re: Keith Moon & John Entwistle vs. John Bonham & John Paul Jones

quote:

---

I didn't want to go for the tried and true Led Zeppelin vs. The Who debate, but rather focus on this specific part.

---

Oh, I got that part of it - and it is a "legit" discussion.

Ultimately, however, it comes down to your tastes - LZ had a far more traditional, solid rhythm section, and The Who was really an avant garde experiment - part jazz, part rock, part "something new" - the contrast between the stoic, practically made of stone Entwistle, and his hyperkinetic drummer, Moon "The Loon" - was more obvious than the raw, manual labor-developed power of Bonham, partnered the "Swiss Army Knife" musical genius of JPJ, although there were similar contrasts.

Watching live shows with Bonham, rather leisurely hitting all of his fills crisply, chewing gum, laughing with the roadies, or whatever, compared to Jones, in some cases intently playing an acoustic guitar AND bass pedals simultaneously (e.g. Ten Years Gone) - is not as obvious as being unnerved by Entwistle not moving anything but his fingers, while Moon all but left the arena while playing fill...after fill...after fill...after fill...

I'm more of a tradtionalist - if "drafting" a band from the old rock gods - I'd be much more likely to add JPJ and Bonham, precisely because of their more broad appeal, and more universally useable skills - but neither of them could be in the rhythm section of The Who.

Does that make sense?