Has Led Zeppelin Dated Poorly?

Just listened to "The Rain Song" this morning. Still holds up. Will we say the same about, say, Beyonce or Beck or the Pussycat Dolls or Linkin Park in thirty years?

Fuckin' doubt it.

led zep sound super 70s. but who cares? bach sounds super 17th century. and down w/the whole notion of sacred cows.

Fair point, that.

yeah, they went out with Paris Hilton!

No

Just listened to "The Rain Song" this morning. Still holds up. Will we say the same about, say, Beyonce or Beck or the Pussycat Dolls or Linkin Park in thirty years?

I think we'll be saying it about Beck but not the others.

Zep still pretty consistently sounds awesome to me, maybe even moreso as I get older and have more and more musical interests beyond classic rock. The production from their era has dated better than most rock production since.

Why do you think their production has dated better than most (examples explanation, please, I'm curious)?

It's hard not to describe their production without saying something really obvious or redundant like "the drums sound like John Bonham" or "the guitars sound like Jimmy Page," things that other people have spent the last 30 years trying and failing to emulate. But it still punches through FM frequencies better and sounds more viscerally kickass than almost any radio rock that came after, which is what I was measuring it against in that statement.

Although it's kind of kicking a dead horse to say anything older sounds better than 80's gated snares or 90's/00's super-compressed guitars.

i would agree LZ production has "dated better", which to me just means that it seems more of a factor in modern rock productions than, say, the Guess Who's production or Cream's production or whoever. LZ made their records sound bigger than just the sound of 4 guys playing blues rock. Like, "when the levee breaks" is a big, ultra-compressed, numb production, and very drum heavy -- not conceptually dissimilar to any number of harder rock productions you hear now. Like, the production Nevermind is pretty much the same concept, just w/90s technology -- huge sound, huge drums, sound is *everywhere* (and also similarly chorus'd, panned out over the entire mix).

The question is did the music world need LZ to come up w/this, or would it have happened anyway? Who knows!

I'm surprised by how much Bonham's drums don't sound like the heavens crashing down anymore

you need your ears testing. or a new set of speakers.

No

-- chaki, Thursday, February 28, 2008 10:16 AM (23 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

thats agreeing w/ chaki not disagreeing w/ thomas

It might've happened w/out Zep, Dominique, but it would've happened differently. There are a lot of hallmarks of heavy rock production/playing that are very specifically descended from them.

well i agree - and not least because a lot of these rock *bands* were also listening to and loving LZ

The question is did the music world need LZ to come up w/this, or would it have happened anyway? Who knows!

It's not so much that LZ came up with it, it's that they came up with it with Glyn and/or Andy Johns engineering. It had to be that combination of band and engineer(s).

My mate told me that Page insisted they have a different engineer for each album so people would know their sound was largely down to him. My mate is quite full of shit though, so it might not be true.

Out of NYCAlex's list of hypothetical longevity artists from our time and speaking from a US perspective, I don't see how anyone but Beyonce can be seriously considered as an artist/performer people will still remember 30 years from now; she has the most commercial success, the most critical success and the most media exposure of anyone listed there.

Music geeks are going to remember Beck but EVERYONE is going to remember Beyonce; she's been around for too long at too high of a profile to be forgotten, regardless of what you think of her music. She has basically been set up as the new Diana Ross at this point.

this band is unfuckwithable

plus beck already sounds dated! xp

I certainly don't think they have.

How many 2008 kids remember Diana Ross, just out of interest?

Dan, putting that much effort into debunking an offhand Alex in NYC diss is almost like trying to engage Geir in a debate.

My mate told me that Page insisted they have a different engineer for each album so people would know their sound was largely down to him.

LZ I - Glyn Johns
LZ II - Eddie Kramer, George Chkiantz, Chris Huston, Andy Johns
LZ III - Andy Johns, Terry Manning
LZ IV - Andy Johns
Houses - Andy Johns
Physical - Keith Harwood, Andy Johns, Eddie Kramer, Ron Nevison
Presence - Keith Harwood
In Through - Leif Mases

Beck hasn't even held up well to now so I don't see how he's going to hold up well in 30 years.

I need my old college radio buddy who liked the Yardbirds better to disagree with all of ya...

thats jeff beck not beck beck

i don't think they've dated that much, or to the extent that they have, it doesn't matter much since there has been plenty of 'new' rock music (the white stripes, for one) that shows the influence. these things are pretty cyclical; 15 years ago it would have been more apprpriate to consider LZ dated than now, I think

People will remember Beyonce and think: Holy Crap, what an insane amount of time, attention and money was abjectly wasted on an egomaniacal, undercooked, overblown 'talent.' She's a pretty face and little more beyond that.

'people'

Interesting, so not a single person here agrees with me.

