Led Zeppelin

"Who's the best" contests are just so pointless because there are far too many criteria to consider.

But indeed, whoever the best is - it ain't Bonham.

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

"Who's the best" contests are just so pointless because there are far too many criteria to consider.

But indeed, whoever the best is - it ain't Bonham.
[/QUOTE]

I agree with Brenski RE the varied styles, but I also agree with this, Bob: we all KNOW it's Roger Taylor. From Duran Duran :p

Seriously, though - it's Rog!

the problem with accessing who's best - is what characteristics are deemed crucial by one are less important to another.

that's why you'll get the same old lists cropping up including (in no particular order)
baker, moon, peart, bonham, aldridge, powell, rich, mitchell, appice and hawkins

Bonham (god bless him - I live in his home town) - has the distinct advantage of the "Freddie Factor"
or as Debbie Harry put it - "die young, stay pretty"
look at the early death rock stars - lennon, cobain, hendrix, mercury, morrison, elvis, scott, and bonham - they're deities that can do no wrong
because they were taken from us BEFORE they had a chance to get old and embarrassing.

even if the entire world arrived at agreement as to the worlds greatest rock drummer
the one key question in all of this:

prior to the announcement...who would play the drum roll?

[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]

even if the entire world arrived at agreement as to the worlds greatest rock drummer
the one key question in all of this:

prior to the announcement...who would play the drum roll?[/QUOTE]

Little Drummer Boy.

Ba rumpa pum pum.....

Any one dare to share thoughts on Bonham Vs Roger? I almost feel a bit naive saying Roger is superior, but he has his moments. Bonham is more consistent and has some amazing skills. I always found Rogers best work to be on "sheer heart attack". But in saying that, even Rog has been quoted as saying Bonham was the best drummer.

How ever, isn't Roger a musician in the sense that he more than just a drummer? Eg: Chad Smith. Amazing drummer but where are his contributions to the peppers?

[QUOTE] [b]AssDudeRule wrote:[/b]

Any one dare to share thoughts on Bonham Vs Roger?

[/QUOTE]

They're certainly not far apart in technical ability on the drums, but being in band with Freddie Mercury casts a shadow over you. Never mind Roger Taylor, I'd still argue that Brian May doesn't get his due. Outside of guitarists' circles and Queen fans, Brian is rarely mentioned alongside Hendrix, Page, Clapton, Eddie, etc. But he is most certainly in that elite club of innovation and creativity.

Look at it this way - Bonham was a drummer, while Roger was (and still is) a drummer, singer, guitarist, pianist and songwriter. All of which he is excellent at.

So I pick Roger.

of course Roger beats Bonzo ^^^...on keyboard, guitars and vocals...but THIS particulalr pissing contest was about drums

and Bonzo wins that one hands down.

how many rock standards is Roger's drumming known for?
(maybe a few drum machines ....GaGa, etc)

but JB's drumming is known the world over on over a dozen Zep classics....
Rock n Roll, Black Dog, Kashmir, Immigrant Song, Whole Lotta Love, When The Levee breaks, Heartbreaker, Good Times Bad Times, to name a few

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]Errm, Page and Puff Daddy ,.. ?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE] [b]Zebonka12 wrote:[/b]Plant and Coca-Cola..[/QUOTE]

alas - you BOTH missed the point. The Zep name was not used - so no disrespecting of the brand or label - as opposed to what our "mad Dr - selling his (arse)soul for 30 pieces of silver to whatever shitty collaboration he can dredge up....HE used the queen name...that's the shitting on the legacy. Zep (to my knowledge) didn't do that with their band name

Bonham was amazing at what he did, but what he did was operate in a limited area. He had major issues with time signatures other than simple 4/4 patterns.

Roger is a more capable player, a true musician and writer.

"alas - you BOTH missed the point"

Actually, no, and in rebuttal I'd raise two other points. The Coke thing I mentioned related to a song that used Zeppelin samples - one can argue for or against his motivations for doing so (I actually think it's a funny story myself) but the connection is still there.

And second - he's the Led Zeppelin guy. Not denigrating Plant's solo career here or anything (I like some of it), but that's just who he is. Any true separation of Plant and Zeppelin is an imagined one. You can't just dismiss it as a solo gig because it really wasn't. It invoked Zeppelin's legacy. If he'd done it with "Burning Down One Side", maybe you'd have a point.

