Led Zeppelin.....The Greatest Band Ever

>My opponent states that "the first portion of the definition is a matter of opinion" (referring to the definition of greatest). Though this is true, the entire debate is an opinion. This doesn't mean anything. If it did, I'm sure my opponent can supply a better definition. >My opponent states that both the Beatles and Led Zeppelin went global. This is true, however, the Beatles were much bigger with album sales numbers (my apologies for inaccuracy, but one billion is still greater than 300 million) as proof. >My opponent gives the following definition of talent: "a person who possesses unusual innate ability in some field or activity. " I reject this definition because talent is referred to here in the connotation of a skill, not a person. I define talent as the following: a special natural ability or aptitude. >As talent goes, my opponent has listed the members of Led Zeppelin and why he likes them. His remarks, however, are entirely opinionated. He says that "[Bonzo's] thunderous rolls and legendary triplets where heard as a beginning of a new age for drummers. " He cannot prove this. He says that "John Paul Jones is the most versatile musician of the modern age. " He cannot prove this either. Talent cannot truly be measured except by person. I may value qualities differently than my opponent. For example. My opponent enjoys complex guitar riffs. I enjoy melodic music filled with feeling. Neither of us can truly say the other is wrong. >I am not quite sure what my opponent means by "BLAH. " To him I say "HUH? " I reject my opponent's measure of chemistry because chemistry really is immeasurable. You cannot tell by listening or watching a band how much chemistry they have. Vague ideas are the closest we get. There is not a determining factor. I will try however, to argue the Beatles as having better chemistry (this is not an exact science). My argument is that whoever plays better music within a band has more chemistry. To this, some of you might say that it is the songwriters' decision as to what to do with the music. It is not necessarily so. By listening to the Beatles and Led Zeppelin play (as well as watching them) one can determine that the Beatles played with more feeling. Led Zeppelin had some great guitar riffs and technical abilities, but they never true felt what they were playing. They did not play together with nearly the feeling that the Beatles did. >I will now respond to my opponent's remarks about whether or not Led Zeppelin was consistent. He says that the plagiarized songs were in fact old folk songs. This is not true. The two songs of Led Zeppelin's which were allegedly plagiarized were "Bring it On Home" and "Whole Lotta Love. " The first one was a mostly a cover of a song by Sonny Boy Williamson with the same title, Bring it On Home. Guitar riffs were added. "Whole Lotta Love" came from Willie Dixon's "You Need Love. " Neither of these, reader, is a folk song. >This point I will leave simple. Which of these is a bigger vision of where someone wants to take music? Revolutionizing rock or branching off from rock? >Again, I apologize for inaccurate information, but my point still stands. If you can communicate with your audience, you can get your audience to buy records. The Beatles undoubtedly did this. Led Zeppelin did as well, but 300million is obviously less than one billion. The Beatles needed to be able to communicate with their audience to sell one billion records. They clearly did. >My opponent refers to Led Zeppelin's one-off concert about a year ago in his closing remarks (he also says "BLAH" again, so another "HUH" from me). He says he doubts that the Beatles could be comparable to this. Logically, the band with a larger number of record sales would have a larger number of fans. To my opponent I say : "Wanna bet? "