:laughing: wow.

So first he says zepp were more original than sabbath as if it were a fact, then he says it's all subjective.

If anything is a fact it's that sabbath were much more original than Zeppelin. Zeppelin stole so much, sabbath created a new genre. So, how was zepp more original? They weren't, without a doubt.

ok let's be objective

what did Led Zep invent?

name me one new genre that were inexistent before they came along

Led Zep were just doing what the Jeff Beck Group were doing a few years earlier, only that they were heavier

"Led Zep were just doing what the Jeff Beck Group were doing a few years earlier, only that they were heavier "
And hencefore was born heavy metal.
And Zep were far more inventive than Sabbath-that is a fact borne out simply by listening to their respective albums.
As to better-as I said, it is objective.

:nono:

You sir, are wrong. Refer to my previous posts to see why.

did you understand my question?

i asked did they come up with anything new?

something new was playing a guitar with a violin bow, that's about it

I will hand it to Will that Dazed and Confused, released before Black Sabbath (the song), does have the aura and attitude of a lighter Heavy Metal song, thus lending to the creation of the genre. However, I would say the Sabbath song has much clearer and more direct influence on the genre.

Page wasn't even the first to use a bow on a guitar.

I have a hard time saying that "dazed and confused" spawned heavy metal. Especially when you consider they stole the foundation of that song. Sabbath started metal and that's that

I'll find it hilarious if anybody disagrees with this. Well said, though it's been said like a million times now.

OK I'm voting for Iommi just because of this statement.

And because Stairway to Heaven makes me want to puke everytime i hear the intro.

I agree with the first part of what you've said but completely disagree with the second part. Led Zeppelin basically did blues rock and hard rock better than anybody else song for song and they perfected the bluesy hard rock sound that had been prominent in the 1960s. Sure they diversified with folk leanings etc but inventive is not a word I'd use for them. Black Sabbath on the other hand were far more inventive and basically not only created heavy metal, but laid down the groundwork for the future extreme metal genres of thrash and doom loooong before they were thought of.

Also realised I hadn't voted, so gave it to Page.

That's a good way to put it. They weren't the most original band but they took pieces from other artists and completely blew the original away, so they still deserve credit for that. There were far more original and innovative bands like The Velvet Underground and Hendrix and Pink Floyd but zepp were up there with the best of them when it came to crafting a song, even though that song wasn't very original most of the time.

I've never really been a fan of Plant but once I heard that he called Sabbath "irrelevant", I really lost all respect for him. Page, Bonham and Jones were really great musicians, though. Page was a master.

All this being said and I'm still not a huge fan and don't listen to them much, but I cant really deny the greatness even if I think they're a little overrated.

I actually have a friend who is a lot older than me and a rock fanatic as well, he grew up in the early 1970s and constantly goes on about the impact that all types of bands had on the music scene at that time, he constantly says the impact that Led Zeppelin had was unbelievable and basically they blew the competition out of the water (he basically lived the moment as it happened) The combination of the songs and live performances are what did it.

Over the years I must have listened to what seems like hundreds of heavy albums from the 1970s and Led Zeppelin were probably the best all round band out of a very very good bunch (Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Blue Oyster Cult, UFO, Nazareth, Thin Lizzy, Scorpions, Budgie, Humble Pie, Free, Grand Funk Railroad, Trapeze, Uriah Heep and Stray to name just some)

....and who cares if Led Zeppelin ripped off some other bands and artists, as you say a lot of the people they ripped off were nowhere near as good as Led Zeppelin anyway.

I never said spawned; I said lent.

You're pretty right. I feel like they're somewhat overrated and I may prefer sabbath over them (and there are plenty other non-heavy bands that i like more than zepp), but I have to admit that they were pretty great, even though I don't like to admit it. They were really great.

Sounds like he has bunch of cool stories tell, any about M&Ms or a Bengal tiger? j/k :)

I haven't really don't know much of those bands. Maybe I shouldn't bring them up ( it might seem like a apples and oranges comparison - I guess it's all how it categorised into sub-genres like Hard Rock, Blues Rock, or jam bands) but my favourite bands from the 60's/70's period are Rolling Stones, the Allman Brothers Band, and Traffic, as far as musicianship and creativity I think they were just as strong as Led Zeppelin.

