Why do people say that Zeppelin was only hard rock/proto metal?

Question

The equations made between them and the Beatles always end up saying the Beatles had more diversity when that simply is not the case. It is very much the opposite. The Rain Song is a perfect eye-opener for nay-sayers. And many more.
Basically, why is Zeppelin put forth as an all heavy band of screaming monkeys while the Beatles are said to be the sensitive ones with real talent in songwriting as songs like "Down by The Seaside" get thrown out the window?

I must respond to Reccomendations. Going from pop to rock with a bit of 50's influence along the way isn't exactly on par with Zeppelin's diversity. Pam already brought a fraction to the table. Plus, Dazed and Confused was recorded before Helter Skelter was released; eliminating any thought of Beatle dependancy for creativity in metal. Makes you wonder what else Zeppelin might've done on their own without living in the Beatle's shadow early on. Also, their acoustic piece was a bit more than occasional. Led Zeppelin 3 is a perfect example. I believe based on all their creativity that they experimented more than the Beatles and made more sense unlike Revolution 9 and Tomorrow Never Knows. Listen to In The Light.

"The Beatles were good in their own right but LZ did so many more genres. Reggae (D'yer Mak'er), Pop (All My Love, Ozone Baby), Middle Eastern (Kashmir), Southern Blues ( In My Time of Dying, Travelling Riverside Blues), Rockabilly (Hot Dog), Progressive rock (Carouselambra), Punk (Communication Breakdown), Synth Rock (In The Evening), Samba (Fool in the Rain), Metal (The Rover, Trampled Underfoot), Folk (most of Led Zeppelin 3 for example), Country (Down by the Seaside), Funk (The Crunge), songs that can never be touched or duplicated (Stairway to Heaven, Achilles Last Stand, No Quarter) and experimental music that actually made sense (In the Light.)"
That's a quote from a past post, Chunga. Saying zep can't do what the beatles did is ignorant. Friends and Kashmir have string arrangements, for one. Plus, saying they ended as hard rock is wrong 100% from their final album. They ended pop if anything. Zep made 1/2 the albums the beatles did; and yet I still say they were wider.

(((( Also, gotta say that Houses of the Holy is probably the most wide-shot classic rock album out there. If you think "Martha My Dear" and "Helter Skelter" are wide shots then listen to every track from Houses of the Holy as a whole. it blows the idea of LZ uniform hard rock clear out of the water. What I hate about most Beatles fanatics is their snobbery and ignorance when talking about Led Zeppelin and their true legendary status that transcends genre.
What I want to know is how people can copy Beatle's songs during their era and yet nobody can touch Led's epics in effect and quality.
Sorry about the multiple responses. I've said all I needed to say.

Answer 1

Agreed 100%. Granted, the Beatles had lots of diversity in their sound, but Led Zeppelin unquestionably did songs in more styles, and did them with more talent.

Part of it is that at the time the Beatles were bigger, they had screaming teenage fans, and people think of that and assume it means they were the most talented band of their time.

Answer 2

I think the Beatles were more diverse though. Just look at them. In the beginning, they had some pop music, then pop fused with rock, with the occasional 50's rock 'n' roll like sound and blues-incorporated sound, and as the band matured, we began to hear quite a bit of psychedelic music, more guitar-driven sounds, avant-garde, and even heavy metal with "Helter Skelter"!

Led Zeppelin, on the other hand, experimented with a couple genres, but their main genre was blues hard rock/heavy metal. Sometimes their songs leaned more towards blues and other times their songs leaned more towards heavy metal. Occasionally, they had an acoustic piece, which was often a folk rock song. They fused various genres in the beginning, but they didn't experiment as much as the Beatles.

Both are still excellent bands, but that's just my opinion.

EDIT:

Actually, I think "Dazed and Confused" was recorded about a month after "Helter Skelter". Besides, "Helter Skelter" was made in an attempt to make a song heavier than "I Can See For Miles" by The Who, even though McCartney never heard it. It doesn't make a difference anyway.

But the thing is, my interpretation of musical diversity may be different from yours. Led Zeppelin two or three set styles that they often used. The main two are the bluesy heavy metal and acoustic folk rock. The Beatles experimented with various styles, and never really had much of a set style. You really could only identify them as rock/pop.

However, Led Zeppelin IS unique for creating a totally different style, if that's what you mean. They mixed blues with an advanced version of heavy metal that was already created. And the sound they created was beyond anything anyone had ever heard at the time.

I'll admit that Led Zeppelin took on more than just a couple genres though. But honestly, most of their music is based on their heavy metal sound, with some modification by fusing in another sound. The Beatles remained rooted in pop and rock 'n' roll during their early albums, but they suddenly became influenced by every single thing they heard. They've taken influence from their contemporaries as well.

