The Beatles vs Led Zeppelin

Comparing The Beatles vs Led Zeppelin in the first-ever edition of The Great Debate.

00:00 Intro
02:05 The BenAF Method
02:52 Image
04:28 Commercial Success
05:42 Body Of Work
08:05 Uniqueness
10:51 Legacy

Writers: BenAF, MomAF
Editor: BenAF
Narrator: BenAF

Thanks for Watching.
That's it for now enjoy the rest of your day!

#TheBeatlesvsLedZeppelin #TheBeatles #LedZeppelin #BenAF #TheGreatDebate

[iyubgnw]

I love both bands, but Jimmy Page touches my heart in a way like no other. Led Zeppelin is magical… they’re dangerous and mysterious

[pslpom]

The phrase, 'Going to be bigger than The Beatles' comes to mind, because that's what you measure greatness by.

[coda]

To me, this is like asking who I love more - my mother or my father. The Beatles and Led Zeppelin tie as my favorite band. I’m not picking one over the other

[joemacinnis]

I absolutely love both bands. But let's get real, there was never a band so influential as the Beatles! They changed music forever

[Morhpocelionate]

One thing I always loved about zep is that their songs let the instruments really shine. its not uncommon for songs to contain long instrumental segments, which may not have played well on radio, but sure makes their music last better than most acts. You can really dig into zeppelin's music and notice things you never have before.

[MJEvermore]

I love both bands...my #1 and #2 favorites of all time, but you can't put the Beatles up against a band like LZ, when each member was in the top 3 masters of their respective instruments of all time, even to this day.

Led Zeppelin went onstage and played shows that were over 2 hours long toward the beginning of their careers, and nearly and over 4 hours long toward the end, for months at a time.

They improvised every song that they played live, so that they were all different...not only from the studio albums, but different every night.
They had such an amazing chemistry that they could improvise naturally, and easily drift in and out of songs and extend them past a half an hour every night. It is safe to say that 85-90% of their live songs were played and arranged differently every single evening over months and years.
They were so good live, even at their very beginnings as a warm-up band, that the headline bands refused to go on after them.
They began headlining their own shows merely a year after coming onto the scene with no warmup bands playing with them.

The Beatles by comparison, gave us 30 minutes per show. They were not exactly masters of their respective instruments (though I feel they are all pretty decent...Paul McCartney is an excellent bassist, but he doesn't come close to John Paul Jones...Ringo as well was a pure metronome and kept perfect time).

LZ broke all of the Beatles' attendance records many times over in concert ticket sales.

Their sophomore album ( Led Zeppelin II) knocked the Beatles' 'Abbey Road' off the top of the album charts soon after its release.

I don't mean this as a dis toward the Beatles...Abby Road has been by far one of my most favorite albums since it was released. Still is more than 50 yrs later, and will simply remain one of the greatest albums of all time.

Led Zeppelin had little to no publicity. It was mostly all word-of-mouth. If they did get reviewed, it was mostly negative and painted them and their music in a very bad light, with multiple negative reviews and insults added by the writers of Rolling Stone magazine and others.

If you look back and read some of these reviews that were written back then about LZ when they first began releasing albums and touring, it is unbelievable how ridiculous these "journalists" painted them. It'll make one laugh.

LZ weren't the only band that received these blatantly false narratives...they tore apart other musicians that were of extremely high caliber.
They went out of their way to heap praise upon some very mediocre bands and musicians. Up was down and down was up with these overpaid dildos.

The Beatles had a media machine that over-saturated them consistently nearly everywhere they went. They had a commercial juggernaut that pasted their faces and voices all over TV, radio ( constantly), and with a trove of teeny bopper magazines (not cool, IMO).
Even the fans' parents liked the Beatles. They were highly praised by most media and still are.

They were the boys next door, cutesy and cuddly....innocent (before 1967, anyway), while LZ were dangerous, dark (not teeny bop material) and not easily accessible.
They had a strong sense of mysticism in their music, and were a mysterious band in and of themselves.

Zep didn't need or want any such media attention or commercialism. They flat-out refused to play this media game like all the other bands felt they had to do to become accepted and successful.
This is the main reason why the media hated Zeppelin so much...

"How dare they not rely on us and then become famous anyways? Screw that, we're gonna butcher them!" And they did.

LZ chose to do it all the hard way and just let their music do all the talking.

Like I said, I love the Beatles, but in more than a few important ways, they were slightly inferior to LZ. To top it off, much of the Beatles' music hasn't aged as well to some extent.
Zep albums still sound as fresh as they did since their initial releases.

These are my opinions only of course, but I used many of the facts that are well-known and easy to research.

[lordaleron]

Both bands are mammoth, but the Beatles were the progenitors of pop rock. Without the Beatles, Led Zeppelin would never have been. The Beatles wrote songs in a style no one ever heard before. They were the first to add an orchestra to pop rock. They were trailblazers who did what no other hand ever did: they changed the world. Their reach was global. For the first time, whereas, others made their mark with their own sounds, the Beatles were a freight train that could not be ignored, even if we wanted to. They influenced politics, fashion, art - globally. We began dressing differently, thinking differently and acting differently. No other band ever did all these things. The Beatles were and are, the best band that ever was.

[dylanolson]

Beatles are just so much ahead of all other bands, Led Zeppelin vs Pink Floyd is a more fair matchup

[psychlos]

Both bands are amazing. They were different musically. That's all. I love both equally.

[chrisschoedel]

Beatles all day.

Having said that, omg I love Led Zeppelin.

[randyrandal]

To tuff to call but I prefer the most dominating band of all
TIME. LED FUCKING ZEPPELIN

[fernandomartinpenafiel]

both bands revolutionized and innovated music. influence youth movement for new and fresh culture and music. difference is the era where they dominated music and the world.

[rodsworld]

you just can't beat the Beatles you just can't.

[ramonaldea]

Cmon its a tie you just cant underestimate the fab four we all know that name john paul george ringo is iconic but when it comes to master the instruments its zeppelin 20 min guitar solo thunderous bass drum seductive frontman and the secret weapon mr.jpj

[BigBoss-g-wc]

The Beatles are even today light years in front of everyone else and that’s the fact, whether you like it or not .

[haxson]

I love Led Zepplin, but everything taken into context, I'm not sure that there would have been a Led Zepplin without "The Beatles". Just saying.

[johngranato]

Just look at global record sales, awards, and radio time. No contest, the Beatles are by far the greatest.

[DonaldMains]

The fact that it is always the Beatles vs someone else; Led Zeppelin, the Stones, Pink Floyd, it's a not so subtle hint that everyone knows who the greatest really is.

[alexhoffman]

Two different bands
Ones rock and ones pop
Not comparable.

[godbluffvdgg]

incomparable; They both transcend any genre that people want to pigeon hole them into... It's comparing children...You love them equally.