Led Zeppelin where great when they played fast and hard but when it comes to jamming (at a slow tempo) Jimmy was at times just meh... when I watch The Song Remains the Same there are parts where I have to take a nap. That is one thing about Tony Iommi his playing seems more natural and fluid but I still give props to Jimmy for pushing the envelope and trying to execute his ideas beyond his playing capability.

Still it isn't right, even if Led Zeppelin were better.

Obviously they were good enough to get ripped off... ?

Whom are you referring to? 1.) the artist that Led Zeppelin took songs from or 2.) or Led Zeppelin when they got ripped off two hundred something thousand dollar that was kept in some NYC hotel safety posit box?

I imagine number 1.

OK now I get it.

I think The Allman Brothers were definitely more technical than Zeppelin. Zeppelin played faster and harder so that could easily fool some people into thinking they were more technical than the Allmans. They Allmans wrote deeper, more complex songs; Zeppelin wrote simpler, more poppy songs. John Bohnam is great but the Allmans rhythm section was better, and they don't get near as much credit. Duane and Dickey Betts used Jazz techniques quite a bit in their guitar playing as well.

Just found this article, it's probably not true but still funny. I wish Duane would have kicked that douche bags ass

http://entertainment.oneindia.in/mus...ne-140409.html

I really don't know why you're comparing the Allmans with Led Zeppelin here based around technicality. The Allmans played their own style of southern rock based around their own unique sound and Led Zep were certainly not playing fast to con people into believing that they were more technical than they actually were. The Allmans defined what Southern rock was, whilst Led Zep basically defined what hard rock was all about in the early 1970s.

Why? Because I think the allman brothers are every bit as good or even better and they don't get enough credit.

They do get plenty of credit, but why would you think a southern rock band would get as much credit as a hard rock band? One genre is far more popular than the other and likely to appeal to a much larger audience, also Led Zep have influenced more artists than the Allmans ever could.

Comparing the Allmans to the Rolling Stones would be a better comparison, as both bands had a much heavier emphasis on American roots music, whilst Led Zeppelin only really focused properly on the blues angle.

southern rock bands like lynard skynard or molly hatchet, for example. dont recieve the credit they deserve for being just as good musically, if not better than most/some of the more popular hard/blues orientated rock bands.

I think the allman brothers stand out from any other southern rock band. They were more jazzy and bluesy and a lot better than any other southern rock bands.

Sorry if it's already been brought up, but Orchid is a beautiful piece by Iommi , and it is acoustic. Also Embryo, also acoustic and great.

The reason I have to choose Iommi over Page, even though I REALLY like LZ and Page, is imo Iommi pretty much invented the heavy metal riff. I mean there may have been others before him, but Iommi NAILED it.

Sabbath's first album is just sick, and the band is so tight they sound like they had been already playin' those songs 10 or 15 yrs.

Very true. I've always wondered if Embryo was a bass and guitar trade off or if Iommi was doing this one one instrument. If it's the latter I have even more admiration for that song.

Iommi has more versatility than you might think. He shows it in songs like "orchid", as already mentioned, and "planet caravan", for example.

i am of the view they're excellent when they're jamming on stage

structured songs, not that awesome

To say their structured songs arent good is to say their albums aren't good, and that's absurd to me. "sweet Melissa", "blue sky", "little Martha", whipping post. The list goes on and on. They had some very well written songs and they turned those songs into great improvised jams for their live shows.

not really memorable

Duane could really take them places, though, unreined and let loose

Not really memorable? Please. "sweet Melissa" is a classic. It's sad if a song like "whole lotta love" is memorable and "sweet melissa" isn't.

boring and middle of the road

Whole Lotta Love makes me wanna put out a whole lotta love from my love pump

That's just sad

No love for Ramblin Man?

It's a good song for, just not one of my favorites.

Personal preference: Page -- but it's close, I'd still put Iommi second (though IMO he's a much better player).

Jimmy Page.

Iommi is great, but Jimmy Page is much better guitarist, you don't have to play fast to be a better player, jimmy know exacly what to do...
he's very creative, when he plays the guitar he knows how to thrill the listener

No idea what you mean-you prefer Page, though Iommi is a much better player?