I disagree. I'm only 23 so i've never seen Led Zeppelin. but my appreciation of them already is so high that seeing them live might actually be a little too much. Pearl Jam concerts are awesome. but I don't think I'd even be able to keep my cool at a Zeppelin concert. I'd probably be like "Oh...my...god, they are actually going to play that song right now and i'm going to witness it?" It would be overwhelming for me, though an amazing experience. Ah, if I ever had a time machine.
on the flip side, I don't think seeing them live would help someone like Todd76 like them. if he considers them to be "boring" and their music to be "masterbation" (whatever the hell that means) from their studio albums, I don't know how he's going to survive Moby Dick or White Summer at a concert. I, on the other hand would, just stare in amazement......probably on acid.
so you disagree with me on what ,all i'm saying is that to fully appreciate ZEPP or to say that they are boring you have to at least seen them perform their songs .......
on the flip side, I don't think seeing them live would help someone like Todd76 like them. if he considers them to be "boring" and their music to be "masterbation" (whatever the hell that means)
musical maturbation = fretboard acrobatics, wanky 10 minute guitar/drum solos, the guitar as an extension of a guitar players manhood...."look at me - see how technically proficient I am"......the rock equivalent of Mariah Carey showing how many different notes she can hit on each and every word that she sings (ie. dragging the national anthem out to a 10 minute epic excercise in vocal gymnastics)
In my world everyone is a pony,
and they all eat rainbows and pooh butterflies!
musical maturbation = fretboard acrobatics, wanky 10 minute guitar/drum solos, the guitar as an extension of a guitar players manhood...."look at me - see how technically proficient I am"......
Are you describing Black or Even Flow?
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Yes - I suppose I could be.....i'm not a fan of alot Mikes solos either. The guitar work was never what appealed to me in PJ's music....in fact I think it ruins many of their songs (ie. All or None would be a great song if it didnt have that painfully wanky guitar solo).
In my world everyone is a pony,
and they all eat rainbows and pooh butterflies!
Yes - I suppose I could be.....i'm not a fan of alot Mikes solos either. The guitar work was never what appealed to me in PJ's music....in fact I think it ruins many of their songs (ie. All or None would be a great song if it didnt have that painfully wanky guitar solo).
but what would nais sound like,with out it.
"shes stoned said the swede, and the
mooncalf agreed" THe BANd
it would sound different - thats for sure.....I don't mind the guitar in that song, I actually quite like the noisy, swirling, sustained guitar section - it does tread on "wanky" at times....but I said ALOT of his solos, not all
In my world everyone is a pony,
and they all eat rainbows and pooh butterflies!
it would sound different - thats for sure.....I don't mind the guitar in that song, I actually quite like the noisy, swirling, sustained guitar section - it does tread on "wanky" at times....but I said ALOT of his solos, not all
I'd be interested to hear what solos you enjoy. Because you are really coming off as a horribly pretentious music snob.
It's a town full of losers and I'm pulling out of here to win
pretty much all of Led Zeppelin's songs were plagiarised directly from old blues songs.
That is such a pile of horse shit that you just spewed.
Fucking Howard Stern has made it "cool" to bash the legend that was Led Zeppelin. And frankly, I am sick and fucking tired of it.
That is a huge accusation to accuse them of. They were greatly influenced by blues artist that came long before them....so fucking what? They do not deny that. Led Zeppelin was able to do for Rock and Roll something that most bands since have never been able to do. And that is to change the landscape of music.
Led Zeppelin will always be an integral part of the formation of rock and roll and their legend will live on forever....no matter how many ass hats try to tarnish their reputation.
And when I say that PJ will have to be broken up or at its end before reaching Led Zeppelin or The Beatles status is due to the "legend" factor. I do not believe a bands legend can really take off until after they are no more. Now that is a personal opinion due to the fact that the only two bands at the top of my list are both no longer bands.....nor have they been bands the whole time I have been into them. I am not that big of a Stones fan.....not to the Zeppelin or Beatles standard anyways.
That is such a pile of horse shit that you just spewed.