Diana Ross not being remembered by the teenage boy music dorks that will grow up to be ILXors =/= Diana Ross not being remembered

NTI, I think you might just have a case of "I'm not 16 anymore"

teenage boy music dorks that will grow up to be ILXors

what? ILXors are grown-up?

Well, they're not teenagers anyway. Crut1s is at least 20 now, right?

Well, there's a lot of music I listened to as a teenager that hits me just as hard if not harder now. Some (say, ELP) doesn't. But maybe, say, in the case of Bonham, we just take that sound for granted now. I was just shocked at how little of it really knocked me the fuck OUT.

However, you really need to watch that Kashmir live vid I linked to at the top...

People will remember Beyonce and think: Holy Crap, what an insane amount of time, attention and money was abjectly wasted on an egomaniacal, undercooked, overblown 'talent.' She's a pretty face and little more beyond that.

Just like they do with Diana Ross, whose music still gets played at the drop of a hat.

You hating her doesn't mean people won't still be playing her music at wedding receptions, Alex.

True.

holy shit at the Bonham head-fake at 1:06

dan otm on this one

x-post

But has Killing Joke dated poorly and will they be remembered as well as Beyonce? x-post to Alex in NY

Ugh ppl we had reached a resolution here, do we need to do the poorly-reasoned baiting thing on every thread?

NTI-you just may be tired of them. Although I don't like LZ nearly as much as some similar bands from that era, I don't think they sound especially dated. I think LZII sounds dated, but the stuff they did after that sounds really fresh to these ears, especially III and PG.

Whether "people" remember KJ or not is ultimately immaterial. They never achieved the heights of popularity of either Zeppelin or Beyonce. Their own will remember them. That's all that matters.

it's kinda funny how when any other drummer plays kashmir or when the levee breaks, they play two bass drum notes on the downbeat to try to simulate his huge sound. even on that live clip it sounds like he has a delay on the kick (but he doesn't!).

xpost weren't Killing Joke, like, Nazis?

oh god

Ugh ppl we had reached a resolution here, do we need to do the poorly-reasoned baiting thing on every thread?

-- HI DERE, Thursday, February 28, 2008 5:35 PM (9 minutes ago) BookmarkLink hehe yes!

xpost weren't Killing Joke, like, Nazis?

You're a complete moron.

thanks!

No charge.

I like Killing Joke btw.

So is disliking blues-rock, bombastic vocals, and overlong solos just a 16 year-old punk rock kid thing from the late '70s, and not an acceptable approach to evaluating rock for folks of any age (as simplistic as it may seem---and yea, I know, there were punk covers of Lez Zep songs)?

Funny, I was listening to LZ's albums (first time in a while) all of last week and reached exactly the opposite conclusion ("Whoa! I'm sincerely amazed at how much I still love hearing this 20 years later!"). Now if you had said The Wall...

Matt, good point about the blues-rock stuff on the first few records -- ironically, the worst offender IMO ('Since I've Been Loving You') is still in the live set list. The one exception is 'Levee', which is so far out there by itself that it really doesn't count.

Disagree about 'Stairway' -- it's hard to evaluate objectively now because of the (over)exposure level but I still think it's right up there.

The satellite single-artist streams probably deserve a thread for themselves. I listen to a lot less XM than Sirius, but the XM Led has held up pretty well so far -- I think a lot of this is due to Plant's solo stuff, where he was making a conscious effort to not Zep it up too much. I will say that the Who channel (Sirius) never quit on me in three months, and that's even with all the recent live shows they were working in.

Without reading the thread:

no.

yep that was the consensus.

Beck hasn't even held up well to now so I don't see how he's going to hold up well in 30 years.
i don't see any reason to think it is a linear process. tastes change ins cycles and different ways. in 30 years he could be considered the greatest musician of all time, for all we know.

If anything, recorded Led Zeppelin to today's ears is surprisingly flat and two-dimensional.

Today, you'd be hard-pressed to even put that song AMONG the greatest songs in Zeppelin's catalog, much less the history of rock.

I can translate these as "... to MY ears..." and "... I'D be hard-pressed ...", right?

And if a sound has become so normalized that we take it for granted, wouldn't that make it less dated?

I really disagree about "How Many More Times?", esp considering how much truly workmanlike blues-rock there was from that era. It's quite distinctive in its structure and sounds.

Sorry, Thomas -- didn't mean to bludgeon you as a moron, but to brand someone as a Nazi is a pretty serious charge. Killing Joke are very assuredly not Nazis.

http://www.anirrationaldomain.net/images/memo/memo34.JPG

(That said, I think they became more interesting when they started doing fewer blues semi-covers.)

xpost

I agree with Dan about Beyoncé, mainly because she can sing better than anyone else on that list. I think good singing and good pipes tend to last longer, as various fashions and modes of "bad" singing lose the context that once made them urgent+key.

