Jesse McCartney couldn't carry Robert Plant's sweaty undershorts when it comes to vocal range, versatility, power of delivery or creative genius. Or anything else, for that matter. Plant, Page, Jones and Bonham were groundbreaking *musicians*, songwriters and showmen.
Were it not for the work of the likes of Led Zeppelin, Jesse McCartney would be making flame-broiled Whoppers and listening for the buzzer so that he could take the fries out of the grease.
2007-01-13 15:11:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by ralfg33k 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
If you have to ask then you just don't get it man!!!
Led Zeppelin
There is a reason why they have been ripped off and copied for 947 years now. And soooo many bands even now days still have a Led Zeppelin flavor. Even if their fashion sense is a little skewed by today's standards. And Robert Plant completely lost all musical talent after leaving the group. If their was no L Z what would hard rock sound like now. And punk, glorious punk, (The Ramones in particular) was partly fueled by rebellion to L Z. If they were not good then why were they so influential.
I don't hate Jessie McCartney actually but the question like apples & oranges, no more like rotten apples & frozen orange juice concentrate.
This does remind me of a particulaly amusing conversation I had once with someone who got confused when Winger was on they radio and they thought it was Ozzy. I am totatly serious. If I have to explain why thats funny, you would not get it any way.
If nothing else works, you could suggets your cousin try exorcism.
(not really)
2007-01-13 15:25:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by Buttercup Rocks! 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Led Zeppelin
2007-01-13 15:07:42
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Led Zeppelin
2007-01-13 15:04:44
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
wow, i honestly can't believe someone would argue that point. Your cousin must be a pre-pubiscent eigth grader. Led Zeppelin has lasted over 4 decades, while Jesse will be lucky to last 7 years.
I can't even talk about this, its just so retarded. But here's a great point that hasn't been covered:
Robert Plant is a complete bada$$, while Jesse McCartney, with his wind-blown, dyed blonde hair and ruffled Abercrombie shirt and delicately torn jeans just looks like a complete f.a.g. He thinks he looks so cool, but you know whats really cool? Writing something like The Lemon Song.
Jesse McCartney doesn't have a lemon to squeeze or juice to run down his leg
2007-01-15 08:03:09
·
answer #5
·
answered by milan 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Led Zeppelin.
2007-01-13 15:06:11
·
answer #6
·
answered by glasgow girl 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I know I might get clobbered for saying this, but I prefer Jesse McCartney. I don't like rock music though, so that's it. Yes, 26 people disagree. But it is good to have your own opinion! It is hard to compare them, because Led Z do rock & Jesse does pop. So it is different styles. But if Jesse did rock, then I doubt he'd be better than Led Z. But if Led Z tried to do pop, they would fail. Miserably. So, saying they were both rock: Led. Saying they were both pop: Jesse. Saying Jesse was pop and Led was rock: Jesse. Jesse can actually sing properly, though, whereas Led Z tend to to more rock "noises" such as that weird shriek and some sort of growl. But Jesse can't play an instrument! So Jesse is better at singing and pop, and led Z is better at, um weird noises and rock. But I stick to what I said at the start. My answer is most definitely (drum roll please...) Jesse McCartney. Try going to the webiste in sources to listen to one of his songs.
2007-01-17 05:49:18
·
answer #7
·
answered by courfeyracs 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Led Zep who the heck is jesse mccartney?
2007-01-13 15:06:00
·
answer #8
·
answered by wayouthere 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Led Zeppelin Always has Always Will Rock
2007-01-13 15:07:47
·
answer #9
·
answered by Leveler 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
I hate McCartney, so im saying led Zeppelin
2007-01-13 15:05:11
·
answer #10
·
answered by ♥♪♫[K]ath² [BUTT '14 ツ]♫♪♥™ 6
·
0⤊
0⤋