1 registered members (RushStreet),
964
guests, and 17
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums21
Topics43,335
Posts1,085,981
Members10,381
|
Most Online1,100 Jun 10th, 2024
|
|
|
The Beatles vs Led Zeppelin
#645025
04/25/12 09:25 AM
04/25/12 09:25 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 207 The Army Barracks
The_Don_Is_Dead
OP
A Rabid Anti-Dentite
|
OP
A Rabid Anti-Dentite
Made Member
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 207
The Army Barracks
|
Last edited by The_Don_Is_Dead; 04/25/12 09:25 AM.
The more i see, the less i know - John Lennon
|
|
|
Re: The Beatles vs Led Zeppelin
[Re: Turnbull]
#645073
04/25/12 08:03 PM
04/25/12 08:03 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 13,145 East Tennessee
ronnierocketAGO
|

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 13,145
East Tennessee
|
Apples and  More like Tom Brady and Phil Simms. I mean this isn't even close, Led Zeppelin's musical output doesn't and can't match-up with the Beatles' discography. As for the "live" argument, it should be noted that looking through their earliest captured performances on film, they became a tight, well-oiled rock n roll group after years of endless performances at German stripclubs and Liverpool pubs. Their released rendition of "Twist & Shout," which was in effect a live recording done after a long hectic day of studio recording for their last LP. Pure audio dynamite. Or even their first Ed Sullivan appearance, they were fucking good too. Or that Washington concert done shortly after Ed Sullivan, in short of the technical limitations and having to revolve the stage and equipment in circles to face the riotous around them...still tight. To dismiss their live playing skills is just rubbish. It's just when they did stadiums and the technology just wasn't there to justify those performances, andthe Beatles indeed not able to hear themselves over the screaming girls, who really probably weren't even sure what those guys were playing or cared honestly. That demoralized the band, and they got sloppy in just not even trying anymore. Case in point, watch on YouTube their Japan concerts in 1966. Jesus you can notice the steep decline, and why they quit touring. After seeing that, you can absolutely understand why Lennon and Harrison subconciously were discouraged from heavy touring for the rest of their lives. EDIT - Actually that's a slight fib. In 1971/72, Lennon had planned an American tour to encourage youth vote registration in advance of the '72 elections. But that tour was cancelled when the FBI and INS started trying to deport him. And he had planned UK concerts for spring '81. Harrison had a tour in '74, but he got severely bad reviews. Mostly because he basically shredded his throat in recording his album DARK HORSE in haste and beginning that tour just right after finishing that LP. But honestly IMO, I've seen/heard clips from those '74 shows and...he wasn't that bad? Sure you could notice the difference, but it wasn't like it wrecked the concerts and plus he had a very damn good band that helped cover for him.
|
|
|
Re: The Beatles vs Led Zeppelin
[Re: ronnierocketAGO]
#645086
04/25/12 11:05 PM
04/25/12 11:05 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,694 AZ
Turnbull
|

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,694
AZ
|
It's just when they did stadiums and the technology just wasn't there to justify those performances, andthe Beatles indeed not able to hear themselves over the screaming girls, who really probably weren't even sure what those guys were playing or cared honestly. That demoralized the band, and they got sloppy in just not even trying anymore.
I bought a book years ago, "Beatles Gear," which showed the equipment they used throughout their careers. Your statement, "the technology wasn't there," was an understatement. They had been using 50-watt amps until their Shea Stadium (NY) concerts, then they got Peavey (I think) to make 100-watt amps. They needed them, too, because the concerts were piped over the stadium's PA system, normally used to announce the batting order for baseball games. Not exactly a superior auditory experience for their fans and them. Also, they didn't use foldback speakers then, which meant they couldn't even hear what they were playing.
Ntra la porta tua lu sangu � sparsu, E nun me mporta si ce muoru accisu... E s'iddu muoru e vaju mparadisu Si nun ce truovo a ttia, mancu ce trasu.
|
|
|
Re: The Beatles vs Led Zeppelin
[Re: ronnierocketAGO]
#645608
05/01/12 03:05 AM
05/01/12 03:05 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,943 Over Here < < in TX
U talkin' da me ??
Shiny Brass
|
Shiny Brass
Underboss
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,943
Over Here < < in TX
|
It's just when they did stadiums and the technology just wasn't there to justify those performances, andthe Beatles indeed not able to hear themselves over the screaming girls, who really probably weren't even sure what those guys were playing or cared honestly.
But, by 1968 (Monterey Pop Festival), and surely by Woodstock (August 1969), all of the Beatles had to know that their was ample amplification available for any band to overcome crowd noise for a Rock'n'Roll show. But, The Bealtes, before they split up, still chose not to go on the road, even for a limited set of dates. That was their choice. But only after breaking up, all of the Beatles chose to tour. I was making plans to go and see my first Beatle in concert, until that psycho Mark David Chapman murdered John Lennon, a loving father, and a loving husband. I hope that C/S Chapman never gets paroled!!!
"It's nothing personal, Sonny....... It's strictly business."
|
|
|
|