Incidentally, Plant's horrendous live singing voice is why I can't really deal with LZ bootlegs, no matter how great the rest of the sound is.

Beyoncé's got a longer list of catchy songs than anybody else mentioned on this thread, too!

In general, though, I don't think LZ's dated poorly at all. Moving forward, they probably just need to boost the bass a bit more in the inevitable next remastering project and they'll be good to go for another 20 years or so. Like Star Wars or something.

I can translate these as "... to MY ears..." and "... I'D be hard-pressed ...", right?

('Cause, like "Stairway" was voted #2 song of all-time in the local classic rock station's poll last year. Which suggests that not everyone today finds them flat and 2-dimensional.)

xpost Tracer, you don't think there's ENOUGH bass?

Beyoncé, mainly because she can sing better than anyone else on that list.

I'll give ya this: Robert Plant stopped being able to truly sing about two decades ago, but do you REALLY believe that Beyonce's voice is that great?? Come on, now.

xpost Alex: I know, I was being facetious in reference to both "poorly-reasoned baiting" upthread & the controversy over that there pic of yours ... no harm intended. god I'm crap at trolling :D

(ps I actually quite like Killing Joke)

KJ are goths, not nazis.

No I don't!

I haven't knowingly heard any of the remasters, though, just the original LPs.

i don't think pamela des barres qualifies as dating poorly.

Alex, listen to "Get Me Bodied" some time.

Looking at the fabled "infront of our starship" photo above, John Paul Jones should really have kept his shirt buttoned. Nobody wants to see that.

I kind of like that aspect of 70s rock culture, seriously. Stick it to the beauty myth!

also Page is staring at bonzo's cock.

haha I just noticed that.

No.

The one I always listen to is Houses of the Holy, and it still sounds fantastic. I wonder if it's just an overexposure-on-the-radio problem for Stairway et al. Also, the version of Kashmir that my baby boy listens to (rearranged for xylophones and bells) still outrocks the baby Ramones stuff.

Also, the version of Kashmir that my baby boy listens to (rearranged for xylophones and bells)

lolz we got this too. LZ better than the Rolling Stones one too

I was more of a Pink Floyd guy during my 15 year old "hey guys 70's rock with mystical symbols etc..." phase. Most of it has "dated", I guess, but that's more my taste than because of the music itself.

I probably just don't like them because of all the wannabes that populate every bar in town down here. "Dude, we were jamming today and we stopped to watched some LZ. In the middle, we just had to get up and Jam, we were so inspired..." lol college kids.

Their albums still sell legions to kids who weren't born back when the band existed. I think that speaks for itself although I am no huge fan of them.

When I was growing up in the 80s, it seemed like the popular and/or "significant" music acts in my day weren't considered in the same league with "70s rock giants," like Led Zepplin, Boston, Yes, and others (in terms of their "GREAT HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE," delivered in a low baritone). Now that so many years have passed, I wonder if any of those acts I grew up with are considered equal to those earlier groups. I mean, just limiting myself to rock acts from the 80s to present that are "big acts" or those held in particularly high-esteem, would people say that The Cure, R.E.M., Radiohead, U2, Bauhaus, Joy Division and New Order are equal to, say, Led Zepplin, Boston, Yes and big acts of that era? Define "equal to" any way that seems sensible.

I'm curious, so I am tossing the question out, but I admit I haven't had much chance to carefully craft this post (work intervenes). So if the question is stupid, my apologies.

"would people say that The Cure, R.E.M., Radiohead, U2, Bauhaus, Joy Division and New Order are equal to, say, Led Zepplin, Boston, Yes and big acts of that era?"

I wouldn't say it's even close, but that's a purely subjective viewpoint. I can't stand the former bands, with the exception of Radiohead.

lolz Radiohead as an "80s band". Actually I think REM, the Cure, and especially Joy Division/New Order are heavily canonized for being "influential" at this point.

U2 as well, but I can't stand them.

zeppelin fucking rules

Shakey: I thought I said "80s to present." If not, it should say that.

I know Radiohead isn't an 80s band.

oh haha sorry

in that case the "elephant in the room" re: your list is Nirvana

Them, too. I wasn't trying to give an exhaustive list, but I should have mentioned them.

Robert Plant stopped being able to truly sing about two decades ago

he can't scream anymore, but he sounds good on the alison krauss record.

Robert Plant stopped being able to truly sing about two decades ago

dude you need to hear the album with alison krauss, it's seriously great

ghaaa xp

The tendency to make grand sweeping generalizations based on your own beliefs is one that we all must fight, I know.

But while I can't get on board with this whole ". . . little more than a workman-like mish-mash of riffs and blues cliches" thing, this might be a good place to share the idea that for my lovely girlfriend and I, "Kashmir" is a dumb joke.

