StarDestroyer.Net BBS

"Zeppelin is good but they didn't have the sheer musical talent of Metallica."
"Name one Zeppelin song that is technically difficult to play."
"Their MUSIC isn't as impressive as Metallica's."

This was spoken. I was appalled. I bring it before you to settle. If this belongs in testing, sorry.

Is this a serious question?

Stark wrote:Is this a serious question?

Yes apparently there are people out there that actually think this... like how people think "GOD" is real.
I want to see who does and doesn't. I'm wondering if it is an age thing or just a lack of musical knowledge thing or what.

I definately think age will come into it: most of the people I know who are drooling Metallica zombies are younger than 20.

Rocks on, and belts out "Kashmir"

While I really like Heavy Metal, I can't stand to listen to Metalica for more than 5 minutes. There's just something about them I don't like. I don't know what it is.

So yeah, I"m voting for Zeppelin.

[Edit] Damn it Covenant! Just as I realise I read the damn question wrong and decided to just delete this, you just had to post! You couldn't have waited 30 seconds!?

I can't listen to Led Zepplin, their singer makes my ears bleed and I just hate the sound of them. I've tried, really, and I just can't take it, but I know they're better than Metallica--who I may like more, but that's irrelevent to the question.

Led Zepplin is yadda yadda groundbreaking, worldchanging, that sort of stuff. I just hate their music. I don't think anyone, even a devoted Metalhead, could honestly make the case that Metallica was more talented, if they know what that means. I'm not even some kind of music snob. I barely even enjoy music. But even I yield the craftsmanship award to Zepplin.

Metallica would still be a garage band without the influence of Zep. Led Zeppelin is arguably one of the most influential bands in history. So yeah, Zep rocks the shit out of Metallica.

I agree with Covenant. Led Zeppelings singer is very annoying and should be given the boot and replaced with somebody who has a reasonable voice.

Led Zeppelin. I do like Metallica, well, mostly, but like Rob said, they're nothing without Led Zeppelin.

I'm not a fan of either of them, but I like Metallica marginally more. That said, "talent" is difficult to quantify, but innovation is a bit easier and they're both important bands if not bands I'd spend a lot of time listening to. I don't know how much influence Zep had, so I can't really answer the question. The Zep are older, though, and they had that cool song on Life On Mars, and St Anger was so poor it was shameful.

As for their music not being as impressive, that's subjective, but that, and the technicality remark, both put Nile way out in front of Metallica and I can agree to that.

Besides, Carcass are better than both.

Metallica is entertaining but considering the impact that Led Zepplin had on rock music you'd have to be a serious fucking crack smoker to think that Metallica is more talented. More skilled, I don't play an instrument so I can't say anything one way or another. More creative fuck no.

"Zeppelin is good but they didn't have the sheer musical talent of Metallica."
"Name one Zeppelin song that is technically difficult to play."
"Their MUSIC isn't as impressive as Metallica's."

Sounds like some doofus who's never heard any Zeppelin songs other than "Stairway to Heaven".

Let's see Metallica try to pull off something like the half hour long live versions of "Moby Dick" or the "Whole Lotta Love" Medley and make it sound good.

Kirk Hammet will never come close to getting Jimmy Page's guitar tone right, and other than Clif Burton, none of their bassists can lay down a groove like John Paul Jones.

Metallica's good, but Zeppelin's great. End of story.

Are you serious? No contest. Zeppelin hands down.

I saw Metallica once. I scuttled over juuust far enough to get a glimpse of the podium. Then I went back to a Floyd tribute band playing one tent over and never looked back.

Floyd fan myself, but between Metallica and Led Zep? That's a retard question.

Zep good. Metallica BAAAAD.

Erm... what exactly does everyone mean by "Led Zep is more talented"? You surely can't be referring to technical skill, because even a non-guitarist should be able to tell that mid-tempo bluesy rock is a lot less strenuous and leaves less room for developing music than a high-speed thrash metal song.

Then again, when's the last time Metallica even did the latter? I'm abstaining.

Referring to actual skill in writing music as well as performing. A great guitar riffer is good and all, but not if they can't write for shit.

havokeff wrote:"Zeppelin is good but they didn't have the sheer musical talent of Metallica."
"Name one Zeppelin song that is technically difficult to play."
"Their MUSIC isn't as impressive as Metallica's."

