Indeed. They have good range
Hadn't listened to them in a while but for the last couple of nights, have put on the headphones and played the box set on shuffle. Can't overrate this band. Maybe one of the highest ratios of good songs to bad songs ever. Brilliant.
Indeed. They have good range
Pink Floyd is way better.
balderdash!
I love both but Pink Floyd a little more. But as balli once said, both bands are for adolescents venturing out into the music world for the first time.![]()
Led Zeppelin = Pink Floyd![]()
I like them both but prefer Zeppelin more. Zeppelin is more dynamic of a band where Floyd really only has one speed. Plus Floyd didn't have Bonzo.
Robert Plant's voice can get annoying after awhile, whereas Waters/Barrett/Gilmore don't screech
Yeah because Piper's is so much like Umma so much like Animals so much like Dark Side so much like the Wall so much like Momentary Lapse.
I love Zeppelin but they did a whole lot of standard blues progressions and fills just at 130 bpm. Sure they would mix in D'yer or some brogue but they had a very specific formula.
My favorite song to veg out too.
Plant's voice grates on my nerves now, I can't listen to them much anymore. I really want to see Beware of Mr. Baker, he says some hilarious about John Bohnam.
It's true. Both are just sort of a gateway for other music.
Both bands are, in my opinion, waaaaaaaaaay overrated.
No . They're a gateway in the same way Kubrick and David Lean are, they're older and iconic so most people hear/watch them before anything else. That doesn't take anything away from their prestige
Last edited by CubanSucks; 02-28-2013 at 02:43 PM.
Spoken like a true hipster.
Yeah, probably.
Though I'd stipulate that my opinion in this case isn't just half-hearted posturing.
I definitely prefer Floyd (like others said, mainly because of Plant's at times ridiculous vocals, and not in a good sense either) but I could never get enough of Jimmy Page's guitar work.
At least you didn't try to compare them to Godspeed or Battles.
I am kind of confused how you can overrate a band. If you don't like them as much as other people do then that is one thing. This is not like sports though where you can say 'the Lakers are overrated' and then they lose over projections. If you want an objective measure, if either band were somehow to reform and play then they would mot likely sell out stadiums with $150 GA tickets. The Stones have been doing that for decades.
Do you think that people that like Floyd and LZ a lot have bad taste or something?
No Quarter (not quite Zeppelin but close - just Plant & Page doing some re-worked Zeppelin songs with a Moroccan influence) is probably one of my top 5 favorite albums ever. How The West Was Won is an amazing live album - especially the acoustic stuff.
I remember the first time I smoked pot too.
Oh, I understand what you're getting at. Liking or not liking a band is entirely a matter of personal taste and is wholly subjective. Especially when dealing with two bands who are, admittedly, quite hard to fault in terms of their talent and musicianship; both would likely fare quite well when tested against whatever objective measures one could use to gauge a band's quality and success.
When I say that Led Zepplin and Pink Floyd are overrated, it's not meant to question their inherent goodness or to suggest that the people who have rated them so highly are objectively wrong. Rather, it is a reaction to the fact that I don't hear whatever it is that other people think is so special; neither band particularly moves me. It is all a matter of personal taste, of course, which is ultimately infallible. I don't think I'm right for finding them boring, and I don't think anyone else is wrong for finding them amazing.
No. I just think they have different taste than I do.
Sure. If you are a stoned, teenaged virgin.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)