It's a wonderful injoke for us, we find it absolutely hilarious whenever we hear it, like if some ballplayer or the other uses it as his song, if we hear it at some bar or some restaurant, or God forbid at somebody's house, it's a kind of shorthand for us for "these people are stupid AND stoned."

I remember when I was in junior high, I ran into my buddy Jose at a park somewhere, maybe in Coconut Grove, he was carrying this monstrous boom box he'd just bought, had steel handles welded onto the sides it looked like, and my bud was all stoked coz he had "Kashmir" loaded up onto the thing, at a time when all of it was still new to us. He pressed play and I still remember how bombastic the drums seemed.

But in retrospect, "Kashmir" seems plodding, moronic, pretentious, and just plain silly.

I still believe that Zeppelin never made an album that wasn't great. I love "Over the Hills and Far Away" like I love anything. There's stuff on III that has never been duplicated, and "Carouselambra" is mighty.

But man, "Kashmir." It's embarassing almost.

LZ is great but tbh i don't like "black dog" at all. everything else is pretty awesome though.

SecondBassman is another Miami ILX'or (current or former)! All good.

I agree with Dan about Beyoncé, mainly because she can sing better than anyone else on that list. I think good singing and good pipes tend to last longer, as various fashions and modes of "bad" singing lose the context that once made them urgent+key.

I guess this is a decent rule of thumb but I don't know that I 100% agree with it, particularly when you consider people like Bob Dylan.

On a fundamental level, I can't fathom how any could possibly dislike Led Zepplin. Everything about them is pretty much 100% on at all times for me.

alls i knows is that you still see 10-year olds in Led Zeppelin t-shirts. you won't see anyone in Beyonce shirts ten years from now.

O RLY?

i've been to the future. everyone there wears Huey Lewis shirts

That's because Beyonce fans aren't going to become irritating dads that dress their kids in Beyonce t-shirts and make them go to R&B camp.

That's actually gonna start happening circa '09. The great music wars afterwards will result in Huey Lewis reclaiming his rightful crown as the king of music.

bow down to the phallic majesty of ROCK

Doc, we gotta get back!

that's the power of love

dude thanks for the link! what a jam! they must have amazing live back in the day

been amazing, whatever. has dread zeppelin dated poorly?

Problem w/ the original post is that so much of it = "not hitting me anymore". The fact that you once loved Zep but no longer feel it says much more about you & time than about the band's relationship w/ the present moment. To make this kind of critique stick, you really have to be hearing something for the 1st time.

***

would people say that the Cure, R.E.M., Radiohead, U2, Bauhaus, Joy Division and New Order are equal to, say, Led Zepplin, Boston, Yes and big acts of that era?

-- Daniel

Sure. Why not? I quibble with the fact that your list tilts so hard in favor of not-particularly-mainstream UK goth faves (Cure, Bauhaus, Joy Div), but even so, these bands continue to be wildly influential and adored to an almost terrifying degree by their fans. It's hard to see R.E.M. as anything more than mildly pleasant, at best, but I don't think they compare unfavorably with, say, Boston.

In general, though, "big rock" in the 90s/00s does seem rather pared-down and timid in comparison with the 60s/70s. Mainstream stuff is less experimental, less ambitious & grandiose; subcult stuff more willfully insular and off-putting. Still, I think this has more to do with what modern audiences actually want than any deficiency on the part of contemporary rock bands.

I mean, a list of "big rock" acts releasing event albums, 80s - presesnt seems like it should concentrate on the likes of: Duran Duran, The Cars, Bruce Springsteen, Motley Crue, Prince, U2, REM, Guns 'n' Roses, Happy Mondays, Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Tool, Oasis, White Stripes, Radiohead, etc.

Happy Mondays?????????????

SecondBassman is another Miami ILX'or (current or former)! All good.

Miami then and just slightly north of there now.

Let's hear it for the Eat and the Drills and Load and the F-Boyz and seeing Marilyn Manson at Club Beirut back in the day and of course, Churchill's.

Everyone knows that Happy Mondays were massive in the US, particularly when compared to The Cure.

Those are all good choices to examine the same question. So, how do those acts stack up compared to 70s rock giants?

i think it will re some time before dates and timing get a bit more occluded allowing U2, REM, etc to be seen as huge and impt at Zeppelin. people need to stop seeing zeppelin as primary to rock 1st.

but i cant tell you how the 11 kids think about it...you do still see zeppelin shirts on kids, though...i think those kids growing up getting music knowledge and listening experience from the internet will speed the process up as they will be less likely to feel and really conceptualize the linear history. (ie: when i was young classic rock/oldies was on the radio, but only duran duran and the like were on tv (live contmeporary). with vh1 you knew it was old. now, the medium is the same...its all just there)

yeah, my dad made his fortune selling "manchester rave on" t-shirts in des moines

Now that so many years have passed, I wonder if any of those acts I grew up with are considered equal to those earlier groups

Madonna is being inducted in the Rock'n'Roll Hall Of Fame this year, in spite of not at all being rock'n'roll.
Also, Prince has several albums that have become part of the "canon". "Everyone" agrees that "Thriller" is a great album.

