Viewing Thread:
"Guns And Roses - Better Than Led Zeppelin"

by far! Discuss...

Stryke wrote:
> It's a good thing Zepellin aren't timeless and we aren't comparing
> them to a far inferior band based on Slash's solos.
>
> Oh, wait...

Haha.

> I could've mocked GnR better. But I didn't.

I think you did a pretty fine job. It was a thinking man's insult, be proud of yourself.

-

Hedfix wrote:
> Blank wrote:
> Well, early Gabriel stuff was alright but far, far from brilliant.
>
> See why I said 'some' now?
>
> Or does 'alright' actually mean you don't like it?

It means "it initially sounds horrible, but after a few minutes becomes passable". Gabriel's solo material is a huge improvement.

Going back to what you said a minute ago, a musical discussion is no more pointless than any other type. If we were trying to argue over which band was objectively the best, that would be stupid. But I can't see the harm in simply talking about our likes and dislikes.

It's a good thing Zepellin aren't timeless and we aren't comparing them to a far inferior band based on Slash's solos.

Oh, wait...

I could've mocked GnR better. But I didn't.

-

Hedfix wrote:
> I don't like Led Zeppelin, you don't like some Genesis, is it worth
> arguing about?

I wasn't arguing, actually.

Although interesting wording in that line. "I don't like Zeppelin, you don't like SOME Genesis" - implying that I merely have not heard the right material. :)

-

....what? I only asked you which Zeppelin you found boring, hardly the Spanish inquisition.

-

Hedfix wrote:
> Blank wrote:
> Which Zeppelin stuff are we talking about?
>
> All I have unfortuantely been made to listen to.

Come on, that's a complete non-answer. At least I tried.