- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 1/9/13 at 4:35 pm to bobbyray21
For their popularity, Led Zeppelin may be the least influential band of all time. And I like them a lot.
Posted on 1/9/13 at 4:44 pm to AlxTgr
quote:-
I love LZ, but I'd have to disagree that they are the most influential band in history, that would be the beatles
Posted on 1/9/13 at 4:55 pm to AlxTgr
To appreciate the influence of The Beatles you would have to be aware of what music was like before The Beatles. They changed the entire direction of music.
Also other bands in the 1960's almost seemed to be waiting for the next album released by The Beatles to see which direction music was going towards. Go back and check out the timing of their album releases and then look at how all other major bands of the era followed The Beatles lead. It was as if The Beatles would say "OK now music will go in this direction". Amazing to witness this influence they had.
Led Zeppelin is a great band but The Beatles will probably never be matched in influence.
Also other bands in the 1960's almost seemed to be waiting for the next album released by The Beatles to see which direction music was going towards. Go back and check out the timing of their album releases and then look at how all other major bands of the era followed The Beatles lead. It was as if The Beatles would say "OK now music will go in this direction". Amazing to witness this influence they had.
Led Zeppelin is a great band but The Beatles will probably never be matched in influence.
Posted on 1/9/13 at 5:28 pm to Baloo
quote:
they are the Rock Star Acrchetype, which is much different.
Posted on 1/9/13 at 5:38 pm to bobbyray21
Beatles, not even close.
Posted on 1/9/13 at 6:37 pm to bobbyray21
If you think anyone is more influential than The Beatles, please do some research. The Beatles paved the way for bands like Led Zeppelin.
Posted on 1/9/13 at 8:07 pm to Marciano1
The beatles are the right rebuttal to OP. But taking it a step further, I always felt the Stones were the 1st "rock" band. Gimme Shelter is the 1st "rock" song imo.
Posted on 1/9/13 at 8:37 pm to jose canseco
quote:
Gimme Shelter is the 1st "rock" song imo.
Chuck Berry begs to differ
Posted on 1/9/13 at 8:45 pm to jose canseco
quote:
Gimme Shelter is the 1st "rock" song imo.
You were correct until this part.
Jumping Jack Flash
The Last Time
Satisfaction
Seriously, if these ain't rock I don't know what is.
Posted on 1/9/13 at 11:10 pm to bobbyray21
Frank Sinatra and Elvis were "rock stars" before any of the members of Led Zeppelin played a gig. They had financial rewards, artistic freedom and paty lifestyles that were excessive before Led Zeppelin, and it wasn't any big secret. Why haven't any American rock bands had the legendary status of those from England? It's because Americans idolized the solo artists who were their major influences.
This post was edited on 1/9/13 at 11:15 pm
Posted on 1/10/13 at 12:29 am to bobbyray21
quote:
Led Zeppelin literally created the prototype for Rock music.
The Who say hello
Posted on 1/10/13 at 2:57 am to bobbyray21
I love The Beatles. I love The Stones. But I really, really love me some Led Zeppelin when it comes to 60s/70s Rock.
Influential? I was under the influence many times while listening to their music as a teen in early 70s.
Influential? I was under the influence many times while listening to their music as a teen in early 70s.
Posted on 1/10/13 at 6:18 am to Kafka
quote:
Kafka
I read your argument. And you state it quite emphatically, but the reasons in support thereof just don't add up for me.
quote:
The idea that LZ is the most influential band of all time is mystifying to me. What did they invent?
Try to stay on topic. How do we determine influence? We look at the bands that came after [Band X] and we examine the extent to which the sound of the music made by subsequent bands tends to conform to what [Band X] sounded like.
quote:
The hard rock genre certainly existed before them, with acts like Cream, Hendrix, The Velvet Underground, Steppenwolf, Deep Purple, Blue Cheer, Iron Butterfly, and The Yardbirds themselves working in the form. I believe The Stooges first album came out before LZ's debut, though this I'm not positive about. The MC5 released their first album the same year; I'm not sure which one was first -- though The MC5 had been playing this form of music for at least two years (there is an amazing clip of them on a local TV station in 1967).
Does LZ sound like these bands? Well, sure to the extent that all of them use instruments. But did these bands establish a blueprint that LZ put into effect? They definitely didn't. The closes argument you could make is Yardbirds because of the overlapping member in Jimmy Page.
quote:
LZ was influential, yes, in that they were staggeringly popular -- really the most significant thing about them.