So it's not all guitar rock from the 80s that have survied either.

"Everyone" agrees that "Thriller" is a great album.

fuck that shit

really, shakey?

is it just that you're an 'off the wall' guy?

Off the Wall is better but best is the early Jackson 5 stuff. I am sick to death of Thriller and never need to hear it again as long as I live. Also everything MJ has done since has been so obnoxious and omnipresent and alternately offensive/disturbing its kinda made it impossible for me to enjoy any of his music at all. His talent is wildly overestimated, the amount of truly "great" songs he's written himself can be counted on one hand, and I bristle at the endless trumpeting of accepted wisdom re: his greatness...

... much like some people bristle at the endless trumpeting of accepted wisdom re: LZ's greatness.

I think the list I suggested above compares just fine with the big acts of the 60s/70s (Happy Mondays notwithstanding, fine), if you accept a few caveats: You have to cherry pick the stuff you actually like/respect. The Monkees sold more records than god, after all. You have to allow for the much decried, over-analyzed and tediously backlashed "cultural fragmentation" blah blah blah. And you have to be willing to look outside the big sellers & major labels, cuz a lot of the most influential stuff wasn't happening there (not so much the case in the 60s/70s). In other words, Sonic Youth, Joy Division, Black Flag, Smiths, etc. go on there too.

Anyway, maybe periods of wild experimentation tend to exhaust themselves. We like to think the possibilities of art are infinite (in a literal sense they are), but perhaps there are only so many huge, radical gestures available at any given point. Especially if you're still trying to get songs on the radio and sell records in Suburbia.

See, I like The Monkees. A LOT.

shakey ^^ seconded...i would love for a moratorium (at least for say 7 yrs) on thriller, purple rain, and maadonna as summed up in the imaculate collection...if i wanted to be fair, id have to put zeppelin in there too, unfortunately...

i also like the monkees a lot...

I like the Monkees, too. A lot. But they're an easy target.

Shakey OTM re: Michael Jackson.

But I don't think LZ has dated poorly. Those records are still incredibly exciting, and I've been visiting and revisiting them for 30 years now. (Longest break, probably 4 years.)

the amount of truly "great" songs he's written himself can be counted on one hand

This is a wholly irrelevant criticism.

I can't stand Michael Jackson. King of Pop, my ass.

This is a wholly irrelevant criticism.

it isn't when he calls himself "the King of Pop". Because yes I do kinda subscribe to some rockist conventions re: authorial ability when it comes to making claims about being the "King" of anything.

we might want to consider that zeppelin came about in a period where rock'n'roll had really become ok...sure still dangerous and rebelious, etc, but ok...so more easily massive as far more acceptable (though not to critics)

by the time we get to the 80's the thrill is fading. so you go more extreme, but less massive (motley crue, sonic youth). Also with tv bands are more accessable, less romantic and mysterious (hmm, look that bowie guy is on again) i.e: since i knew bon jovi would be on mtv at some time every evening (countdown) it was less mythical.

it isn't when he calls himself "the King of Pop". Because yes I do kinda subscribe to some rockist conventions re: authorial ability when it comes to making claims about being the "King" of anything.

That's your hangup, then. I think that if you actually look at the history of pop music, songwriting ability is a negligible concern; everyone is all about the performer and the interpretation.

yep, like Elvis wrote his own songs rite?

see, the trouble is, people accept him as king of pop. so i think hes allowed at this point, (even if you and i agree that "black or white" or goddamned "dirty diana" are about as good some holland dozier-holland track that never saw the electromagnetic field of a single take)

I know it is. I like songwriters. I'll take Chinn/Chapman or Gene Clark or Eric Carmen or Prince over Michael Jackson or Elvis any fucking day of the week.

x-post

Also with tv bands are more accessable, less romantic and mysterious (hmm, look that bowie guy is on again) i.e: since i knew bon jovi would be on mtv at some time every evening (countdown) it was less mythical.

Wait, aren't Bowie and Led Zepplin contemporaries? I know Bowie had a bigger career in the 80s, but still . . .

I certainly think of Bowie and Led Zepplin as being more from the same era than I do Bowie and Bon Jovi.

Haven't got time to read this entire thread at present, so forgive me if somebody's already made this point, or if it's too obvious a point: Outgrowing Led Zeppelin is NOT the same as saying their music has dated poorly.

I don't really care that he didn't write a lot of songs. He had great producers and collaborators, and made some amazing records (that wouldn't be as amazing with someone else at the front).

