Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > Rock & Metal > Rock N Roll, Classic Rock & 60s Rock
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

View Poll Results: Tony Iommi or Jimmy Page?
Tony Iommi 50 41.67%
Jimmy Page 70 58.33%
Voters: 120. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-28-2012, 05:56 PM   #61 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
blastingas10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,108
Default

I'm not so sure that Page is "far better" when It comes to technical ability, if he is even better at all. Many of his solos were pretty simple, and didn't sound very original; but they still sounded good. A lot of his guitar work was pretty simple, but not all of it. He was definitely capable of playing with pretty good speed, though.

And as you said, Iommi takes the cake when it comes to originality and innovativeness. So, overall, id definitely go with Iommi.
blastingas10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 06:17 PM   #62 (permalink)
Live by the Sword
 
Howard the Duck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Posts: 9,039
Default

Tommy Page:-

__________________


Malaise is THE dominant human predilection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Virgin View Post
what? i don't understand you. farming is for vegetables, not for meat. if ou disagree with a farming practice, you disagree on a vegetable. unless you have a different definition of farming.
Howard the Duck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 07:23 PM   #63 (permalink)
stay the |fvck| inside
 
Frownland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: North of Antarctica
Posts: 33,137
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackhammer View Post
As a guitarist in the technical sense Page is far better than Iommi but in terms of original sound and texture Iommi is miles ahead. No one will ever come close to his riffs in Metal (but that is the whole point. Metal is still frowned upon so he will never get the accolades he deserves outside of the genre).
I can see what you mean about the metal genre, but I've only heard people frowning upon Black Sabbath who don't like any form of rock music in general or are hipster douches without bags. Sabbath and its musicians are quite well regarded, although it may not be to the same extent as Led Zeppelin is, 'tis still respect for the group.
__________________
At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed.

Frownland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 07:54 PM   #64 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
blastingas10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,108
Default

I'm really surprised by the results of this poll.
blastingas10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 08:42 PM   #65 (permalink)
Master, We Perish
 
Surell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Havin a good time, rollin to the bottom.
Posts: 3,704
Default

Personally, I'd take Sabbath over a lot of bands from their era or this one based on instrumentation. Their jazzy approach to such heavy material just sounds great, never contrived, but still fairly remarkable in technical terms.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhateverDude View Post
Laser beams, psychedelic hats, and for some reason kittens. Surrel reminds me of kittens.
^if you wanna know perfection that's it, you dumb shits
Spoiler for guess what:
|i am a heron i ahev a long neck and i pick fish out of the water w/ my beak if you dont repost this comment on 10 other pages i will fly into your kitchen tonight and make a mess of your pots and pans
Surell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 08:49 PM   #66 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
blastingas10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,108
Default

I agree. I've always respected how they're heavy, but they don't limit themselves to just thrashing away at their instruments as hard as they can.
blastingas10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 07:08 PM   #67 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
William Zanzinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: The Wasteland
Posts: 77
Default

I don`t even think it`s close.
For me, Page is a far better all round player-but then he was playing in a far better band.
William Zanzinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 07:15 PM   #68 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
blastingas10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,108
Default

A far overrated band is what you really mean.

Just messing with you.
blastingas10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 07:22 PM   #69 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
William Zanzinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: The Wasteland
Posts: 77
Default

Sabbath were a reasonable HM band, IMO.
I`ve no quarrel with them-liked a couple of their albums, no more no less.
But Led Zep were a great band-great front man, bass player, drummer and guitarist.
William Zanzinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 07:57 PM   #70 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
blastingas10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,108
Default

Lots of people tend to think so. I can't stand Robert plant. Not a big Ozzy fan either, but he works with sabbath. As for the other members of the two bands, I don't think Zeppelin is Any better. Bill ward was a great drummer. I think bonham is a little overrated. He was great, just gets a little too much credit. Whereas someone like Mitch mitchell is better in my opinion, but doesnt get as much credit. John Paul and Geezer are pretty equal, I think. And then of course there Tony and Jimmy.

I think Sabbath were much more innovative. Zeppelin is probably a little more versatile.
blastingas10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2020 Advameg, Inc.