Fucking Howard Stern has made it "cool" to bash the legend that was Led Zeppelin. And frankly, I am sick and fucking tired of it.
That is a huge accusation to accuse them of. They were greatly influenced by blues artist that came long before them....so fucking what? They do not deny that. Led Zeppelin was able to do for Rock and Roll something that most bands since have never been able to do. And that is to change the landscape of music.
Led Zeppelin will always be an integral part of the formation of rock and roll and their legend will live on forever....no matter how many ass hats try to tarnish their reputation.
And when I say that PJ will have to be broken up or at its end before reaching Led Zeppelin or The Beatles status is due to the "legend" factor. I do not believe a bands legend can really take off until after they are no more. Now that is a personal opinion due to the fact that the only two bands at the top of my list are both no longer bands.....nor have they been bands the whole time I have been into them. I am not that big of a Stones fan.....not to the Zeppelin or Beatles standard anyways.
I never said that I thought they were shit and I wasn't bashing them in any way. I like Led Zeppelin and I think that they did a lot for rock music but what I stated was FACT. they did lift a lot of their tunes and lyrics DIRECTLY from songs by Willie Dixon, howlin' wolf, robert johnson and so on. there's nothing wrong with that for a blues band (and that is essentially what they were) since the blues was all borrowed but I simply agreed with Fins that their impact is not exactly on the strength of their originality or songwriting.
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
Pearl Jam. At least they had their own songs. Except for Going To California, of course. [/quote
whose songs did zeppelin have??????????????????????? dumbest shit i ever heard o are you thinking of stairway to heaven written by the backstreet boys
I never said that I thought they were shit and I wasn't bashing them in any way. I like Led Zeppelin and I think that they did a lot for rock music but what I stated was FACT. they did lift a lot of their tunes and lyrics DIRECTLY from songs by Willie Dixon, howlin' wolf, robert johnson and so on. there's nothing wrong with that for a blues band (and that is essentially what they were) since the blues was all borrowed but I simply agreed with Fins that their impact is not exactly on the strength of their originality or songwriting.
I see where you're coming from but I think Led Zeppelin's innovation and influence outweighs their theivery. plus I think from the fourth album onward they were very original.
but what I stated was FACT. they did lift a lot of their tunes
The problem I had with your original statement was the accusation of "plagiarism" and "pretty much all of Led Zeppelin's songs." There is a list of some songs.....but it is FAR from most of their material. And being influenced by is different than plagiarism.
For someone who claims to be a big fan of theirs, you sure did jump at the chance to continue the false accusations that they were nothing but hacks (that is what you implied by your choice of words)....which couldn't be further from the truth.
here's that one too. I don't think this is a rip-off though. Spirit's Randy California has called it a "reworking" of his song and that he was proud that Page would use it in a song as great as Stairway to Heaven
First there was Zeppelin and now there is Pearl Jam I never in a million years thought anyone would be Zep's equal but i was wrong...side by side IMO the 2 greatest bands in the history of rock music and even more of an accomplishment Pearl Jam has done it without having to be done and gone...soo there is a chance to topple the mighty ZEP and hold the number one position alone.
Oh dear dad
Can you see me now
I am myself
Like you somehow
I'll ride the wave
Where it takes me
I'll hold the pain
Release me
some would say first there was deep purple, then pj.
blackmore was a waayy better guitar player...and ian gillan a waaayy better singer.
different strokes for different folks.
"shes stoned said the swede, and the
mooncalf agreed" THe BANd
I think they were at the centre of the the rock scene, particularly because after Hendrix died there was a gap in the US arena market and they were the obvious choice to fill it, but I don't think they were at the vanguard of music at the time. They weren't revolutionaries, in the early seventies, in the way that Can, Captain Beefheart or even Hawkwind were. That's not to discredit their influence on heavy rock (or even some punk), though. They consolidated a lot of disparate musical elements and sources, and they were fine musicians and entertainers.
As a side note, I recently heard the 1966 song "I Must Be Mad" by the Birmingham band Craig (featuring Carl Palmer, later of ELP). Once you hear this, you'll never hear The Who's "I Can See For Miles" (1967) with the same reverence! The similarities are, let's say, a little too close to be co-incidental.
