Getting into the Beatles...

No, that's not what I said.

 

This is not necessarily a mark in favor of Zeppelin, in my book.

You graduate to the Stones.

 

Dick Whitman: You must be out your goddamn mind! Rolling Stones, the greatest band that ever lived. They was badder than the Beatles, they was badder than the Who, and that new band, what's their name? White Stripes?look like corpses; they was badder than them, too.
Nick Mordo: Vait a minute. Vat about Led Zeppelin?
Dick Whitman: Oh, there they go. There they go, every time I start talkin 'bout rock 'n' roll, a twentysomething who recently discovered pot gotta bring Led Zeppelin out they ass. That's their one, that's their one. Led Zeppelin! Led Zeppelin! Let me tell you something, once and for all--Led Zeppelin was good; but compared to the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin ain't shit.
Nick: Their debut album beat the Stones' debut album's ass and it's not even close.
Creosote: That's right, they did kick the Rolling Stones' ass on their debut.
Dick Whitman: Mick Jagger was only 21 and Keith Richards was 98 in heroin years when The Rolling Stones came out. They didn't know what they were doing yet.
Creosote: I don't know how old they were, but they got their ass whooped.
Dick Whitman: One time Frank Sinatra came in here and sat in this chair. I said Frank 'you hang out with the Stones and Zeppelin, just between me and you, who was better?' You know what Frank told me, he said "Hey, Keith Richards is 137 years old." A hundred and thirty-seven years old!
Piotr: Oh. Man, you lying, you ain't never meet no Frank Sinatra.
Dick Whitman: [points to Piotr, Nick and Creosote] Fuck you, fuck you, and fuck you! Who's next?!
Elliott: Settle down, Dick.

 

Best post ever.

 

I think I'd give Led Zeppelin a little more consideration if they'd paid their dues on the bar circuit, like the band Boston did.

Anyway, for Fenian:

 

It's really all about preference, so this is the unwinnable argument. And since I like all 3 of the bands in discussion here, I'm not inclined to get in a big free for all espousing any of them over the other.

But the one point I would take issue with is calling Zeppelin's music dated. In my view, it's some of the music that's held up the best from that decade, held up equally well to the Stones 70s material, better than much of their 60s material, and equal to the Beatles catalog.

Maybe their first 2 records could be called dated, but if you listen to tracks from III, Houses of the Holy, Physical Graffiti, they seem very fresh and relevant to me.

 

They're all great bands. My reason for choosing the Beatles is their place as innovators. To go from "Please Please Me" to the White Album in less than a decade? Unfathomable to me.

 

I like his solo stuff a lot, too. I like McCartney's solo stuff but it's a lot more "fluffy" than Lennon's. A lot of the stuff on Double Fantasy was great, especially "Beautiful Boy." The lyrics on that are kind of haunting when you consider what happened. "Happy Xmas" is my favorite Christmas tune.

 

Bingo! They changed so many things it was amazing. Their influence was huge.

 

As I stated earlier in the thread, I much prefer the Stones to the Beatles (Mrs. Huggy is the opposite), but the Beatles' influence cannot be overstated. Without them there is no British invasion: no Stones, Who, Kinks, Zeppelin, Floyd, Sabbath, Clash and on and on and on. If they hadn't come around who knows what rock and roll would look like today, if it existed at all.

They came around in that dead ball era of rock and roll: Elvis was in the Army, Buddy Holly was dead, Chuck Berry had been in jail, Jerry Lee's career was in ruins.

They were more than just moptops, funny accents and matching suits. In Lennon and McCartney they had two masterful singers and songwriters (most bands would be happy with one of those) and in Harrison they had a terrifically understated and influential guitarist who was an enormous talent in his own right. Ringo was the perfect drummer for that band and really drove a lot of their early records (which is my fave Beatles' era).

But as HC said, they were always at the forefront, pushing the boundaries of rock music like nobody had done before or since (except maybe Hendrix). The fact that they wrapped it up neatly at the end of the 60s and never got back together or released a lot of substandard albums makes their legacy even more impressive. They knew when they had taken it as far as it would go.

 

Of all the things that go on with this site, the offense that many of you take at the fact that I take a position and defend it is among the most bizarre to me.

 

No, they just couldn't stand each other, so large had their egos become. The two leads married incredibly unattractive women, and decided they had enough of each other.

They all tried to leave at one time or another after 1968, but Paul coaxed them back. And of course, Paul got to announce the split, selfish prick that he is.