Favorite Rock band.

Stones
Zappa
The Advantage
Pixies

Eh, it’s just his taste, minke.  It happens to be awful taste but it’s his ;)

i soo aggreee

I will only say Rush does have the best drummer ever.

The Beatles or Led Zeppelin

Dependent on the mood.  These are the real founders of Modern Rock, and all that follows.

Other founders Chuck berry and Elvis

@FieldMarshalGames:

The Beatles or Led Zeppelin

Dependent on the mood.  These are the real founders of Modern Rock, and all that follows.

All in favor say I…

I!

RUSH is darn cool… I get to see them in concert in 13 days or so, BUT…

LED ZEPPELIN is definitely better.

THE BEATLES are the best of all time, but LED ZEPPELIN is unquestionably my favorite.

@SS:

I will only say Rush does have the best drummer ever.

Definitely a candidate.

@FieldMarshalGames:

The Beatles or Led Zeppelin

Dependent on the mood.  These are the real founders of Modern Rock, and all that follows.

By ripping off blues and R&B artists?

@Jermofoot:

@FieldMarshalGames:

The Beatles or Led Zeppelin

Dependent on the mood.  These are the real founders of Modern Rock, and all that follows.

By ripping off blues and R&B artists?

If you can make that statement, then everyone who followed these two did the same thing, but compounded it by ripping off The Beatles and Zeppelin also. The vary nature of early rock and roll was the sharing/using of other’s material. All of the great artists did it, especially the first blues players; which is where rock came from in the first place. Even today, there is very little that is new in Blues and Rock and Roll… it’s recycled material.

The Beatles were so great because 1. they were a very good band (in virtually every way) and 2. because their music, recording and artistry really was revolutionary.
Led Zeppelin was not as revolutionary, but just as influential in the blues rock genre.

I just think it is unfair to deride these two groups for “ripping off” other artists.    Of course they did it. They don’t shy away from admitting that. But so did everyone else: Hendrix, BB King, Clapton, Muddy Waters, Vaughan, The Stones, Elvis, Dylan…

But it is not as though even many of their songs are rip offs. Especially the big hits. Both bands are extremely influential and original. Jermo, I don’t see how you can insinuate they are not creative in their own right.

@LHoffman:

@Jermofoot:

@FieldMarshalGames:

The Beatles or Led Zeppelin

Dependent on the mood.  These are the real founders of Modern Rock, and all that follows.

By ripping off blues and R&B artists?

If you can make that statement, then everyone who followed these two did the same thing, but compounded it by ripping off The Beatles and Zeppelin also.

Umm…no, you can’t.  The Beatles and Led Zeppelin got/made popular songs by blacks that were obscure pretty much on racial grounds, although in LZ’s case I believe there were nonblack artists taken from. I deliberately use ripped off because that’s what’s happened with these two in particular in their early careers and the recognition does not go to those who really started it.  The British Invasion as a whole was British artists emulating American blues, R&B, and other artists.  Anyone that covered the Beatles and Led Zepp original music was recognized as simply a cover, not redefining a new musical genre.

In the Beatles case, it’s not entirely their fault, they were just playing the music.  But they made a ton of money and popularity off of it for themselves and record execs.  Led Zepp deliberately stole music and lyrics from others and passed it as their own.

The vary nature of early rock and roll was the sharing/using of other’s material. All of the great artists did it, especially the first blues players; which is where rock came from in the first place. Even today, there is very little that is new in Blues and Rock and Roll… it’s recycled material.

1. You’re talking about the tradition of blues, not recording, distribution, and selling of blues.
2. Now you’re also saying that it wasn’t original anyway, so why should the Beatles and Led Zepp get the credit?

The Beatles were so great because 1. they were a very good band (in virtually every way) and 2. because their music, recording and artistry really was revolutionary.
Led Zeppelin was not as revolutionary, but just as influential in the blues rock genre.

I agree that they are both really good bands.  I’m just saying give credit where credit is due.  And in the Beatles case they were covering other peoples songs and didn’t really hit their own creativity stride until many years and drugs later.

I just think it is unfair to deride these two groups for “ripping off” other artists.    Of course they did it. They don’t shy away from admitting that. But so did everyone else: Hendrix, BB King, Clapton, Muddy Waters, Vaughan, The Stones, Elvis, Dylan…

So now you agree with me.  I’ve already explained the difference above, I won’t repeat it again.  We aren’t talking simply covers here, we’re talking about credit.

But it is not as though even many of their songs are rip offs. Especially the big hits. Both bands are extremely influential and original. Jermo, I don’t see how you can insinuate they are not creative in their own right.

