[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: zep vs. the who



>i simply do not think i'll be listening to zep either when i'm past 
>25.
>(i'm 20 now.) imagine a 50 year old banging his head up and down! 
>don't
>you outgrow that stuff? now the who is a little different story. 
>they're
>also a young-man's rock band (sorry ladies, i've always seen them as a
>very masculine band). i know also that pete would rather kill himself 
>than
>make music like WGFA anymore. it's great, but you mature, right? 
>that's
>why the who will have that edge over zep for me; i love zep, but i 
>LISTEN
>to the who. i think i'm just to old for it. (not to offend any 
>50-yr-old
>headbangers, though.) 

I'm 40, not 50, and the biggest surprise to me is that I didn't outgrow
The Who.  There is a richness of meaning and passion there that sticks with you at any age (or sex or race).  Led Zep I privately enjoy although,
since they're on the radio every four seconds, I never feel the need to
listen to them at home.  But unless you're a guitarist, why indeed would
you ever listen to Zep with the intensity you would listen to The Who? 
They're for fun; The Who are both fun and serious.
 			-Brian in Atlanta

P.S. For Sinatra, I've always perferred "in the wee small hours."