I'm not getting into the Oasis argument, it's not even worth it.
All I have to say is how you act off the mic has nothing to do with your musical prowess, whether you are humble as can be or a complete ****.
As for Led Zeppelin's sales, I never once will/have claimed that it has a correlation to their abilities as songwriters/musicians, but I think it does have some weight in the idea that someone might think of them as one of the top bands of all time. Has nothing to do with their music though, which is fantastic.
Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, Michael Jackson, Elvis, Frank Sinatra, James Brown, or even nostalgia/decade acts like Nirvana, Oasis, G'nR', whoever etc. etc... these are all names of acts that experienced such a world-wide/historic level of success, judgement, and controversy that you can really only take them at musical face value. Once you start bringing the cliche'd nature of their sound, or perceptions of them in the media... you just get lost in non-sequetirs (sp?) and ad hominem attacks.
Who gives a **** if Lennon gave Brian Epstein a handjob... does that make "Across The Universe" any less of a good song?
Who gives a **** if Michael Jackson died last summer... does that change the riff of "Smooth Criminal"?
Who cares if "You Shook Me" is a blues standard... does that deny the beauty of a tune like "The Rain Song"?
Zeppelin is great.
|