Never did I say they weren’t creative or had their own hits…that’s putting words in my mouth.  I simply disagree that either one was a founder of rock on their own merit.

If we are talking about legal credit, well then that is another issue. I apologize if I misinterpreted your comment, but it seemed to me you were detracting from their accomplishments because a few songs were not their own. I cannot recall any Beatles recordings that were not written by them being passed off as their own. Led Zeppelin did do that to some extent, but I don’t see how that can affect their legitimacy when they have clearly proven to be forerunners in their own right.

I agree with most of your points Jermo and I was getting at the fact that British Rock invasion was based on black American blues. If we are talking about recording and distribution and selling rights, then we are talking about the law, which is something I am not qualified or interested in talking about. But if we are talking about the principle of taking someone else’s work and using it for your own purposes… well, like I said, that is ingrained in the nature and history of blues.

Does it dampen Zeppelin’s image if they simply take from someone else to further their musical career; yeah, sure it does. But clearly that was not the intent or result of whatever they might have “ripped off”. Led Zeppelin did not just market another person’s song; they made it their own by altering lyrics, rearranging structure and radically changing the sound. A number of recordings stem from traditional blues which may or may not have a single author and was developed over time. Led Zeppelin was the next step in that development. I don’t believe Led Zeppelin ever shied away from acknowledging their roots or sources for their material, but you don’t see them talking about it much because they were not as open to the press and universally appealing as the Beatles.

Don’t get me wrong, I think it is improper (or at the very least shows less creativity) for a band or group to market other people’s music as their own. I think of Glee as the most heinous example. But there is a huge difference in living a musical life on other people’s material and doing what amount to some covers in your early years.

The Beatles and Zep get the credit because they are more popular and popularly recognized than any of the artists they “ripped off”. That is just the way the world works. When somebody says “All along the Watchtower” or “Crossroads” … you don’t think of Bob Dylan and Robert Johnson, you think of Jimi Hendrix and Eric Clapton. It’s not that Hendrix or Clapton or Zeppelin or the Beatles never gave credit because they did (just like everyone else has to) in their liner notes.

You are right, neither was a founder of rock on their own merit. I am not sure anyone can claim that. However, both the Beatles and Led Zeppelin moved rock forward into the form that we see today, which is little changed from the 1960’s.

Rush!!! im going to their time machine tour in detroit in 5 days!!! 2112 for the win!!! :-D

@poloplayer15:

Rush!!! im going to their time machine tour in detroit in 5 days!!! 2112 for the win!!! :-D

I am going to that TOMORROW in TOLEDO… haha! YES!

@Jermofoot:

@SS:

I will only say Rush does have the best drummer ever.

Definitely a candidate.

@FieldMarshalGames:

The Beatles or Led Zeppelin

Dependent on the mood.  These are the real founders of Modern Rock, and all that follows.

By ripping off blues and R&B artists?

The question was favorite ROCK band…  Yes these Rock pioneers built on the foundations of Country and Western / Rock&Roll / Blues, R&B and more…

But they invented and mastered for all time what we call “Rock Music”.  They set the tone and remain the corner stones of all that came after.

@LHoffman:

@poloplayer15:

Rush!!! im going to their time machine tour in detroit in 5 days!!! 2112 for the win!!! :-D

I am going to that TOMORROW in TOLEDO… haha! YES!

if we had a line id stand on your side of it!
:-D

come on guys, what band can make a 20 minute song by goofing around and have it be a world wide hit?

@FieldMarshalGames:

@Jermofoot:

@SS:

I will only say Rush does have the best drummer ever.

Definitely a candidate.

@FieldMarshalGames:

The Beatles or Led Zeppelin

Dependent on the mood.  These are the real founders of Modern Rock, and all that follows.

By ripping off blues and R&B artists?

The question was favorite ROCK band…  Yes these Rock pioneers built on the foundations of Country and Western / Rock&Roll / Blues, R&B and more…

But they invented and mastered for all time what we call “Rock Music”.  They set the tone and remain the corner stones of all that came after.

I know what the question was, and I answered it.  But to claim the Beatles and LZ invented Rock & Roll is naive and just plain wrong.  Look at the first couple of years of Rock & Roll Hall of Fame inductees.  Neither of those bands are on it.  The British invasion was just a rebound from the American Rock and Roll origins.  The Beatles lead the way, but it wasn’t new.  It was just a revival.  And every one of them was imitating what American blues and R&B musicians were doing for at least two decades.

They were good and extremely popular, but not innovative.  Furthermore, there is plenty of contemporary music that doesn’t owe anything to either one of those bands, whether musicians listened to them or not.

Guns and Roses are high on my list.

Gene Autry ROCKS!