My Group of Hypothetical Dead Musicians is Better Than Yours.

Drums: "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 find the idea of Led Zeppelin being better than the Who just plain wrong. If I had room, I'd go on about that, but I don't, so... No, surpassing Pete Townshend is not easy to do. Crazily hard, if anything. Remember, there was nobody remotely like Townshend when the Who came along. That is, people didn't write the same way he did, they weren't borderline sociopathic, aggressive nutjobs on stage like he was, and really, even the way he played the guitar was new (what, with the windmills.) It's completely ludicrous to brush off Townshend like that, especially when you really have no basis for doing so. "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." You haven't shown that. You say Led Zeppelin is better, give no rationale, and then conclude attention is meaningless. You're going to need to do more than type out random thoughts here; support them. There's more than just "skill" to this, as well. My point was that Keith Moon is a much bigger name than John Bonham, which is evidenced by Moon being the most well known member of one of the most well known rock groups of all time. "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)," So? He still did end up with that attention, no? I don't see how taking what I said and turning it into some attack on Moon means anything. The explosives in the drum is gold. VH1 even ended up placing this it in the top ten list of the 100 greatest rock and roll moments on television. "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" But the Who as a band went for the aggressive sound that Moon was good at. They threw rhythm keeping out the window, because that wasn't what Moon's job was as a drummer; he was the focal point of the whole band, so having his overall drumming abilities on display only made sense. "..."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" Wait, so because Moon wasn't a traditional drummer, this favors Bonham somehow? That seems like you're trying to take that Moon revolutionized the instrument by being the first to have such an emphasis on him and use it against him, which is odd. "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." Not for the bands he was in. And who's to say what the point of a drummer is? It's up to him and the rest of the band. "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." And here I thought I was pointing out that all of Led Zeppelin appreciated Moon an awful lot. Sometimes to the point where Moon would play with them in concert rather than Bonham. I'd like to point out how little you said about live performances and influence, which are two big points of Moon's. Bass: "In that case, there is no reason to think that he would not do the same in this hypothetical band." Duh? And a reason I chose him is *because* I knew he'd stand out. And a reason I chose Entwistle is because I knew he was more than comfortable being the anchor of the rhythm section; the guy who sits back and stays calm. So they clearly compliment each other. Hence why they were so successful. Not every bassist could stay with someone like Keith Moon, but Entwistle did, and that can only benefit my band, no matter how you try and twist it. "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." 1 isn't a big deal at all. I've shown that above. With number two, individually, I wasn't planning on arguing that, as it would take up too much space. Instead, I think it makes more sense to argue that Entwistle's presence in my band puts together a proven rhythmic section, and since the rhythmic section is so important, that really give my band an edge. This notion has hardly been disputed; you claim Moon would get more attention than Entwistle...uh, so? That's the way it always was with the Who, and yet, they still are proven to be successful, influential, and talented based on their time in that band, so... "...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." Ok. So? Also, I included an Entwistle bass solo. I'd think this, and knowing what we do about Moon, kinda makes them more than just a popular rhythmic section. http://www.youtube.com... Guitar: I like how you tell me what my standards are. Read rule 8, and see this "and just about any other factor my opponent wishes." Yeah. "how so? Notice that this is an assertion made with nothing to back it up. What does Zappa have that Hendrix doesn't?" I guess you didn't see where I showed Zappa's overall musicianship..? It's there. When you have a composer who can write and perform any kind of music, it adds diversity to your band. Zappa could write rock (My Guitar Wants to Kill Your Mama), classical and orchestral music (gave a link in last round), reggae (Fine Girl), Bluesy stuff (gave example), etc., and he pioneered shredding (Muffin Man.) He could play multiple instruments, was a conductor, a producer, and an editor. Like I said, every band needs someone to write the music, produce the songs, and edit; Zappa can do all of that, and to top it off, he's still a very good and innovative guitarist. Knowing that, he simply offers so much more than Hendrix. Hendrix, while a good musician, can't rationally be mentioned in the same sentence as Zappa, who could do it all, and seemingly play it all, while being self-taught. And then remember that Zappa produces and edits, and..too bad for Hendrix. You call Hendrix more charismatic, when that's just not so. Zappa was known for being rather eccentric. His lyrics, song titles, album names, involvement with politics, etc., earned him that reputation. "a band does not need someone to produce the hits -- that's what producers are for." Nonsense. Of course they do. Hence the existence of producers. The fact that Zappa could produce is only more credit to him. Vocals: I never said Morrison was a better singer than Charles. I do, however, think Morrison is the better front man, but like I said, there's more than singing to this. So your whole bit about me not offering an explanation is attacking an argument I never made. And his blindness doesn't help. It's like if I said some heroin addict would be good for my band, because of what an obstacle that addiction is. No, it's not just up to the vocalist to go nuts on stage, but so? You claim it'd be easy for Morrison's antics to be doubled, but nobody like him was around before him nor after, so I doubt this. And it's still a strength of his that Charles can't match. And we can't forget how he's an icon in rock, his lyrics, etc. My band simply has more to offer overall, as I think I've sho