My Group of Hypothetical Dead Musicians is Better Than Yours.

[ Drummers ] So basically, the arguments for why Keith Moon was a better drummer are: 1. He was a focal point of The Who 2. He was a party animal 3. Keith and John were friends 4. KM put explosives in his drums Pro says, "I think by this we can see how KM smashes JB in terms of influence" and that it's a joke to think otherwise. Interesting. I personally disagree and think that these 4 arguments do not even come close to demonstrating one's superiority over the other. Let's take the first argument - the fact that Keith Moon stood out as one of the most prominent members of The Who. How does that in any way demonstrate his superiority over Bonham? It doesn't. Surpassing Pete Townshend in band popularity is a lot easier than surpassing Plant or Page. Led Zeppelin was a more dynamic, influential, creative and explosive band than The Who. I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue that The Who is a better band than Led Zeppelin. So just because one drummer had more attention amongst their band members in no way says anything about their skills in comparison to one another. Further, KM was an attention whore who went out of his way to demand that type of attention (I mean putting explosives in your drums? Really? Looks like he couldn't "stand out" on his own), whereas Bonham's drumming spoke for itself. It is widely agreed upon that Keith Moon often over-played; he would add in complex extra drum parts that while featured his drumming abilities, sacrificed precision, time and overall rhythm keeping One critic notes, "It almost seemed like he got bored with keeping with the rest of the band and said 'Hey! Why don't i pull this drum roll out of my a-ss and splice it right here?" [1]. Indeed anyone who knows Keith Moon's playing philosophy knows, "He always believed that the drummer should be front and center on the rock stage, rather than the timekeeper in the corner as most rock drummers had been previously, and his antics ensured that he was never ignored... Most rock critics agree that the result, 'Two Sides of the Moon' [his solo album] released in 1975, had very little musical value" [2]. I agree that a drummer ought to be able to keep in touch with the rest of his band rather than selfishly going off on tangents just to hog the spotlight. Keith Moon was an interesting fellow, but known more for his off-the-wall antics which is what REALLY garnered him all of the attention - not necessarily his drumming. He was a bad a-ss drummer, but he cared more about showing off than keeping time... which is the real point of having a drummer in the first place. Moreover, I think it's obvious that just because he and Bonham were friends and that Moon like to party a lot that these are both terrible arguments for demonstrating one's musical prowess. Plus, Bonham, like Moon, was known for being "out there" and they both died in their early 30s due to drug overdoses. In short, Pro's going to have to work a hell of a lot harder in discussing Moon's musical superiority other than pointing out the obvious that Moon was a party animal attention whore who was friends with Bonham. [ Bass ] Now Pro says that he chose John Entwistle as a bassist because he has shown to be able to "keep up" with Moon. Choosing 2 members who are band-mates for a 4 person band is a safe way to ensure that this is the case. However, Pro has made the argument that KM undoubtedly stood out and stole the show from the other Who members. In that case, there is no reason to think that he would not do the same in this hypothetical band. KM was known for his antics, for his complex drumming and for his live performances. However he was not known for keeping the best time and rhythm. Having John Entwistle in this category does a few things -- (1) It ensures that he is overshadowed by KM by Pro's own admission, and (2) Does nothing to to explain how he's a better bassist than Charles Mingus. If you look back at Pro's last round, he merely states that this dynamic duo of JE and KM makes for a fantastic rhythm section, but as I said, it'd be easy to choose a wildly popular band and then choose the rhythm section of said band to come up with 2/4 members for a new band. How is Entwistle better than Mingus? Pro hasn't offered one shred of evidence. Mingus not only composed numerous hits and was a rhythmic perfectionist, but also was a master at bass solos - something we don't see often in rock in general let alone from Entwistle in particular. On a personal level, we know that Mingus was incredibly controversial regarding race issues and his detestation of authority among other issues. Moreover, while he was a jazz god, Mingus was one of the pioneers of an entirely new sound (bebop). [ Guitar ] Yes, Hendrix is a better guitar player with a bigger following. What else needs to be said, when by Pro's own standards we are to consider talent, popularity, creativity, charisma, body of work and attractiveness? Hendrix has the first 2 categories owned by Pro's own admission, and easily wins the others as well. Jimi Hendrix is FAR more charismatic than Zappa! Not to mention that Hendrix was and still is a cultural icon with just as much if not more influence than Zappa. Pro writes, "The addition of Zappa really makes my band crazily diverse musically." Haha - how so? Notice that this is an assertion made with nothing to back it up. What does Zappa have that Hendrix doesn't? Hendrix was also a song writer, performer and definitely had about 1,000 more cool points... er, make that 10,000. Plus, while Pro notes that Zappa was "one of" the best guitar players, Hendrix is considered THE best guitar player. And furthermore, no, a band does not need someone to produce the hits -- that's what producers are for. I think this category is so self-explanatory in highlighting the established criteria that in addition to my points about Hendrix's playing ability, innovation and creativity from the last round, I am going to post live clips of both Zappa and Hendrix playing in order for the audience to see clearly who dominates in terms of charisma, stage presence, skill, etc. Note that Zappa starts playing at 8 seconds in. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... The bottom line is that it's VERY clear who the superior front man is here. [ Vocals ] I cannot believe that Pro believes Morrison would "beast" Charles in a vocal situation! Once again you'll notice that Pro offered not one shred of evidence or explanation, whereas I have explained that Charles is considered the #1 male vocalist of all time... and Morrison isn't on the list of the top 100. He also attempts to use Charles' blindness as something that stands in the way of his greatness, while I consider it proof that he can actually make it to a dominant level of success even with that enormous obstacle. Morrison's "on stage antics" could be easily reproduced by any other member of the band. It's not only up to the vocalist to wild out on stage (Moon proves this). Plus, HE PLAYS PIANO... how much jumping around could he do?! Morrison's voice is kind of hokey and does not stand out in any way. Charles' is unique and powerful. Nuff said. http://www.youtube.com... [ Band ] Pro took a been-there, done-that rhythm section and added Zappa and Morrison. Morrison was good with The Doors but cannot stand out on his own; he certainly can't compare to Ray Charles in terms of his singing voice. Charles' voice was edgey, dynamic and unable to be reproduced. The same could be said about Hendrix's style, flare and talent. My band clearly dominates in terms of creativity, talent, diversity and focusing on the MUSIC in general along with generating popularity and crowd excitement. [1] http://www.johnmcferrinmusicreviews.org... [2] http://www.hotshotdigital.com...