Answer 3

Opeth Dream Theater Fates Warning Haken Periphery Nevermore Redemption Between the Buried and Me Porcupine Tree Tool Cynic Oficina G3 Symphony X Evergrey Pagan's Mind SikTh Orphaned Land Pain of Salvation Dominici Becoming the Archetype Meshuggah Textures Riverside The Human Abstract King's X Mastodon Baroness Amorphis Protest the Hero BQ: Man, that is tough! I'm sorry, however I like Steven Wilson. I like Russell Allen, too. BQ2: I'm taking note of Nile correct now.

Answer 4

Their music is generally heavy and guitar-driven, and that is why they are usually regarded as hard rock or metal.

Actually Led Zeppelin fused many other genres with their heavy rock sound including reggae, folk, blues, jazz, country and soul. Not even the Beatles incorporated so many different styles into their music.

Answer 5

The Beatles incorporated folk, blues, jazz, skiffle, Indian raga, country, soul, R&B, swing, Mowtown, and even classical into their music. Not even Led Zeppelin could pull that off. There are a handful of Led Zeppelin tunes that employ elements of folk, blues, jazz, country, Indian raga, and one reggae influenced tune. But the Beatles did this and much more on many occasions. All but the reggae thing. Had the Beatles still been a functioning unit in the 70's, I'm sure they would have pulled that one off too!
Just listen to songs like 'You Know My Name (Look Up My Number) or the entire Abbey Road album for example. Led Zeppelin could have never released anything so diverse in their wildest dreams. I think 'Lady Madonna' should reassess her evaluation and level of diversity of a band she seems to have named herself after. (no offense)
I think people tag Led Zeppelin as a 'rock/proto metal' band because they've always been known by the average person, and classic rock radio junkie for their heavier side, not their mellow folky acoustic side. Only true Zep fans can really appreciate the multifaceted capabilities they had to offer.
The Beatles on the other hand appealed to a much larger demographic. In the 60's they appealed to 13 year olds and 70 year olds! My Grandmother loved 'When I'm Sixty Four' and 'Eleanor Rigby'. But when I played 'Tomorrow Never Knows' she ran out of the room! In the 60's my parents were in their mid 30's. They grew up before rock and roll, and listened to swing and country music. When the Beatles hit, they actually enjoyed some of their music. When Zeppelin hit in 68/9 they, along with everyone else their age hated that type of music. The reason for this is because the Beatles had a much more diverse sound. I mean really, look at 'Martha My Dear' and 'Helter Skelter'. No Led Zeppelin album has ever had that kind of diversity, or could appeal to such a large demographic.

The bottom line though, the Beatles opened the doors, and were innovators in many areas as far as recording techniques, multi tracking and all kinds of studio trickery. Granted, people like Les Paul, Phil Spector, and even Frank Zappa/Tom Wilsons work on the Mothers 'Freak Out' album predated the Sgt Pepper/George Marin studio tricks. The recording techniques used on the Freak Out album inspired George Martins work on Sgt Pepper.
But the Beatles had a much larger audience, and world stage in the late 60's, where Led Zeppelin hadn't quite achieved that level yet.
Many bands were doing what Zeppelin did with rock music long before Page and Plant joined forces. Look at 'Blue Cheer' or 'Vanilla Fudge'. As a matter of fact I saw Led Zep open for the Fudge in 1968/9, and the Fudge blew them off the stage! True, both of these bands (Fudge & Blue Cheer) were hardly what you'd call diverse, and concentrated on the heavier side of things. Don't get me wrong, because I do like Led Zeppelin, in all their plagiaristic (if thats even a word) glory and all, but comparing them tho the Beatles is like comparing a B-29 to a Stealth bomber!
When Led Zep really started to make an impact, the Beatles were ready to call it a day. I grew up during those times, and many Beatles fans who followed them from their beginnings weren't the least bit interested in Led Zeppelin.
The members of Led Zeppelin cut their teeth, and were influenced by the Beatles material. Who didn't/wasn't in the mid 60's? Jimmy Page did session work for Hermans Hermitts, who along with many other British invasion bands, were influenced by the fab four.
So comparing Led Zep to the Beatles is like comparing Pink Floyd to the Beatles. Why bother? It's apples and oranges.
They were both great in their own way.
But if you look at the metamorphosis and progression that the Beatles went through in just 3 or 4 short years, it's quite incredible. From 'She Loves You' to 'While My Guitar Gently Weeps' is a drastic transformation! Two totally different styles of music. That sort of thing had never been done before, or since for that matter. Led Zeppelin started as a heavy rock band, and finished as such. Not a lot of progression or diversity happening there. Sure they developed as song writers, and had some level of diversity, but nowhere on the scale of the Beatles. This is my opinion.
Of course today the demographic for fans of both bands has spread wide open. You've got teenagers, and all of us old timers who are in our 50's and 60's grooving to both bands now!

Answer 6

And people have called Led Zeppelin a metal band and they have alot of acoustic material that is generally ignored.

Answer 7

The interesting thing about Led Zeppelin is that many of their critics at the time said that all they did was recycle old blues music and they didn't do it all that well.

Answer 8

because theyre STUPID!