You know, I don't really feel at all like fighting this battle, but in for a penny....

you said he wasn't good, and now you're saying he was "just fine."

You don't have a complete understanding of my personal semantics. By ``good'' I mean something I'm impressed with. ``Just fine'' means ``certainly not bad, but nothing to write home about''. This probably comes from too many years of grading comics and its influence on graduating my comparatives.

stuff about innovation and being good,etc.

Okay, I'm not saying that he didn't come up with some stuff. (I've given you that point about four times now.) But being innovative in one area doesn't mean that you're all-around good. I'll admit that a lot of my prejudice, if you will, against his legend status is based on the fact that he's generally acknowledged to be one, but when asked, few can come up with a reason. You've at least given a cohesive reason. I have a problem with things being taken for granted, and when they are, I usually question them, maybe too far. Maybe I take the ignorance of the ``public'' too far and assume they've been sold a bill of sale when they're simply ignorant.

Moon

The reason I think that Moon is a legend is because he did something innovative with the drums. He brought them to the forefront in a much more lead-instrument manner than anyone before or after him did. (And in the process kinda lost the rhythm-keeping role that a drummer is supposed to have, but the band was okay with that, as they had Entwistle.) That wasn't at all influential, though, as no one else was manic enough to do it.

(I'm not trying to compare Zep and The Who, though, as you infer. They're both great bands, though both of them have songs that are popular that are amongst their worst, which bothers me to some extent.)