As a side note, I recently heard the 1966 song "I Must Be Mad" by the Birmingham band Craig (featuring Carl Palmer, later of ELP). Once you hear this, you'll never hear The Who's "I Can See For Miles" (1967) with the same reverence! The similarities are, let's say, a little too close to be co-incidental.
I think they were at the centre of the the rock scene, particularly because after Hendrix died there was a gap in the US arena market and they were the obvious choice to fill it, but I don't think they were at the vanguard of music at the time. They weren't revolutionaries, in the early seventies, in the way that Can, Captain Beefheart or even Hawkwind were. That's not to discredit their influence on heavy rock (or even some punk), though. They consolidated a lot of disparate musical elements and sources, and they were fine musicians and entertainers.
They also influenced the whole business of rock music. Self produced, basically self managed, getting a big advance while unheard of, getting to that date the largest royalty rate, private label, completely changed the way touring was done and made it profitable for bands. They made advances in the recording studio and were always cutting edge for sight and sound live.
Led Zeppelin were pioneers on many, many levels. Plant ripped off lots of lyrics where he should given credit. But Page was pretty original, being much more influenced than ripping people off.
People still sample Bonham's drum sound some nearly 40 years later. No one will be sampling Matt C 40 years from now.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
As a side note, I recently heard the 1966 song "I Must Be Mad" by the Birmingham band Craig (featuring Carl Palmer, later of ELP). Once you hear this, you'll never hear The Who's "I Can See For Miles" (1967) with the same reverence! The similarities are, let's say, a little too close to be co-incidental.
I've never heard it, but I would love to. I can believe that Pete might have "borrowed" a bit. And jazz is still borrowing from Bach.
Led Zeppelin didn't start the revolution, they just made it popular, and I forgot about Captain Beefheart. There was nobody like Captain Beefheart before they were on the scene. I also forgot about the MC5. They brought it live every time. I think that late Zep maybe didn't bring it so much live.
Led Zeppelin>Ten This was close but Zep 1 is still Better
Led Zeppelin 2> Vs Both great albums but I have to go with Zeppelin
Led Zeppelin 3> Vitalogy Not really close at all. Vitalogy has a lot of filler
Led Zeppelin 4> No Code Zeppeiln is just in another league
I could go on but I'm not going to bother. Pearl Jam just isn't in the same league as Zeppelin and you guys need to accept that.
Eddie: 'Theres no wrong or right, but Im sure theres good and bad'
Both bands are good, it's just personal taste which you will like more. So who likes Pearl Jam better isn't wrong and who likes Led Zeppelin better isn't right.
I've never heard it, but I would love to. I can believe that Pete might have "borrowed" a bit. And jazz is still borrowing from Bach.
Led Zeppelin didn't start the revolution, they just made it popular, and I forgot about Captain Beefheart. There was nobody like Captain Beefheart before they were on the scene. I also forgot about the MC5. They brought it live every time. I think that late Zep maybe didn't bring it so much live.
Late Zep may have been a little too whacked out on heroin to brig it live, but early Zep kicks the shit out of any other live band I've ever heard. The BBC Sessions is the sound of a band that is truly badass and knows it.
They also influenced the whole business of rock music. Self produced, basically self managed, getting a big advance while unheard of, getting to that date the largest royalty rate, private label, completely changed the way touring was done and made it profitable for bands. They made advances in the recording studio and were always cutting edge for sight and sound live.
Led Zeppelin were pioneers on many, many levels. Plant ripped off lots of lyrics where he should given credit. But Page was pretty original, being much more influenced than ripping people off.
People still sample Bonham's drum sound some nearly 40 years later. No one will be sampling Matt C 40 years from now.
Without a doubt, Peter Grant revolutionised the way bands were managed. He respected and worked with Zep, in their creative and business decisions. He was the antithesis of Mike Jeffrey, Hendrix's notorious co-manager.