And you have to be willing to look outside the big sellers & major labels, cuz a lot of the most influential stuff wasn't happening there

A decade's trends isn't define by "influential" underground stuff, they are defined by what the average 12 year-old is into. Pixies and Sonic Youth are mainly a 90s thing, as far as their influence goes. The same way Velvet Underground had zero impact on 60s music, but a lot of impact of 70s, 80s and 90s, and 00s music.

Not always, Geir. Lots of people recall the 80s as the New Wave-ish era, where a lot of "college rock" bands had influence, via MTV.

i think we might need a ilm referendum to declare that michael jackson is beloved, perhaps rightfully seated as the king of pop, and/but utterly loathsome and unhealthy for the world.

we can all agree on that right?

just like we can (indeed the world can) agree that zeppelin is awesome. and that everyone has to be atleast "ok" with creedance...

when I think about it, that preference comes down to accepting the fact that a great performer still ultimately requires good material. good material otoh can and does endure whether performances of it suck or not. ergo, I place more value on the person actually generating the material. I guess its kinda a platonic ideal thing.

christ I'm veering into Geir-ish territory here...

x-post

xpost a bit

Thing is, Led Zep haven't dated poorly to these ears but are they really still culturally significant (ie do ver kids still listen to them??)
upthread people are talking about their primacy & so on but I'd be surprised if any of the russell brand clones stalking our cities' streets had even heard anything by them. possible US/UK o_O thing?

Geir, velvets had plenty of influence on 60s music

eg yardbirds clip here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwRc2of5Li4

but i do agree with your point

yes, bowie is more contemporary with zeppelin and perhaps a bad call. i guess my point in using him was that he was someone far more "romantic" and mysterious when he wasnt on tv all the time ("china girl" video looking quite like duran duran, for example)

"we can all agree on that right?"

No, I simply don't like his music. I can't listen to it. I think it sucks. I'm probably outvoted, but that's fine.

A decade's trends isn't define by "influential" underground stuff, they are defined by what the average 12 year-old is into.

If that's the case, then the Archies defined 1969. I'm not knocking the Archies, but since "Sugar Sugar" was the number one song of that year, it's safe to say the "average 12-year-old" was into them.

And since when is the average 12-year-old necessarily NOT into influential underground stuff?

Lots of people recall the 80s as the New Wave-ish era, where a lot of "college rock" bands had influence, via MTV.

MTV never showed those bands outside "120 Minutes", a program that appealed to specially interested people.

Of course it may be a question of age. I was too young in the 80s to be into that college stuff, for me it was all about the hitlists. But again, the artists in the hitlist (and the singles list in particular even though they were less important for sales) are the ones that define the decade's trends the most.

A decade's trends isn't define by "influential" underground stuff, they are defined by what the average 12 year-old is into.

-- Geir

That's just one way of looking at things, Geir. It's not "correct", just a personal preference. Which is fine, but it pays to be able to look at things from a variety of vantage points.

Categorically disliking Michael Jackson seems absurd to me, but whatever. To each his own.

But Shakey, Rod Temperton or whoever might be a great songwriter, but we wouldn't be talking about those songs w/out MJ & Quincy's sick arrangements and MJ's style.

If that's the case, then the Archies defined 1969

Bubblegum was definitely a big part of what the late 60s were about. I mean, then, not necessarily in retrospect. But also rootsy rock, represented by the likes of Rolling Stones (who had one UK #1 single in 1969) and Led Zeppelin (whose two first albums already sold in truckloads)

(nothing in that statement suggest that his music is in anyway good or enjoyable)

Billie Jean & Beat It = Class. the rest = Dud. ( i have tried but don't get it)

If that's the case, then the Archies defined 1969. I'm not knocking the Archies, but since "Sugar Sugar" was the number one song of that year, it's safe to say the "average 12-year-old" was into them.

And since when is the average 12-year-old necessarily NOT into influential underground stuff?

My 7-year old daughter puts in a vote for HANNA MONTANA as the most influential and significant artist of this decade (Hanna getting the nod over Radiohead).

Of course it may be a question of age. I was too young in the 80s to be into that college stuff, for me it was all about the hitlists.

GEIR HONGRO, STOP MAKING ME FEEL OLD.

When I was 12, my favorite albums were:

1. Men Without Hats - Rhythm of Youth
2. Red Hot Chili Peppers - s/t
3. Adam and the Ants - Kings of the Wild Frontier
4. Prince and the Revolution - Controversy
5. The Jets - s/t

Also anyone who doesn't love "Human Nature" or "Wanna Be Startin' Something" is a robot.

(btw: "sugar sugar" was written by the same dude that wrote that "rock me gently, rock me.." song in that jeep or whatever ad that was ubiquitous durring football season in the us...with the singing animals)

xpost my 7-year-old daughter was dancing to Loveless this evening. there is some hope for the next generation at least (possibly)

Arguing that the pop charts are a big part of the definition of an era's musical culture is totally valid (after all, they represent what most people were buying/hearing/enjoying).

