Led Zepplin vs. Deep Purple

[Carpe Mortem]

I can't believe Led Zeppelin is winning this poll so far. Well yeah I guess I can but Deep Purple all the way. Even Kashmir aint shit compared to some DP tunes, and it is one hell of a song.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

"Musical Plagarism" is a fucking joke. What do you think people have been doing for centuries? Music is a discourse just as language is. Any notion of ownership is based on a farce.

Edit: What are some of the heavier Zeppelin songs, preferably ones where Plant dosn't sound like a women that's getting fondled.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

So you're saying there's nothing wrong with taking a song that someone else has written, putting it on your own album and taking credit for it?

Seems to me that some of your guys are having a hard time understanding what plagiarism means.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

One my favorite track's from them ... too bad they didn't write it.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Edit: What are some of the heavier Zeppelin songs, preferably ones where Plant dosn't sound like a women that's getting fondled.

Eh, if you don't like Plant's falsetto then Zeppelin probably isn't the band for you.

So you're saying there's nothing wrong with taking a song that someone else has written, putting it on your own album and taking credit for it?

Seems to me that some of your guys are having a hard time understanding what plagiarism means.

I guess I kinda don't care. They executed it those songs in a radically different (and better) sounding way. Putting aside ethics and looking at it from a purely aesthetic level, it's no different than Jimi Hendrix rerecording Bob Dylan or Buffy Sainte Marie rerecording Joni Mitchell. It happened all the time back then.

Of course, Zeppelin are dicks for not giving credit where credit is due, but for me at least, it doesn't take away from the quality of the recordings they made. The fact that there isn't a credit to someone else on the liner note is just footnote in the history of rock.

Furthermore, over the course of their eight albums there are more than enough great songs that are actually originals, so it's not like their plagiarism proves their bad songwriters or something.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

... yea, i agree with most everyhting there.

It's just sucks that they made all of that money off of other people's hard work, knowing none of those small time African american blues artists had the pockets to do anything to the "Almighty Zep" and their big money lawyers at the time.

That being said, all that shit doesn't bother me too much either, just cant seem to get into them as much as some of the other bands from the 70's.

 

[sevag00]

Tacos for me.

 

[Carpe Mortem]

Tacos for me.

How can you even think the delicate acoustics of tacos are in the same league as either of these bands? I mean sure the lettuce is airy in a way reminiscent of the period of its creation but there isn't enough fucking meat! You ever seen Tacos live? Great vibe... terrible music.

 

[KafkaX]

Whatever. Tacos plagiarized the burrito by using the same ingredients, adding some filler, and just presenting it in a different outer shell. Therefore they suck, no matter how tasty they are.

 

[matt schrauben]

Whatever. Tacos plagiarized the burrito by using the same ingredients, adding some filler, and just presenting it in a different outer shell. Therefore they suck, no matter how tasty they are.

Way off. Tacos were doing their thing and pleasing people all around the world before Burritos even thought about it. I can't even believe I'm reading that Tacos plagiarized Burritos. What a joke!

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Look Tacos may have come first, but burritos blew them out of the water. Burritos are bigger, heavier and offer way more elements. With tacos it's like the same four ingredients over and over. Burritos, on the other hand, just keep coming up with new ideas. If you appreciate real substance in their meals I don't see how you could choose tacos over burritos.

 

[matt schrauben]

Look Tacos may have come first, but burritos blew them out of the water. Burritos are bigger, heavier and offer way more elements. With tacos it's like the same four ingredients over and over. Burritos, on the other hand, just keep coming up with new ideas. If you appreciate real substance in their meals I don't see how you could choose tacos over burritos.

That's a very valid point. I mean burritos have been a catalyst for innovation in so many ways. Wet burritos, beef burritos, chicken burritos, pork burritos, veggie burritos, breakfast burritos. Sure, you can toss all of that shit into a taco too, but it's not nearly as manageable and is hindered by it's small size. Eventually it's like "why bother"?

 

[KafkaX]

Tacos are far superior to Burritos. This is a fact.

Burritos may be bigger, heavier and offer more elements to diversify, but tacos focus on whats important with its smaller size as opposed to drowning it in an overload of weight and excess, like the burrito.

Look at it like this: Would you rather fuck a huge fat chick, or a small petite midget. The answer is obvious. The midget.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Tacos for me .... they just go down much better. I rather knock down 4-6 tacos instead of a burrito.

On a side note, i just recently tried a fish burro for the first time and loved it.

 

[Spiderchrist]

I'm going to be different and say I'm lovin quesadillas right now.

 

[Baroque]

Led Zep.

I agree with HB that Queen tops both.

 

[Spiderchrist]

I agree with HB that Queen tops both.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The burrito genre led to the development of chimichangas, so I'm going to go with those.

 

[Nephilim96]

Wouldn't a soft taco basically be a mini burrito that isn't rolled up?

And all of you guys are doing it wrong. Get a burrito, with tacos on the side. Best of both worlds.

 

[Nephilim96]

The real debate should be wet vs non-wet burritos. Wet burritos have the juicy moist quality, but you can't pick them up (and eating a burrito with a fork is weird).