I don't know if Zep, or their first incarnation as The New Yardbirds, were ever unheard of as such, though, to be fair. Jimmy Page, apart from being well-established in The post-Clapton era Yardbirds (a very high profile band), was a session man's session man with strong industry respect to his credit. He'd long planned a supergroup with Entwhistle and Moony, too. When Dreja dropped out of the initial New Yardbirds project, John Paul Jones was brought in, and he'd already made a good name for himself given his involvement on Their Satanic Majesties' Request, with the Stones. This was a band that was put together, a bit like The Cream, using the best of musicians.
As for advances in the studio, I think Eddie Kramer needs to take a bit of the credit, too. And we all know who he worked with, before Zep!
The Beatles founded Apple in 1968, The Stones founded Rolling Stones Records in 1970, and Zep finally founded Swan Song in 1974.
In terms of sight and sound live, I think that Zep were continuing the advancements in stage technology and endorsement of new PA and lighting systems that had begun with The Who and Hendrix, in late 1966. They were the big draw of the time, and their requirements would naturally be cutting edge. However, again, they weren't cutting edge on stage in the way that Hawkwind were, using their ring modulator to make the audience either fall over or actually shit themselves, according to what ways they turned the dials!
Led Zeppelin>Ten This was close but Zep 1 is still Better
Led Zeppelin 2> Vs Both great albums but I have to go with Zeppelin
Led Zeppelin 3> Vitalogy Not really close at all. Vitalogy has a lot of filler
Led Zeppelin 4> No Code Zeppeiln is just in another league
I could go on but I'm not going to bother. Pearl Jam just isn't in the same league as Zeppelin and you guys need to accept that.
You speak in such absolutes. Who do you think is in the same league as Zeppelin, and if Pearl Jam isn't even close, why do you like them?
My personal opinion, which obviously counts for nothing because it certainly isn't going to influence anyone, is that on the whole Eddie is a better songwriter than Plant/Page. That doesn't necessarily translate to better records because so much is in the delivery, but looking back from the perspective of more than 10 years, the songs on PJ 1-4 look pretty good when compared to Zep. And live, I would say that PJ, 16 years in, would win that one. Listen to some late period live Zep, and tell me what you think.
Now I'm a big Zep fan, but they don't walk on water, and who is better is a matter of opinion, but I can't really say that Zep blows Pearl Jam out of the water although are many days when I'll take Led Zeppelin IV over a Pearl Jam album.
Without a doubt, Peter Grant revolutionised the way bands were managed. He respected and worked with Zep, in their creative and business decisions. He was the antithesis of Mike Jeffrey, Hendrix's notorious co-manager.
I don't know if Zep, or their first incarnation as The New Yardbirds, were ever unheard of as such, though, to be fair. Jimmy Page, apart from being well-established in The post-Clapton era Yardbirds (a very high profile band), was a session man's session man with strong industry respect to his credit. He'd long planned a supergroup with Entwhistle and Moony, too. When Dreja dropped out of the initial New Yardbirds project, John Paul Jones was brought in, and he'd already made a good name for himself given his involvement on Their Satanic Majesties' Request, with the Stones. This was a band that was put together, a bit like The Cream, using the best of musicians.
As for advances in the studio, I think Eddie Kramer needs to take a bit of the credit, too. And we all know who he worked with, before Zep!
The Beatles founded Apple in 1968, The Stones founded Rolling Stones Records in 1970, and Zep finally founded Swan Song in 1974.
In terms of sight and sound live, I think that Zep were continuing the advancements in stage technology and endorsement of new PA and lighting systems that had begun with The Who and Hendrix, in late 1966. They were the big draw of the time, and their requirements would naturally be cutting edge. However, again, they weren't cutting edge on stage in the way that Hawkwind were, using their ring modulator to make the audience either fall over or actually shit themselves, according to what ways they turned the dials!
You are very knowledgeable. Are you in the recording business or a rock critic?
