Will anybody EVER step to the beatles?

[Lincoln]

whites have larger dicks than asians by average tho

i hope yall talking about south east and far east asians and not all asians in general.....or i might have to pull the rampuri out on yall

LOL. 

[Bomb-A®]

^^ you think indians beat whites? I wasn´t thinking of anything west of bangladesh in the first place though, if that calms you down

i was just playing around....peace

[Drudge]

zeppelin had every bit of talent...if not more than the beatles but were no where near as innovative

Bigjake is right Led zeppelin more talented and just as big. In fact in 1969 Led zeppelin took over the charts past the beatles whom never would challenge Led Zeppelin chart wise after 1969.

[Lincoln]

zeppelin had every bit of talent...if not more than the beatles but were no where near as innovative

Bigjake is right Led zeppelin more talented and just as big. In fact in 1969 Led zeppelin took over the charts past the beatles whom never would challenge Led Zeppelin chart wise after 1969.

The Beatles also ended in 69, so of course they couldn't challenge Zeppelin after 1969.

[Shallow]

zeppelin had every bit of talent...if not more than the beatles but were no where near as innovative

Bigjake is right Led zeppelin more talented and just as big. In fact in 1969 Led zeppelin took over the charts past the beatles whom never would challenge Led Zeppelin chart wise after 1969.

The Beatles also ended in 69, so of course they couldn't challenge Zeppelin after 1969.

Not to downplay the Fab Four, but I don't think they could have went up against Zep at that time. The Beatles' time was up when Zep became huge, and a new sound was the now in. None of McCartney's or Lennon's albums could compete with those early Led Zeppelin records. This doesn't mean I think if Zep came out in '65 that they would have ended the Beatles run early. It just means there is a time and a place for everything, and the 70s was not going to be bigger for Paul and John, compared to Zep, no matter how you slice it. Just like even if Bonham didn't die Led Zeppelin still would have been finished in the 80s (or went hair metal, but I don't even want to think about that).

[specityo]

I really don't think so in terms of influence or sales but whatever.

[Lincoln]

zeppelin had every bit of talent...if not more than the beatles but were no where near as innovative

Bigjake is right Led zeppelin more talented and just as big. In fact in 1969 Led zeppelin took over the charts past the beatles whom never would challenge Led Zeppelin chart wise after 1969.

The Beatles also ended in 69, so of course they couldn't challenge Zeppelin after 1969.

Not to downplay the Fab Four, but I don't think they could have went up against Zep at that time. The Beatles' time was up when Zep became huge, and a new sound was the now in. None of McCartney's or Lennon's albums could compete with those early Led Zeppelin records. This doesn't mean I think if Zep came out in '65 that they would have ended the Beatles run early. It just means there is a time and a place for everything, and the 70s was not going to be bigger for Paul and John, compared to Zep, no matter how you slice it. Just like even if Bonham didn't die Led Zeppelin still would have been finished in the 80s (or went hair metal, but I don't even want to think about that).

I agree, I was just pointing out that what he said about them overshadowing The Beatles after 1969. Very few will ever compete with Zeppelin's 1 through 4.

[ImmortalOne]

Led Zeppelin > the Beatles

yea, I said it. And meant it. Beatles are very overrated to me.

[Kill]

Not to downplay the Fab Four, but I don't think they could have went up against Zep at that time. The Beatles' time was up when Zep became huge, and a new sound was the now in. None of McCartney's or Lennon's albums could compete with those early Led Zeppelin records. This doesn't mean I think if Zep came out in '65 that they would have ended the Beatles run early. It just means there is a time and a place for everything, and the 70s was not going to be bigger for Paul and John, compared to Zep, no matter how you slice it. Just like even if Bonham didn't die Led Zeppelin still would have been finished in the 80s (or went hair metal, but I don't even want to think about that).

lol at hair metal Led Zep, but co-sign

[I`m Wayne Brady bitch!]

They`re not bad, but they shure is overated

[Shallow]

I really don't think so in terms of influence or sales but whatever.

If you look at original album for original album then Zep has the Beatles beat. Alot of THe Beatles record sales from all those double disc compilations. No Beatles album comes close to IV. Zep's first album is 11x platinum, their second is over 12x platinum, their third is 6X platinum, and their fourth is 22x platinum. Their fifth is 11x platinum, and their double album is 15x platinum. They then capped off their career with the 6x platinum In throuth the out door. Giving their 7 albums a total of 83 million records sold in the US alone, with an average of 11.8 million a record. These are just the oroginal releases. This does not count any live stuff or special edition hidden tracks.


Now the Beatles had 11 oroginal albums released (I think). Meet the Beatles went 5, Beatles '65 went 3, Rubber Soul went 6, Revolver went 5, Help went 4, Hard Day's Night went 4, Sgt. Pepper went 11, Magical Mystery Tour went 6, The White Album (couble album) went 19, Let it Be went 4, and Abbey Road went 12. This gives us a total of 79 million records sold with a 7.2 average per album.


As for influence, well that's closer than some want to admit. The Beatles obviously had a major influence on just about every band after them, but so did Zep. For every major band that was more influenced by the Beatles, I can name one that was more influenced by Zep.

The Beatles were the golden boys from nearly day 1, and America pushed them as much as they loved them. Zep was the counter culture that snuck up on the world and took it over. I'd give it a tie. On personal choice I'd pick Zep probably just because of live shows and musicianship. Plant sand better than any Beatle, Paige played better guitar, and Bonham played way better drums. Paul gets the edge over John Paul but that 3 out of 4. This doesn't mean I rate bands based on mucisianship. I just decide to use it as a tie breaker when I can't decide who I think is better.

[white Boy]

i thougt jimi was discovered by the bassist of that band who sang "whats your name /whose your daddy/he rich/is he rich like me" (the animals??)


oh yeah jimi was also in the airforce

and he spent literally hours tuning his guitar before each and every performance

wats that song called?

[Shallow]

i thougt jimi was discovered by the bassist of that band who sang "whats your name /whose your daddy/he rich/is he rich like me" (the animals??)


oh yeah jimi was also in the airforce

and he spent literally hours tuning his guitar before each and every performance

wats that song called?

That's the same Time of the Season you were asking about.

[white Boy]

ahhhh, it all makes sense, well since i dug this shit up, no need to waste it, so, the beatles are pretty good eh?

[Trauma-san]

The greatest of all time, no matter what the dumbass above you says.  Nobody will ever touch them, here we are two or three years after I started this topic, and it's still dead on.  Not only did the Beatles rule the pop music world, they even changed the social climate of the world (or helped to).