Hardly anybody has ever covered Led Zep songs for very good reasons. Their song structure is based on their vastly superior playing abilities and there's no one who can actually play what they played. I'm talking about songs that are not based on simple chords like all other rock and roll is. Jimmy and Robert based their songs on Jimmy's riffs and on his chordal tonalities that to this day stand alone as being unique. I'm also talking about length of songs that maintain a constant and intense high, up to 11 minutes in length without resorting to an overly repetitive chorus. I know from Robert's solo work after Led Zep that he also uses unusual tonalities in his writing, but even without actually knowing this I would have to assume that due to Jimmy Page being an erupting fountain of brilliant guitar work, the majority of the non-vocal music creation came from Jimmy. The Beatles certainly deserve abject worship for John and Paul's creative songwriting ability, no question about that. Certainly Mick and Keith wrote a slew of classic, historic and truly memorable rock songs, but the very nature of their comparatively simple rock and roll structure and basic similarity to each other in terms of using major and minor chord progressions, simple and basic rock and roll rhythms, and verse/chorus/bridge approach defines them as being less innovative when compared to Robert and Jimmy.

Here they outdistance The Stones because most of the Stones' albums have "fillers", which are songs that do not hit the same intense high that got slammed in all their best ones. However, I'd like to say that I don't think either Mick or Robert is capable of recording anything short of a brilliant vocal. The Beatles actually exceed Led Zep in terms of numbers of great albums that constitute a greater body of brilliant and uniquely innovative work that literally broke new musical ground with every single song they recorded. The Beatles were simply The Beatles, and they were the most creative rock and roll band ever, from being the best singers and songwriters ever right down to their individual charm and charisma. But without denigrating their gorgeous, sensitive and original style of playing, what they recorded is not the heavy type of rock and roll that either the Stones or Led Zep played. George, Paul and John were all brilliant and creative guitarists, but because they did not improvise on stage, they were not really master guitarists. I love and respect Ringo as both a person and as a very creative drummer who mastered the art of drum sounds. He has his own unmistakable Ringo style for both, but he's not really a master drummer in the sense of being able to play with great speed and dexterity. I'm talking about 9 Led Zep albums chock full of brilliant and intensely high songs - I don't know how many hours of great rock and roll listening that is. There's not a single weak track among all that work, and there's simply no question that they consistently broke new ground musically. Their debut album is still the best one of all time (including Cream's), and Coda, their "swan song" is equally perfect.