Comments
musical maturbation = fretboard acrobatics, wanky 10 minute guitar/drum solos, the guitar as an extension of a guitar players manhood...."look at me - see how technically proficient I am"......the rock equivalent of Mariah Carey showing how many different notes she can hit on each and every word that she sings (ie. dragging the national anthem out to a 10 minute epic excercise in vocal gymnastics)
and they all eat rainbows and pooh butterflies!
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
completley different. back in the day there would just be a guitar solo or drum solo,not part of a song.
mooncalf agreed" THe BANd
Yes - I suppose I could be.....i'm not a fan of alot Mikes solos either. The guitar work was never what appealed to me in PJ's music....in fact I think it ruins many of their songs (ie. All or None would be a great song if it didnt have that painfully wanky guitar solo).
and they all eat rainbows and pooh butterflies!
but what would nais sound like,with out it.
mooncalf agreed" THe BANd
it would sound different - thats for sure.....I don't mind the guitar in that song, I actually quite like the noisy, swirling, sustained guitar section - it does tread on "wanky" at times....but I said ALOT of his solos, not all
and they all eat rainbows and pooh butterflies!
I'd be interested to hear what solos you enjoy. Because you are really coming off as a horribly pretentious music snob.
Fucking Howard Stern has made it "cool" to bash the legend that was Led Zeppelin. And frankly, I am sick and fucking tired of it.
That is a huge accusation to accuse them of. They were greatly influenced by blues artist that came long before them....so fucking what? They do not deny that. Led Zeppelin was able to do for Rock and Roll something that most bands since have never been able to do. And that is to change the landscape of music.
Led Zeppelin will always be an integral part of the formation of rock and roll and their legend will live on forever....no matter how many ass hats try to tarnish their reputation.
And when I say that PJ will have to be broken up or at its end before reaching Led Zeppelin or The Beatles status is due to the "legend" factor. I do not believe a bands legend can really take off until after they are no more. Now that is a personal opinion due to the fact that the only two bands at the top of my list are both no longer bands.....nor have they been bands the whole time I have been into them. I am not that big of a Stones fan.....not to the Zeppelin or Beatles standard anyways.
it's horribly pretentious to not be a fan of guitar solos??????
its just not my cup of tea. I couldnt name a guitar solo that I like....as that is not usually the aspect of music that appeals to me.
....that being said, I LOVE Dino Jr. and J.Mascis definitely "wails" on guitar
and they all eat rainbows and pooh butterflies!
No, but I was thinking of "Taurus" by Spirit.
I see where you're coming from but I think Led Zeppelin's innovation and influence outweighs their theivery. plus I think from the fourth album onward they were very original.
here's Jake Holmes' original Dazed and Confused for anyone who has never heard it. it's pretty cool.
http://www.ezarchive.com/satisfied75/AlbumSpace/69EHI1OVFJ/06+dazed+and+confused.mp3
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
extension on one chord- alvin lee
whipping post- duanne allman
mooncalf agreed" THe BANd
For someone who claims to be a big fan of theirs, you sure did jump at the chance to continue the false accusations that they were nothing but hacks (that is what you implied by your choice of words)....which couldn't be further from the truth.
here's that one too. I don't think this is a rip-off though. Spirit's Randy California has called it a "reworking" of his song and that he was proud that Page would use it in a song as great as Stairway to Heaven
http://www.mediamax.com/aikin/Hosted/Live%20From%20The%20Time%20Coast_Spirit_7_Taurus.mp3
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Can you see me now
I am myself
Like you somehow
I'll ride the wave
Where it takes me
I'll hold the pain
Release me
blackmore was a waayy better guitar player...and ian gillan a waaayy better singer.
different strokes for different folks.
mooncalf agreed" THe BANd
I think they were at the centre of the the rock scene, particularly because after Hendrix died there was a gap in the US arena market and they were the obvious choice to fill it, but I don't think they were at the vanguard of music at the time. They weren't revolutionaries, in the early seventies, in the way that Can, Captain Beefheart or even Hawkwind were. That's not to discredit their influence on heavy rock (or even some punk), though. They consolidated a lot of disparate musical elements and sources, and they were fine musicians and entertainers.