No no. They were influential in that they established the blueprint for what a rock band is supposed to sound like. They were the prototype. How many bands have there been that used LZ as the "how to" manual or the roadmap..or whatever analogy you want to use. A lot. Enough that I don't even need to start naming bands.
And this is the main crux of my argument, and yet it is a point that you weirdly seem to gloss over in all of your respones to my posts.
And did you actually just write that they were influential because they were popular? Huh?
quote:
But Hendrix and Clapton had already established the idea of a "guitar hero", and as I pointed out other bands had been successful with the sound -- even Top 4 pop singles in the cases of Steppenwolf and Deep Purple.
Let me reiterate that what LZ did was a masssive massive departure from what Hendrix and Clapton were doing. You know this. I know this. fricking Marcellus knows this.
quote:
Trying to claim LZ was more influential than The Beatles is not just inaccurate but historically ignorant
That's a conclusion.
quote:
But the Beatles were rather rougher than the ultra-smooth Beach Boys, giving them a new type of sound. Their popularity would inspire (tens of?) thousands of bands in the US, as well as many more around the world -- I've heard really good Beatle-influenced records from contemporary bands in Sweden and Czechoslovakia.
Okay, so you finally stay on topic with a sentence or two and the argument you present therein is that the Beatles were influenctial because their sound was "rougher"? Please tell me you have something more.
quote:
But the Beatles were eclectic, and didn't stay with one sound: they would work in soul, power pop, psychedelia, country-rock, and even blues. They were not necessarily the first band in any of these genres, but thanks as always to their great popularity they were extraordinarily important in increasing awareness of them with the mass audience
Part 2 of your substantive argument is eclectic + popularity = influence. Which is again, just a conclusion. And even if it weren't just a conclusion it would be an atrocious atrocious argument. Are you giving The Beatles credit for the injection of variety into their music? Should we also give them credit for the invention of the wheel? What about fire?
quote:
Not only does Led Zeppelin not surpass that, I don't even see how they can compare to it
Becaue, unlike The Beatles, LZ had an influential SOUND. They created a genre. Prototype. Blueprint. Road map. How to manual.
Posted on 1/10/13 at 6:19 am to Marciano1
quote:
If you think anyone is more influential than The Beatles, please do some research. The Beatles paved the way for bands like Led Zeppelin.
Again, just a conclusion.
Posted on 1/10/13 at 6:20 am to AlxTgr
quote:
For their popularity, Led Zeppelin may be the least influential band of all time. And I like them a lot.
I would love to hear you elaborate.
This post was edited on 1/10/13 at 6:21 am
Posted on 1/10/13 at 6:21 am to SUB
quote:
but come on. How is it possible to put them above The Beatles?
Because I just advanced a straightforward and compelling argument. Not a mere conclusion.
Posted on 1/10/13 at 6:26 am to Baloo
quote:
I think people are getting way hung up on the title of the thread and not the arguments in the article itself, which really don't match "most influential band ever". Not really. The argument is that they are the Rock Star Acrchetype, which is much different.
ar·che·type [ahr-ki-tahyp] Show IPA
noun
1.
the original pattern or model from which all things of the same kind are copied or on which they are based; a model or first form; prototype.
That's different than influence? You sure? I can't think of a CLEARER example of influence.
Posted on 1/10/13 at 6:28 am to BRTIIGER58
quote:
To appreciate the influence of The Beatles you would have to be aware of what music was like before The Beatles
Before the Beatles it was just homeless guys beating on empty trash cans.
Posted on 1/10/13 at 8:43 am to bobbyray21
Oh, cool, let's have a pedantic argument about definitions. WOOOOOOOO!!!!
Yes, the Beatles, in absolute terms, are ore influential because they were the ones who created the idea that pop stars were "Artists" and not just empty shills to push product (actually, that's Dylan, but he gifted that to the Beatles). That's such a profound change that it's hard to even wrap your arms around it.
Pop music does not exist as it does today without the Beatles. But I don't think the concept of the Rock Star as we know it exists without Led Zeppelin. It's a subtle difference in the argument, and what the column is getting at.
Yes, the Beatles, in absolute terms, are ore influential because they were the ones who created the idea that pop stars were "Artists" and not just empty shills to push product (actually, that's Dylan, but he gifted that to the Beatles). That's such a profound change that it's hard to even wrap your arms around it.
Pop music does not exist as it does today without the Beatles. But I don't think the concept of the Rock Star as we know it exists without Led Zeppelin. It's a subtle difference in the argument, and what the column is getting at.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News