This was spoken. I was appalled. I bring it before you to settle. If this belongs in testing, sorry.

Name one Metallica song that is technically difficult to play. They have two guitars and a bass, all playing pretty much the same riff on every song. Even Winger has songs that are more technically difficult to play...

SancheztheWhaler wrote:Name one Metallica song that is technically difficult to play. They have two guitars and a bass, all playing pretty much the same riff on every song. Even Winger has songs that are more technically difficult to play...

For starters, the entire "...And Justice For All Album" with its multitude of odd timescales and complex multisection riffs. I guess people confuse technically difficult with musically complex. Both bands can muster musically complex songs, but Metallica by far rely more on technical skill given the nature of thrash metal.

Saying one or the other is more influential or talented is a fucking retarded idea: Zeppelin may have inspired Metallica, but Metallica has since gone on to inspiring a whole new generation of death/prog/thrash metal players who probably don't care a whole lot about Zeppelin's blues-based rock.

Zep. now has Bonham jr.

Ok, so Van Halen now has the spawn of Valerie Bertinelli in their line up, but Jason Bonham being the new drummer for Zepplin, is just right an proper.

SancheztheWhaler wrote:

havokeff wrote:"Zeppelin is good but they didn't have the sheer musical talent of Metallica."
"Name one Zeppelin song that is technically difficult to play."
"Their MUSIC isn't as impressive as Metallica's."

This was spoken. I was appalled. I bring it before you to settle. If this belongs in testing, sorry.

Name one Metallica song that is technically difficult to play. They have two guitars and a bass, all playing pretty much the same riff on every song. Even Winger has songs that are more technically difficult to play...

Ride the lightning is beyond my meagre abilities. Well, the lead, anyway. The rhythm I could probably do.

SancheztheWhaler wrote:Name one Metallica song that is technically difficult to play. They have two guitars and a bass, all playing pretty much the same riff on every song. Even Winger has songs that are more technically difficult to play...

Would you say "The Call of Ktulu" is technically difficult? That is one crazy ass track.

JLTucker wrote:

SancheztheWhaler wrote:Name one Metallica song that is technically difficult to play. They have two guitars and a bass, all playing pretty much the same riff on every song. Even Winger has songs that are more technically difficult to play...

Would you say "The Call of Ktulu" is technically difficult? That is one crazy ass track.

The measure of the technical difficulty of said songs (at least for me) is whether the songs are difficult to play for professional musicians, not for talented amateurs. i.e., could Joe Perry (Aerosmith) or Paul Stanley (Kiss) or Pete Townshend (The Who) play the piece? Metallica songs sound extremely complicated, but remember there are three guys creating the sounds, not one. There are much more technically difficult songs out there - I like Metallica, but Steve Vai or Eric Johnson they're not.

havokeff wrote:"Zeppelin is good but they didn't have the sheer musical talent of Metallica."
"Name one Zeppelin song that is technically difficult to play."
"Their MUSIC isn't as impressive as Metallica's."

This was spoken. I was appalled. I bring it before you to settle. If this belongs in testing, sorry.

If you can play the fast licks in the solos to Heartbreaker, Good Times Bad Times, Black Dog and so on, you can pretty much play Metallica's fast licks too, it's just a matter of practice. One, Blackened, Ride the Lightning are hard to get perfect, but doable. Certainly easier than playing with a violin bow, like on Dazed and Confused. I've tried, and it's as hard as hell, I'm amazed that Page got anything from it.

Additionally, I'd argue that ...And Justice For All actually showed that Metallica was quite untalented without Cliff Burton, as very much of that album was recycled from the previous two. Whereas Zeppelin's style evolved, with Physical Grafitti and Presence containing some of the earliest uses of synth. By In Through the Out Door, their sound was very different, although you could still tell it was Zeppelin within a second of listening.

I do like Metallica's first 5 albums, but they just don't stand up here at all. Metallica is (was) a technically skilled band with poor vocals and no real musical direction after 1986. Their main contribution was ushering in a period of metal bands using dry and completely unsaturated amplification. Led Zeppelin was a great band that could cover any style from delta blues to greasy jazz to early metal, with musicians that inspired a whole generation, continued to innovate, and essentially defined hard rock.