(Not saying that to be an asshole or anything, but I'll get to this in a minute).

By extension, the Puff Daddy thing is even more of a Zeppelin connection. The only reasons that shitty track ever got talked about was the Godzilla movie, and the Zeppelin stuff it sampled. Again; Pagey was probably just doing what Plant did and regaining his legacy by doing what every other idiot had been doing for decades (sampling), but it's still a Led Zeppelin connection - still open to criticism, and still worthy of being called a dodgy move by the original artist.

To be clear though, I don't think either the Godzilla or the Tall Cool One things are as bad as what Queen+ have gotten up to. But they are at least comparable. That Puff Daddy one especially, mainly because he's a shit musician and it was done for a shit movie.

But yeah, no one's missing the point by bringing them up as examples. Puff Niggy and the Coke thing both dragged Zeppelin's legacy into the mix; whether or not they were as egregious or distasteful as what QPL gets up to is anyone's guess. I'd say no, myself.

"Roger is a more capable player, a true musician and writer"

I don't really see them as existing on drastically different tiers. If you try to make it a technical ability argument, then there's players who (going by technique) would smoke them both. Saying Bonham was mostly limited to basic time signatures is meaningless when he was able to apply more advanced patterns to his playing than your average joker-calls-himself-the-drummer. I wouldn't out-and-out say that there's things Bonham did that Taylor couldn't, but the isolated tracks from both drummers definitely don't tell a story of huge disparity in talent.

(Saying all of this as a very mediocre drummer who admires them both greatly for different reasons).

Zebonka I agree. Bonham has always been one of my favourite drummers. But in answer to the question Bonham v Roger I would choose RT because I'd rather play in a band with a drummer who isn't stuck In one area. I'm in no way dissing John Bonham.

Look at it another way, in the mid 70's RT could have played a gig with Zep. Yes it would have sounded different but their would be nothing in the set he couldn't play. However if JB walked on stage with Queen in 77 he couldn't have played I'm in Love With My Car or The Millionaire Waltz however he would have played an amazing It's Late.

When comparing the ability of musicians a lot of it is down to taste. And how they do what they do. Satriani is a better player than Brian, but I'd rather listen to BM than JS. Doesn't mean I don't like Satch, I do. And yes in the world of Drummers any number of guys could leave RT and JB standing.

we have the benefit of hindsight and RT's later stuff to bias the argument. bit of a disadvantage for JB really...dying and all that ...before the changes in musical styles really took hold...
now we'll never know what he was capable of...

i'll give you an example - i love randy rhoads' guitar playing - guy was fantastic....but we'll never know how great he coulda been
...a hanful of quiet riot playing and two "blizzard" albums would leave him unfairly compared to say, Brian or Jimmy page
but (at the time of his death) he was going back to guitar school to learn how to play classical...Ozzy was said to be angry about it

now, had he lived...how would we be comparing his portfolio now?

[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]

Satriani is a better player than Brian, but I'd rather listen to BM than JS.[/QUOTE]

Me too.

Satch has better chops, but it doesn't make him unequivocally a better player. Last Horizon is more expressive than Satch's entire catalogue combined, as far as I'm concerned.

It's all a question of how you define "good". Bach's compositions are, on the whole, much more intricate, complex and (in his own time) innovative than any of the works of say, Brahms. But as far as creating an atmosphere and translating emotions into music goes, Brahms runs circles around Bach. I personally love musical impressionism (Debussy, Ravel, Rachmaninov and the likes), so I tend to prefer music by any of those guys over the classicism of Mozart, Haydn or Händel. But does that mean they are better? Or, conversely, are Mozart, Haydn and Händel better, and am I just wrong? No. There is no such thing as "objective" musical quality. You can come up with things like "A can play licks faster than B", "A uses more intricate harmonies than B" or "A uses extended techniques more often (or more proficiently) than B", but do any of those factual observations really mean anything?

Without entering the void of nihilism, I'd have to say yes.

People often like to define why they like things, and technical ability tends to be one of the culprits... even if they have no idea what they're talking about.

On the topic of Zeppelin, two camps of people get Page completely wrong. Some think he's the best guitarist ever because he played fast, and others think he's awful because he often played sloppy.

The reality is - there's so much more to Page than his chops, good or bad. He was an extremely expressive guitarist and a creative genius at his peak. Never mind his Zeppelin years, the director of Death Wish II said Page's soundtrack was the most professional score he's ever seen in his life.