Im not a Sabbath fan, but at least they made their own music.

In the Sabbath vs. Zeppelin debate, Sabbath wins every time based solely on the fact that Zeppelin ripped off alot of their most famous songs from old blues artists and failed to credit them.

Whereas Sabbath defined an entirely new genre of music. Zep gets a lot of points for their mysticismand being a great rock band, but it's Sabbath all day.

Agreed. Sabbath were true originators.

As I get older, the band I am drawn to more and more as simply good music is The Who. I love Zep, Bonham was an amazing drummer, and they were all fantastic musicians, but I've heard the songs so many times, I'm beyond burnt out.

These days, i'm really getting into the early Who material.

Blues riffs are mostly all the same. If you look at the acoustic blues songs they sampled and then heard the jimmy page multi tracked high production value electric guitar version of it you'd feel like an asshole.

Didn't zeppelin sing about hobbits and shit when they weren't completely ripping off other artists? What makes that any less jokey than witches at black masses? Dumb criticism.

Good point. Wasn't Jimmy Page into all that Aleister Crowley magickal horseshit?

Absolutely. I believe he bought his old mansion or something.

I wouldn't doubt it. All those bands were so fucked up on hallucinogens back then they probably thought there was a mystical undertone to everything.

They all did, honestly. The 70's was all about that kind of stuff. The Hobbit and LOTR and tarot cards and mystical bullshit was all in the 70s.

As for ripping off other artists, they all did it. They all admit it, but for some reason with Zeppelin, it's unforgivable. The Stones owe their entire career to the same musicians Zeppelin ripped off, and the Stones didn't pay them, either, or credit them a lot of the time. The British Invasion was white British kids stealing black American blues music and redoing it.

That's right but led zeppelin has had to pay for their egregious plagiarism. The Beatles and the stones were just influenced by blues musicians but they never were blatantly ripping them off. I think there's a line between being influenced by a musician and taking their music with no nuance between the tracks.

No, sorry, that's simply not true. The first Stones album was a covers album, including blues standards. The band is named after a Muddy Waters song. The Rolling Stones wouldn't have existed without them redoing black American blues.

The Beatles stole, but were more subtle about it.

I think it's more along the lines of it being 'cool" to hate Zep, because meatheads like Eddie Trunk do.

Yeah but covers are at least tributes to the original artists. What led zeppelin did was take music and present it as their own.

I'm not a huge Sabbath fan but there's no denying they were the real deal. They were nihilistic dead end kids who created their own style of brutish, antisocial music for miscreants and weirdos.

It always annoys me how Jim has trashed bands like The Who and Zeppelin, yet he'll hear nothing bad said against Black Sabbath.

Jimmy's still fighting the popular kids in middle school who listened to them.

The Chili Peppers are childish but Kiss is fawkin kewl dvv dvvv.

Sabbath is fantastic, but I still find Jimmy's defense of them tough to listen to. I don't want the KISS guy on my team.

Black Sabbath is a great band, but a lot of people, myself included, didn't understand what they were doing - it's kind of a piss take on the horror movies that they got the name from, but like all kids, we took that shit seriously. I realized it was cartoony and dumb eventually, guys like Jim never do.

I can't take much in rock/metal seriously, the older I get. It's fun, in a cartoony way, especially guys like Dio, but c'mon. It shouldn't be taken seriously. Enjoy it, but don't act like it's as legit as a Michelangelo sculpture, or a piece of classic literature or music.

Especially the makeup bands. I just kind of laugh at them now, and the idea of standing in a crowd, cheering a grown man in clown makeup, going "this is cool!" It's not. It's kid shit.

That's why I can't take 50 year old men walking around in Black Sabbath t-shirts, because it "defines them", seriously. Like Florentine. You've had 50 years to define yourself, and you're still letting a band do that? Really? That's all you bring to the table, you're a fan of cartoon rock? That's who you are, as a person?

I haven't worn a t-shirt with a logo on it in years and years. I haven't needed to. I don't give a fuck if someone knows what bands I like. I don't even wear sports logos or t-shirts with the brand on them.

Well, this sub must be going through a dry spell.

I like Sabbath, but on a related note, I hate That Metal Show and all that hair metal shit Florentine and Eddie Trunk love.

There's a reason Eddie Trunk, the hack that he is, is the "voice" of metal - nobody else with an ounce of respectability or talent goes near that genre anymore. It's over, dead, it's all bands from 25 years ago that should have been gone for good 15 years ago. All of the legit journalists moved on years ago, he's just the last one standing.

When the average age onstage at metal festivals is mid-50's, it's just embarrassing. I realized I was done when i went to a show with Maiden, Priest, and Motorhead, and the crowd was mostly fat middle aged dudes with grey ponytails, and bald heads.

Iron Maiden and Motorhead both have this unexpected cross-generational appeal, in my experience. I saw them back in 2003ish, when I was in high school, and the audience was about half what you're describing and half teenaged degenerates.

Metal still exists and probably will for a long time (At the Gates just released a new album for fuck's sake). It just has to content itself with being a niche subcultural thing.

Most metal guys would prefer it to be a niche subcultural thing.

Sabbath without vocals is way better, that's for sure.