Why do silly members within this community draw such foolish comparisons between bands from different decades?

Question

...for example; comparing Led Zeppelin to The Beatles? Come on...how redundant is that? The Beatles were a 60's band, while Led Zeppelin was a 70's band! Just as the heavy rock scene was coming to fruition, Led Zeppelin was just beginning to make a name for themselves. At the same time The Beatles were getting ready to call it a day!
Two bands, from two entirely different decades. Their careers overlapped for what, a year and half?
Perhaps many younger people aren't really aware how much different 1965 was compared to 1975. Maybe they think "oh, a decade is a decade"? I guess if you compare 1995 with 2005, there wasn't a whole lot of change as far as music goes. Surely not on the same scale as between '65 and '75!
The only people that understand this are us old farts who were actually around at the time.
If I see another question comparing 'The Beatles' to 'Led Zeppelin', I think I'll shoot myself.
What's next; "Who was better, and had more diversity, Buddy Holly or Deep Purple"?

Recommendations, anyone? - I would like to think DP fans know who Buddy Holly is. When you think about it, why wouldn't they?
Buddy Holly is an icon. I was/am a DP fan, and anyone who grew up in the 50's and 60's such as myself is aware of who Buddy is.
The same way anyone who grew up in the 80's and 90's knows who Michael Jackson is.
If Michael had died in 1985, (no such luck) his name and his music would have lived on, the same way Buddys did.
Maybe I'll post a question in the aircraft section of yahoo, something like; "what do you think is better, the Wright brothers' Wright Flyer, or the Stealth B-2 Spirit. Oh, and which do you think is more diverse?" As I flip my blond curly locks! Haa!

William - As far as I can recall from my educational past, redundant is an adjective, meaning; "more than is needed, desired, etc". Please explain to me how I misused this word. I'd like to know.

William - Sound is sound? I think you've missed the point! With that argument I suppose you could draw a reasonable comparison between the Dave Brubeck Quartet and Marilyn Manson?

William - What's redundant in this case is the fact that I've seen this type of query too many times. See my question...Again!
Sound is sound? OK yeah, comparing a blue Jay to a sparrow I can see.
But when these music related comparison type questions are asked, the root of the question quite often comes down to "who's better". That's where I have a problem, as more often than not, the two bands in question come from entirely different periods in rock history. With this, you have all sorts of things that come into play, from technological advantages / disadvantages, influences, and I shouldn't have to point any of this out to you.
It seems everyone else caught the wave but you. I think you may be slightly over analytical on many things in life, and this could possibly be your hindrance in life. Only my opinion.

Answer 1

Because they need help to decide which band is their favorite band? Or the band they like more? I'm not too sure.

I've always hated "versus" questions, pitting one band against another, even though sometimes they are completely different.

It'd be funny to see a Buddy Holly or Deep Purple question though. Do the majority of Deep Purple fans even know who Buddy Holly is?

Answer 2

I do have to take issue with your comment that "The only people that understand this are us old farts who were actually around at the time."

I'm 25, but my favourite music comes from the 60's & 70's. As such, I know perfectly well that '65 was very different to '75. I know that every artist or band frequently mentioned contributed something unique to the musical world, and that you just can't compare them.


The questions I find stupid are when someone claims to be a fan of two bands, then says 'I can't choose between them - which is better?'.

And some other answerers here are right - a lot of todays teenagers either have never heard of the greats of music, or only know a few names - which they then throw around to make themselves look cool. But they quickly show themselves up when they can't even name a song, or the era or genre an artist / band is from!

Answer 3

I don't think it's so much decades as it is genres: the Beatles were mostly pop until the White Album (you can dispute me on that) while Zeppelin was always categorized under metal, psychedelic and art rock. You might find very shallow similarities (e.g. "they're both British"), but a more interesting comparison would be between the Beatles and Emo bands which consciously use 60's pop riffs and romantic, introspective lyrics.

That said, a lot of younguns confuse the two decades: there seems to be this bizarre stereotype about us survivors of the 70s being either washed-out hippies, blood-frothing leftists in Che Guevara t-shirts, or disco maniacs. You can blame it on the media and a lot of bad movies about the 60s and 70s (Up in Smoke) or just poor education in modern history and music, or the mess they call FM radio these days. But as a teacher I'm conscious of the need to set the record straight.

(For the record, I still have my Che t-shirt. ;-)

But old fart? Speak for yourself! I wear my battle scars, or band tattoos, with pride.

Answer 4

I'm almost positive you misused the word "redundant." Still, comparing music is always possible. Sure you have to take the context into account, but sound is sound. A band comprised of a bassist, guitarist, drummer, and singer is perfectly comparable to another band featuring all those things.

EDIT: You have the literal definition of "redundant" correct, but I'm arguing with your usage. Here's your sentence:

"[H]ow redundant is [comparing Led Zeppelin to The Beatles]?"

What's redundant in this case? A redundancy would be like an extra fuse, or having two adjectives that mean the same thing in the same sentence.

As for my "sound is sound" argument, I stand by that. If you have a basis for comparison, the differences shouldn't hinder you. The comparisons between Baroque and Classical music, for example, mostly focus on the differences, and over a much larger timeframe than ten measly years. We compare Eastern and Western styles of music when they often have completely different ranges of sound. To compare is to look at two things and analyze how they are similar as well as how they are different. It is not the antonym of "contrast," it encompasses it. How the Beatles differed from Zeppelin is very important because it tells us about history and about music.

Answer 5

I'm with you on this. I too am familiar with music of the 50's and 60's.

What's such a drag is that they are rarely any questions here that pertain to music prior to about 1970. Most of it is about current groups or ones only about 5-6 years old.

Guess my age is showing since I liked music best from the mid 50's to the late 60's. For years there wasn't even radio stations playing this stuff. It has made a comeback though.

Answer 6

To all the readers - Chunga is the reason that makes "answers" a cool place to be. Chunga - if you think these ones comparing Zep to the beatles is bad... , i swear i saw on here once, a post titled "My Chemical Romance vs. Led Zeppelin" .

Answer 7

The reason that occurs is that newer artists keep borrowing material from these older artists and then often don't give them credit. They try to pass the material off as something new, which younger listeners who are unfamilar with the originals fall for but it doesn't fool older listeners. These artists need to start trying to come up with their own music and stop sampling. It's not creative nor is it original.

Answer 8

Exactly, because it is no comparison. It would be like comparing Cadillacs to mopeds or Jessica Simpson to Elvis.

Answer 9

its like drinking beer. homer simpson drinks a lot of beer and would not think of telling a beer connoisseur how good is the beer hes drinking. a beer connoisseur may appreciate what he hears or let it pass thru his other ear as something not worthy of his stature. either way, homer and the guys that really enjoy beer, keep on drinking it.

Answer 10

it's just music