But arguing that the pop charts are the only meaningful way to define an era's musical culture seems foolish. Intentionally blinkered. Such a view takes no account of influence or eventual significance, no account of the fact that "the past" is not a fixed object -- it changes depending on your distance from and perspective on it.

xpost my 7-year-old daughter was dancing to Loveless this evening. there is some hope for the next generation at least (possibly)

Oh, that prompts me to be serious. My seven year old girl also likes The Bleeding Heart Show from The New Pornographers and some songs from The Field's 2007 disc. And some Black Sabbath.

J/K about Sabbath. I can't back that one up.

mine also likes High School Musical. we can but try :-)

Are you British, Thomas? It seems pretty evident to me that kids do still listen to LZ.

when i was 12 (this would be 5/6th grade however old i was then) i wanted to growout, perm and bleach my hair, and wear tight jeans (to be robert plant)...within 2 years i would have hacked off the hair, (had it been allowed) and switched to army surplus cargo pants...

despite the year (88-91), i went from loving zeppelin and dylan and hendrix to the clash, the cure, janes addiction, and blur...(and sold the classic/cannonized cds to buy new stuff)

so were just back to growing out vs records really going moldy. because now that i listen again, they sound good (save some production decisions or limitations of the times)

Whoever said holding up isn't a linear process is OTM. Fashions change. There's plenty of music that's less than a decade old that has dated worse than Led Zep, and that proves nothing because it's not a linear process.

But was there ever a time when Led Zep were considered dated? Not really, right? So no is the answer, like everyone says. The only people who will ever not like Led Zepellin are the girlfriends of guys who like them way too much.

(WTF is Britain like? I've never been there. Do pubescent music fans generally listen to like Morrissey or The Stone Roses or something when they want to explore the classics? Bowie and T-Rex perhaps?)

Rod Temperton or whoever might be a great songwriter, but we wouldn't be talking about those songs w/out MJ & Quincy's sick arrangements and MJ's style.

this is a hypothetical that cannot be proven. Certainly Rod could've sold those songs to someone else, who could have similarly hired QJ (who was obviously on a hot streak in the early 80s and was also a dependably versatile and creative producer - see his stints arranging for Frank Sinatra in the 60s, sdtk work etc.) My point is that Jackson's talents as a musician are vastly overestimated - he's always relied on a large supporting cast, especially with his best stuff, whether it was the Motown hit machine or Quincy Jones or Temperton or whoever.

My larger point re: the primary role I assign to writers (and producers) can be summed up by saying that without Cole Porter Frank Sinatra would not be as great as he was. But without Frank Sinatra, Cole Porter's songs would still be fucking awesome.

many x-posts

xpost: Yes, pretty much. "Classic rock" doesn't exist in the same way over here, so the canon teenagers work their way through is completely different.

e.g. you get people who are pretty into music by any country's standards who literally haven't heard of Rush or CCR.

that Alison Krauss girl doesn't seem like she'd put out

when i lived in the uk the teenagers on camden highstreet on saturday were wearing offspring and korn t-shirts (mind blowing), but perhaps the kids hanging out in camden don't count.

teenage fandom in the uk did seem very, very different than the american teen fandom...but i could never quite finger it...

ha (btw: how did my pamela joke above die so easily?)

when i lived in the uk the teenagers on camden highstreet on saturday were wearing offspring and korn t-shirts (mind blowing)

why mind blowing?

(this is getting way off topic, but i was pretty impressed by the home demos that were on one of those reissues of 'off the wall', a lot of the percussion arrangements and other parts are almost fully formed)

because i never new that many teens in america into the offspring. in retrospect its less shocking. given i lived in a hippish college town in upsate new york prior to london, it seemed really weird.

siad bands also seemed so tied to an american mid-west vibe that the younger me couldn't fathom how that could be romantic to a 12 yr old schoolboy on the northernline

yeah, I guess it was a weird subculture for the rest of the world to run with.

this is a hypothetical that cannot be proven. Certainly Rod could've sold those songs to someone else, who could have similarly hired QJ (who was obviously on a hot streak in the early 80s and was also a dependably versatile and creative producer - see his stints arranging for Frank Sinatra in the 60s, sdtk work etc.)

Quincy's "hot streak" in the early 80s was pretty much limited to Off The Wall (which was 1979 anyways), Diana Ross' 1982 album (which was crap), and Thriller...and if Michael's "Billie Jean" demo is any indication, Jones didn't/couldn't add too much to Michael's arrangements.

Oh, and Michael sang on those tracks, so like with Sinatra and Elvis (and countless others), who gives a shit who wrote them? His singing on Thriller defines unfuckwithable.

There's plenty of music that's less than a decade old that has dated worse than Led Zep, and that proves nothing because it's not a linear process.

This is very OTM.

