View Single Post
Old 09-09-2009, 10:33 PM   #38
Usually Lurkin
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 8,195
Usually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos View Post
The thing about Led Zeppelin is

a) ... is a bit like saying that Michael Jordan wouldn't have been so great if he hadn't played basketball.
or like saying the Beatles wouldn't be who they are if they didn't come about in the generation that they did.

Quote:
b) Led Zeppelin had far, far greater range than ...
No they didn't....musically what they did is something that very ......
if musical talent was what it was all about, then this girl http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpzQsJkC3u0 would be more well known than the Beatles or Led Zepplin. The Beatles weren't about sophisticated lyrics or complicated riffs. That's not what they did, and it's not what the times called for. They were about selling tons of music, making girls scream, and influencing a generation. And they did all that better than Led Zeppelin


oh, and:
"Gilmour said: "I really wish I had been in The Beatles. I was always a massive fan. The Beatles taught me how to play guitar, I learnt everything. The bass parts, the lead, the rhythm, everything. They were fantastic.""
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/mu...s_Beatles_wish
Usually Lurkin is offline   Reply With Quote