This is where we differ, I can discern another song inside a song, or book inside a book, I am distracted the whole is ruined. Best recent example is Sean Kingston's "Beautiful Girl", instantly hear Stand by Me and the song just becomes a "bad cover" really. I here a song I like and the artists is butchering it. You get what I mean?


Good to know, it's hard to gage tone online. If I can give unsolicited advice, look at is as an exchange of ideas\perspectives more then a right\wrong argument\debate.

It's not not plagiarism because it doesn't sound like the original, it's not plagiarism because they give the original artists credit. The fact that it usually hardly sounds like the original just adds to it.

And I've never said that Led Zeppelin don't deserve any credit for their covers, I'm saying the original artists do deserve credit and Led Zeppelin were plagiarists for not giving any in some cases.

And sorry about getting so angry there, beb. I've calmed down now, got a cigarette and some strawberry yogurt.

It's not really a matter of opinion. If you write a book and two chapters are stolen from another book, word-for-word, you still wrote the rest of it and deserve credit for that. I get what you mean, I'm just saying that it isn't plagiarism and the original artist isn't the only one who deserves any credit.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, that song is without a doubt the epitome of aural diarrhea.

That's the beauty of it though, it's like listening to a condensed history of rock in one album!

My last.fm profile will answer: Led Zeppelin - 100 songs, The Who - 39.

I love Led and I love the who but I think overall led has put out more constant great albums the who has some hits as well as misses

The Who :D

Neither :D

I voted for Led Zep in the end. I probably like both bands equally, but I can listen to most Zep albums all the way through, whereas The Who haven't done one good album, in my eyes (ears).

The Who had rather good dress sence in the sixties.............just thought I'd throw it out there.

The Who were far more creative and had albums that felt album-ish and complete.

What?

No Comus, Who? :usehead:

Daltrey was a better vocalist than Plant, who i've always found to be over rated. Band wise both bands have greats on each side. pete townshend isn't as good as Page on the guitar but I've always preferred his songs over Page's not to say they are bad. For me personally. john entwistle is my favorite bassist of all time so he beats Jones. Now the toughest battle Moon and Bonham both insane drummers funnly enough both drummer kept their bands alive in a sense (i mean really the who died after Moon's death and Zep disaband after Bonhams). I give Moon the slight edge but this one was very close. I just prefer the who their songs always have seemed stronger to me.

The Who is great....but the Zeppelin flies higher!

IMO, it's Led Zeppelin, but everyone is different. If we are basing this on overall popularity and record sales, it's LZ. The Who are amazing in their own right though...

Go back to your own forum.... :usehead:

Yea i need an up of this if you have one

Has anybody got the Moby Grape S/t and Skip Spence's Oar? Thus far i've had no luck with anybody so this is probably the best place to enquire

A little good natured trolling never hurt anybody!

I don't judge music by who is a better shredder. By that logic speed metal bands would stomp over Led Zeppelin and the Who. Plant & Page were extremely sloppy when they played live and the Who sound was tighter. Led Zeppelin were one of the worst plagiarists in the history of rock music while the Who once you get past some of their early songs were more original and they were more innovative as musicians. Led Zeppelin are overrated and they even thanked the Beatles for making the album as the medium of choice when the Beatles released no singles on Sgt Pepper and the White Album. If they had to rely on making singles like the Who did in their early days they might have not made it. I don't get Led Zeppelin. The Who were more important in the history of rock music than Led Zeppelin IMO.

its a tie!
zep. is amazing
but the who like were pioneers of rock =p

this was a close call. but in the end i would say the who because they have the seeker, who are you, and teenage waste land

ur kidding me right? LED ZEPPLIN PWNS THE WHO no contest here....

Care to explain why?

explain why? well its simple the who sucks zepplin pwns but thats just my opinion^^

Then why this?

I said The Who because, in my opinion, they recorded mor albums then Zeppelin that I like. I mean of course I liked Led Zeppelin I, II, III, IV & Physical Graffiti but I almost like every album The Who ever done, especially Tommy & Who's Next.

the who. i dont like either but Led Zepplin is overrated and overplayed.

why? well u asked duh and this is why i think zepplin is better one they have like more songs out only hit the who had was teenage waste land now this is just my opinion and if u dont like i really dont care ya digg?

:laughing:

I'm curious to know how a band who never released any singles could have more hits than The Who.

Led Zeppelin gets my vote, although, it is extremely hard to vote on these types of discussions. I mean, these are two of the greatest bands of their time and will go down in history as such.

In conclusion I would just like to say, it's not that The Who is bad, it's the Led Zeppelin is really good .

I think 4 years is long enough for this thread