Zep Vs. The Who (rock, quote)

[lucifer_sam]

Heh. Someone's downright wrong.

YouTube - John Bonham Live - Moby **** (Part 1)

YouTube - John Bonham Live - Moby **** (Part 2)

Took me ten seconds to find it.

[right-track]

^ Well that was technically brilliant and utterly pointless.

[JayJamJah]

RT 5,000 posts hip hip hooray!

Or my deepest condolences

not sure

[right-track]

Two milestones in one day JJJ.
Happy anniversary.

[boo boo]

Originally Posted by ProggyMan

Is it just me or have Michael Giles and Bill Bruford been making music before Bonham became famous? I'm making the point that there are many, many drummers who are technically superior than Bonham, and saying no one can touch him is ridiculous.

Well theres more to being the best than just being the most skilled.

Bonham was amazing, but arguing that he's the best drummer in the world for his technical ability is just wrong, more skilled than Moon for sure. But you have Neil Peart, Bill Bruford, Terry Bozzio, Carl Palmer and several other drummers that are technically far superior to Bonham.

Obviously the reason people think of Bonham and Moon so highly compared to everyone else is because of the amount of energy they put into their drumming, they weren't about playing by the book and they beat the **** out of their drums like no one else. They were both skilled and energetic, Bonham just happens to be more skilled and Moon is more energetic. So who's better really depends on which you think is more important.

I'd say Bonham is better because he had quite a bit more range. Moon only had one style of playing really, loud and all over the place, and he applied it to every song. He was more distinctive in that sense. But Bonham showed he could do that and more.

[WaspStar]

Originally Posted by boo boo

Moon only had one style of playing really, loud and all over the place, and he applied it to every song.

I'm not so sure about that. On the latter-day Who albums, he mellowed out. The drumming on songs like The Song Is Over is still distinctly Moon, but it's a bit more controlled than on the early Who singles.

[Progman]

Its all down to the Live albums. And the full 30th anniversary Live at leeds slaughters SRTS. Townsend was much more original where Page relied on remade blues\folk songs. Now there really is a cigarette paper between them and even typing this now, there's a good part of me is saying ' stop you fool !Zep are the greatest', but for originality its got to be the Who

[lucifer_sam]

Originally Posted by Progman

Its all down to the Live albums. And the full 30th anniversary Live at leeds slaughters SRTS. Townsend was much more original where Page relied on remade blues\folk songs. Now there really is a cigarette paper between them and even typing this now, there's a good part of me is saying ' stop you fool !Zep are the greatest', but for originality its got to be the Who

I have to disagree. Although The Song Remains The Same was a mediocre live album, if you want to compare Live at Leeds to a GOOD live album, How The West Was Won shits all over it. I don't know why so many people fail to include it in all-time best live albums. The setlist is immaculate, and I consider every single song to be better than the original studio recording.

As for Page's "unoriginality," I think his blues influence is what drew many fans to their music. Moreover, most if the songs were reworked and had new riffs and were utterly indistinguishable from the originals. On the occasion that it was quite clear that they were covers, it was most often the lyrics, not the actual music, that got them in trouble. Of course, it is true: Led Zeppelin enjoyed a fair amount of "borrowing" from blues artists.

I think Townshend experimented far more than Page ever did, but he was by no means a better guitarist (or songwriter, dare I say?).

[boo boo]

Like I've said before, almost all of the stolen stuff (which for the most part was just the lyrics) was just from their first 2 albums.

[Mentoring For Free]

Zeppelin...hands down!