My Group of Hypothetical Dead Musicians is Better Than Yours.

I was road tripping and did not have access to wireless internet for awhile, though I don't think the missed round mattered much -- my opponent essentially forfeited his last round as well, and the arguments he made in R3 are what I will address in this final round. [ Drummers ] I pointed out that just because Moon was a focal point of The Who who did crazy things, that this no way proved that he was a better drummer than Bonham. Instead of offering up arguments why Moon is better, Pro continued to assert that since Moon garnered so much attention (even though most of it was irrelevant to his drumming) he is still the better drummer just because his style was different. That's bogus. Pro insists that The Who as a band did not need Moon to keep good time, but this debate isn't about The Who -- it's about a fictional band that needs a drummer. .. and a drummer's "job" is essentially to keep time. Sure, you can "rebel" against the music and try to purposefully not keep time. .. or whatever. .. but in the end, it's quite obvious to any musician that without one keeping accurate time, it throws the entire piece off. This is Music 101. Further, I've explained and demonstrated (via video) Bonham's prowess insofar as his accomplishments - ie. 30 minute long live drum solos played with hands, 2-4 sticks, etc. These are all things that highlight Bonzo's musical superiority and feature his talent. Again, Pro comes up with irrelevant arguments. Did Moon drum for Led Zeppelin? Sure, maybe once or twice - but not because he was a better drummer than Bonham, so again this is irrelevant. Not to mention that Moon played with Zeppelin BEFORE Bonham was their drummer, and later he drummed ALONGSIDE Bonham. Pro is trying to manipulate the facts. As I've said - KM changed drumming for sure and made the drums a focal instrument (insisting he be front and center on stage, have all of the attention, etc. ). Yes, he revolutionized drumming and the roles of drummers. .. but again, his popularity is largely in part to his demanding that attention with his antics and not necessarily letting the music alone speak for itself. Bonham was a tremendous drummer with just as much if not more talent than Moon. Even if you disagree, you have to go with what was presented in this debate. Bonham's experimentation and creativity + talent has been highlighted by me pointing out his accomplishments, playing style, etc. Plus, due to Moon's habits and whatnot, he became increasingly unreliable as a band member and caused more trouble than he was worth. Ps. I would be MORE than happy to do a The Who vs. Led Zeppelin debate with you, PatSox, if you're up for it. [ Bass ] Pro admits that he had no intention of arguing that Entwistle was a better bassist than Mingus. That's smart thinking on his part, since there is no way that any sane person would agree to that standard. In terms of influence, style and abilities - Mingus is your man. Yes, Entwistle can "keep up" with Moon, but as Pro said, Entwistle was comfortable giving Moon the spotlight and basically being overshadowed. I'm sure since Moon couldn't keep excellent time, that Entwistle was the crutch of the rhythm section of The Who. However if the point of Pro's rhythm section was to allow Moon to go off on tangents and have Entwistle merely follow along, then why choose Entwistle? Essentially any bassist can keep steady time and let the drummer shine. Pro hasn't given any evidence, facts, reasoning, etc. explaining why Entwistle in particular is even relevant to his band except for his experience with Moon. In that case, who provided the better bassist and reasoning obviously goes to the Con on this one. [ Guitar ] Pro - your attitude isn't helping your case any. I didn't "tell you what your standards are" -- I copy and pasted the standards that you provided. Yes, other standards can be considered, BUT, simply because I recited the ones you presented doesn't mean I'm putting words in your mouth. You said, "We will be considering the general talents, technical abilities, creativity, charisma, popularity, body of work, attractiveness and just about any other factor my opponent wishes. .. " Now as far as attractiveness, popularity and charisma - Jimi Hendrix wins this hands down. The clips I provided prove this. Hendrix could capture the attention of MILLIONS and leave them silent and awe-stricken as they watched him play in a creative and innovative way that was completely new at the time. Hendrix revolutionized guitar and had the style, attitude and showmanship to go along with it. Hendrix had a raw and unique sound; he pioneered several things such as his technique of guitar feedback and an over driven amplifier which he incorporated into his music to achieve what was once an undesirable sound - later to be duplicated by musicians following in his footsteps thereafter. He made guitar playing look like the coolest thing in the world, and did things his own way - most of the chords he used where unique to him. He played with more style than anybody - certainly Zappa! !! Hendrix was the only guitarist to play rhythm and lead guitar at the same time, while fretting bass notes while singing. He was the only guitarist to make feedback sound good and melodic. He practically invented funk; he did chordal solos (interesting and unique), did long improv solos, etc. Contemporary guitarists like Satriani, Vai, Gilbert, Petrucci, etc. have all said Jimi is THE best: the most influential, innovative and creative to ever to plug in. Period. Eric Clapton's first words after hearing Jimi for the first time was, "Well, I'll never play guitar again. " Luckily he didn't keep that promise, but you get the picture. [ Vocals ] Morrison is not a better singer than Charles. Pro admits it, and he's right. Everyone with any musical knowledge. .. or hell - just ears - can hear that this is the case. Charles can bring about a bunch of energy even while being blind and sitting down to play the piano (yet another advantage he has over Morrison). "He was simultaneously considered the best of the rock and-roll singers, the best of the Jazz singers — a category in which he won the Down Beat International Critics Poll more than once, and one of the best pop singers" [1]. Charles is the best male vocalist of all time. Hands down. [ Band ] Hendrix's style is described as rock, blues, jazz, funk and psychedelic. All of my band members can exemplify those styles. Bonham could do anything with these (obviously) and still stand out and keep time; Mingus OWNS bass in those categories and Charles can sing the hell out of it all. Yes - Zappa could compose different types of music (classical, for instance) but is that really relevant to the overall BAND? No. My band is cohesive -- Everyone fits together and they can play various styles of music and sound GOOD doing it. Their individual strengths and sounds can collectively form some bad a-ss music. On the other hand, we simply cannot expect Moon to be able to keep up with Zappa's classical stuff, so all of that is irrelevant. [ Conclusion ] Pro's rhythm section is relying on Moon to be considered the superior drummer. .. but Pro hasn't proven it at all (and just gave his opinion). He essentially conceded the bassist section to me (and rightfully so), so these 2 don't even matter. To say that Zappa has more flare, influence, style and charisma than Hendrix as a front man is just laughably retarded as I've proven with reasons and facts (citations and credits) and Ray Charles is hands-down the best front man for my particular band. He OWNS Morrison, who seems as he was just randomly selected to fit the profile and in no way does anything to make Pro's band any better or stronger. Con's band as a whole completely dominates. [1] The Guardian Life Magazine