No Expectations) and live tracks (e.g. the newly released bootlegs), mostly from the Mick Taylor era *but certainly not all from the Mick Taylor era*, and after giving the CD to my friend, he likes the Stones now.
The CD has been in his car for over a year now.
Basically, I tried to find blues, Harder Rock from the stones (usually live), and hard drumming (mostly from Live 75 with Oli (sp?) Brown).
Also, for the deep cuts, provided songs that could easily have been on a LZ album, like Turd on the Run or Prodigal Son or whatever...
My point is, you can find songs from either band and present them to the opposition and find middle ground.
The CD has been in his car for over a year now.
Basically, I tried to find blues, Harder Rock from the stones (usually live), and hard drumming (mostly from Live 75 with Oli (sp?) Brown).
Also, for the deep cuts, provided songs that could easily have been on a LZ album, like Turd on the Run or Prodigal Son or whatever...
My point is, you can find songs from either band and present them to the opposition and find middle ground.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: April 25, 2013 23:43
How do you know about Led Zep - Jimmy Page hasn't don't anything decent since late 70, early 80 - he has been much more lazy than Keith and Mick !!!!!
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
McQwerty
()
Date: April 26, 2013 00:31
Led Zeppelin? The world greatest Rock and Roll band? 
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
basti
()
Date: April 26, 2013 00:39
Hallo
The Stones are the best ... that is a fact ... 50 Years Music ...
So my Top Five
01 Rolling Stones
02 Led Zeppelin
03 Nirvana
04 The Beatles
05 The Who
The Stones are the best ... that is a fact ... 50 Years Music ...
So my Top Five
01 Rolling Stones
02 Led Zeppelin
03 Nirvana
04 The Beatles
05 The Who
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
nightskyman
()
Date: April 26, 2013 00:46
Nirvana ahead of the Beatles?
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
keefriffhard4life
()
Date: April 26, 2013 02:43
Quote
nightskyman
Nirvana ahead of the Beatles?
yeah why is nirvana even on that list
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
jamesfdouglas
()
Date: April 26, 2013 02:49
Quote
keefriffhard4lifeQuote
nightskyman
Nirvana ahead of the Beatles?
yeah why is nirvana even on that list
I would rather scour through iorr and make personal apologies for anything negative I've ever said about them... then even THINK about putting Nirvana on the same list as Stones, Zep, Beatles or Who.
I think that Pink Floyd should be the fifth band in there.
Nirvana for me would be waaaaaay down there. WELL below Foo Fighters.
[thepowergoats.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-04-26 02:49 by jamesfdouglas.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
keefriffhard4life
()
Date: April 26, 2013 04:41
Quote
jamesfdouglasQuote
keefriffhard4lifeQuote
nightskyman
Nirvana ahead of the Beatles?
yeah why is nirvana even on that list
I would rather scour through iorr and make personal apologies for anything negative I've ever said about them... then even THINK about putting Nirvana on the same list as Stones, Zep, Beatles or Who.
I think that Pink Floyd should be the fifth band in there.
Nirvana for me would be waaaaaay down there. WELL below Foo Fighters.
pink floyd or deep purple of the kinks
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
Glam Descendant
()
Date: April 26, 2013 04:44
Quote
keefriffhard4lifeQuote
nightskyman
Nirvana ahead of the Beatles?
yeah why is nirvana even on that list
Because it's basti's list of his favorites and he can put whatever he likes. Not everyone chooses to follow the Classic Rock Common opinion cliche thank goodness .
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
sanQ
()
Date: April 26, 2013 04:49
Elvis, The Beatles, The Stones, Dylan, Jimi Hendrix: this was the recipe for all that followed. With a pinch of Clapton and Donovan. After this, along came Led Zeppelin. Everyone else was derivative. Even Donovan was derivative of Dylan, except his acoustic finger picking, better than Dylan's, influenced the Beatles songwriting.
One could also make a case for Buddy Holly, Carl Perkins, Eddie Cochran for their influence too. As well as Little Richard.
The Stones were the first band to have a front man. So if not for them, there would be no Zep.
That being said, I still love Zep a lot and they made fantastic music which actually improved on the things the stole. But everyone steals.
One could also make a case for Buddy Holly, Carl Perkins, Eddie Cochran for their influence too. As well as Little Richard.
The Stones were the first band to have a front man. So if not for them, there would be no Zep.
That being said, I still love Zep a lot and they made fantastic music which actually improved on the things the stole. But everyone steals.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
keefriffhard4life
()
Date: April 26, 2013 05:50
Quote
sanQ
Elvis, The Beatles, The Stones, Dylan, Jimi Hendrix: this was the recipe for all that followed. With a pinch of Clapton and Donovan. After this, along came Led Zeppelin. Everyone else was derivative. Even Donovan was derivative of Dylan, except his acoustic finger picking, better than Dylan's, influenced the Beatles songwriting.
One could also make a case for Buddy Holly, Carl Perkins, Eddie Cochran for their influence too. As well as Little Richard.
The Stones were the first band to have a front man. So if not for them, there would be no Zep.
That being said, I still love Zep a lot and they made fantastic music which actually improved on the things the stole. But everyone steals.
pink floyd and jerry lee lewis were derivative? jerry lee lewis has songs in 1952 that sound like what elvis was doing 4 years later
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
5strings , alexander paul , Domonkos , drwatts , falo01 , fedecarp , frankotero , Jfk19562003 , Justjon , mr_c_ox , pooroldgrandad , rastakeith , rogerriffin , sandandglue , SecondSet , SlaydePopArt , soufsouf129 , steffialicia , superglen , UGK56
Guests:
2358
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10