ok, i had a good argument with some friends about who was the better band between skynyrd, clapton and zepplin. personally, i'm a zepplin man. kashmir, immigrant song, and stairway to heaven are some of the greatest songs ever made. but they did put up some interesting arguments for clapton's career (cream years all the way till now). and one guy that i don't really know was arguing for skynyrd, but i kind of ignored him. so, if there are any led/lynyrd/clapton fans in here, who do you like as the better band...and what was your favorite song/album from that group?
This is not a good poll. There is no arguement that Led Zeppelin is better than both of these bands put together.
I though Clapton was a man, not a band. It's no contest here - Led Zepellin put out more good albums than both of these two put together. Clapton is essentially a schlock pop artist who's used his earlier experiences with the Yardbirds, John Mayall and Cream to provide credibility. He's a skilled musician, but hardly a great artist. Skynard had some good years, but half their songs sound exactly the same. They really weren't experimental the way L.Z. was either.
I wanna know who the heck voted for Skynrd? Someone's got some splainin to do. A better poll would be Zep v. Beatles v. Rolling Stones.
Or Florida, where they are from I voted LS. If I hear another LZ song on classic radio, I will puke It actually would not be so bad, if the classic rock stations would play more than 3 or 4 LZ songs in their rotation.
Lynyrd Skynyrd is a great classic rock band but they are a Southern rock band that really, IMO, never extended their influence across the country like Led Zeppelin. That is why I voted for LZ. LZ IV is my favorite album by them and the first 5 songs on that album are as good as a first 5 songs that you will ever find on an album. And as others have said, Eric Clapton was not a band but just a phenomenal guitar player that played in bands like Cream, Derek and the Dominoes, etc.
well, the guy that was for skynyrd argued about impact/popularity in their time period. IOW, they weren't great for a long time, but they were the greatest of their given time. i disagree wholeheartedly. as for clapton, the argument was for longevity. he's never been the best around, but he's always been one of the best. like i said, i agree with you guys...there's no comparison. led was absolutely phenomenal. Buck Turgidson: led v stones v beatles? hmm....good one. i'd still go with led, just out of personal taste. but i could easily see the beatles winning that one.
Ironic given the name of their 2nd most requested song, isn't it? Kind of like ZZ Top having a song called Jesus Just Left Chicago.
Kind of an odd comparison, imo. None of them should be put up against the other in this fashion. I saw Cream live and Eric with Mayall (Mayall has had some killer people playing with him... he's still around, right?), but he really hasn't been in a "group" long enough to make a comparison. He's a fine guitarist, but I saw several over the years that I liked as well or better. Skynyrd I got to see, and while they were a great Southern Rock group, they weren't anywhere close to the same league as the winner... LED ZEPPELIN!! (I'll go put some on... tasty!)
COME ON, bro... no way Black Sabbath can carry the bags for either one of those groups... no way! (imho, of course )
Hmmm, don't know about that one. While Zep no doubt influenced 99.9% of every Hard Rock band after them, Sabbath did the same for every Heavy Metal band after them. IMO, there is a difference between Hard Rock and Heavy Metal.