As a side note, I recently heard the 1966 song "I Must Be Mad" by the Birmingham band Craig (featuring Carl Palmer, later of ELP). Once you hear this, you'll never hear The Who's "I Can See For Miles" (1967) with the same reverence! The similarities are, let's say, a little too close to be co-incidental.
http://www.freakemporium.com/site/release/CR07002/releasepage.html
emerson lake and palmer
many a hazy eve listening to them
mooncalf agreed" THe BANd
Led Zeppelin were pioneers on many, many levels. Plant ripped off lots of lyrics where he should given credit. But Page was pretty original, being much more influenced than ripping people off.
People still sample Bonham's drum sound some nearly 40 years later. No one will be sampling Matt C 40 years from now.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I've never heard it, but I would love to. I can believe that Pete might have "borrowed" a bit. And jazz is still borrowing from Bach.
Led Zeppelin didn't start the revolution, they just made it popular, and I forgot about Captain Beefheart. There was nobody like Captain Beefheart before they were on the scene. I also forgot about the MC5. They brought it live every time. I think that late Zep maybe didn't bring it so much live.
Led Zeppelin 2> Vs Both great albums but I have to go with Zeppelin
Led Zeppelin 3> Vitalogy Not really close at all. Vitalogy has a lot of filler
Led Zeppelin 4> No Code Zeppeiln is just in another league
I could go on but I'm not going to bother. Pearl Jam just isn't in the same league as Zeppelin and you guys need to accept that.
Both bands are good, it's just personal taste which you will like more. So who likes Pearl Jam better isn't wrong and who likes Led Zeppelin better isn't right.
So all the discussion above me is useless.
Late Zep may have been a little too whacked out on heroin to brig it live, but early Zep kicks the shit out of any other live band I've ever heard. The BBC Sessions is the sound of a band that is truly badass and knows it.
Without a doubt, Peter Grant revolutionised the way bands were managed. He respected and worked with Zep, in their creative and business decisions. He was the antithesis of Mike Jeffrey, Hendrix's notorious co-manager.
I don't know if Zep, or their first incarnation as The New Yardbirds, were ever unheard of as such, though, to be fair. Jimmy Page, apart from being well-established in The post-Clapton era Yardbirds (a very high profile band), was a session man's session man with strong industry respect to his credit. He'd long planned a supergroup with Entwhistle and Moony, too. When Dreja dropped out of the initial New Yardbirds project, John Paul Jones was brought in, and he'd already made a good name for himself given his involvement on Their Satanic Majesties' Request, with the Stones. This was a band that was put together, a bit like The Cream, using the best of musicians.
As for advances in the studio, I think Eddie Kramer needs to take a bit of the credit, too. And we all know who he worked with, before Zep!
The Beatles founded Apple in 1968, The Stones founded Rolling Stones Records in 1970, and Zep finally founded Swan Song in 1974.
In terms of sight and sound live, I think that Zep were continuing the advancements in stage technology and endorsement of new PA and lighting systems that had begun with The Who and Hendrix, in late 1966. They were the big draw of the time, and their requirements would naturally be cutting edge. However, again, they weren't cutting edge on stage in the way that Hawkwind were, using their ring modulator to make the audience either fall over or actually shit themselves, according to what ways they turned the dials!
You speak in such absolutes. Who do you think is in the same league as Zeppelin, and if Pearl Jam isn't even close, why do you like them?
My personal opinion, which obviously counts for nothing because it certainly isn't going to influence anyone, is that on the whole Eddie is a better songwriter than Plant/Page. That doesn't necessarily translate to better records because so much is in the delivery, but looking back from the perspective of more than 10 years, the songs on PJ 1-4 look pretty good when compared to Zep. And live, I would say that PJ, 16 years in, would win that one. Listen to some late period live Zep, and tell me what you think.
Now I'm a big Zep fan, but they don't walk on water, and who is better is a matter of opinion, but I can't really say that Zep blows Pearl Jam out of the water although are many days when I'll take Led Zeppelin IV over a Pearl Jam album.
You are very knowledgeable. Are you in the recording business or a rock critic?
Er, I just love music.