Look at those readers' lists of Best Albums Ever, for instance. In the wake of Britpop, The Beatles dominated more than they had done since before punk. And "All Mod Cons" and "Quadrophenia" were gaining classic status.
In the early 00s, The Beatles were a bit more down the charts while a lot of Aretha Franklin and Otis Redding would get into the listings in the wake of R&B's popularity. And you also had The Stooges and stuff like that performing better than ever in the wake of the "nu garage" thing. In the most recent (around mid oughties) Q list, there was suddenly a lot of hard rock (Iron Maiden, Metallica) as the kids were then getting into hard rock more than for a long time.

Quincy's "hot streak" in the early 80s was pretty much limited to Off The Wall (which was 1979 anyways), Diana Ross' 1982 album (which was crap), and Thriller...and if Michael's "Billie Jean" demo is any indication, Jones didn't/couldn't add too much to Michael's arrangements.

"The Dude", anyone?

^^^James Ingram, bitche

o like with Sinatra and Elvis (and countless others), who gives a shit who wrote them?

I do! You can totally chart these artists' best work by who they working with at the time (Sinatra w/Riddle, Elvis w/Sam Philips, etc.)

His singing on Thriller defines unfuckwithable.

when I hear it now all I think of is this

heeeheee chamoanya chickachicka

Again, that's your hangup.

I could just as easily say its YOUR hangup to privelege performers over writers or producers but what's the point of that exactly

The point is that you're flat-out wrong about Michael Jackson in the court of popular opinion, which is the only court that matters when considering his legacy. People think he is a completely tragic freak who's probably done some awful things to children who is also responsible for one of the greatest albums ever recorded; your music geek tendencies do not change this.

wtf do I care about the court of popular opinion

your music geek tendencies do not change this.

A lot of music geeks think Thriller is pretty great, too.

the king really never was the most rightious person to be on the throne...otherwise we might not need this democracy thing we play at...

the one guy that died in killing joke liked to fuck fish.

which is the only court that matters when considering his legacy

also I don't think this is true. history clearly shows that what was most popular during its day is not always what endures or becomes considered important - and this is because popular opinion is not an institution that enshrines cultural narratives, that's something that's done by media and academic institutions (which, I will grant you, are not going to overlook Michael Jackson for a number of reasons, but let's not go any farther with this WHAT'S POPULAR IS THE ONLY THING THAT COUNTS twaddle)

x-post

Okay so if you're granting that Michael Jackson has been annointed by everyone as The King of Pop, what exactly is your argument here beyond "I am whiny and contrary"?

he anointed himself with that title

I think the "Thriller is one of the greatest albums of all time" is the more popular meme of the two.

and yes I disagree with it, cuz, well, cuz it isn't.

I mean I REALLY don't think his legacy is gonna include being the "King of Pop". As time passes I'd wager that moniker's gonna be seen as the clumsy publicity stunt that it was, and not some kind of bonafide title that he earned or something. Certainly as he becomes more pathetic in his declining years, there's gonna be some serious re-evaluations of his "legacy" and his body of work.

(we are WAY off-topic now, sorry)

This period saw Jackson enjoy "a level of superstardom previously known only to Elvis Presley, The Beatles, and Frank Sinatra."(62) This success led to him to be dubbed the "King of Pop",(2). The nickname was conceived by actress and friend Elizabeth Taylor when she presented Jackson with an "Artist of the Decade" award in 1989, proclaiming him "the true king of pop, rock and soul."(63)

3 seconds on Wikipedia to refute the "he called himself 'The King of Pop'" claim.

can I just say i love this thread. only on ILM can 50% of the posts on a Led Zep thread be about Michael Jackson...

e.g. you get people who are pretty into music by any country's standards who literally haven't heard of Rush or CCR.

-- caek, Thursday, February 28, 2008 9:41 PM (52 minutes ago) Bookmark Link
totally OTM
I know Fortunate Son. that's it.

hey guys, have your heard that yoko ono song, "what a waste"?

I'm with Shakey on Jax, even though I disagree with him on Sabbath v. Zep.

"get people who are pretty into music by any country's standards who literally haven't heard of Rush or CCR."

Depressing.

lolz @ Elizabeth Taylor as objective bestower of royal titles wtf dan

we should join together to bring more ccr to the youth of the world!

I mean CLEARLY she did that without any prompting or orchestration on the part of MJ's media team, and the title was arrived at via careful and thorough deliberation

we should join together to bring more ccr to the youth of the world!

a cause we can all get behind

lol @ Shakey being Shakey

(Basically, the genesis of the title is not nearly as important as the fact that everyone basically picked it up and ran with it, practically en masse; first in the media, then in the business and people's everyday lives. It is now a moniker by which he is known and your "but he doesn't DESERVE it!" stance doesn't actually make any sense.)

Holy Crap did this thread take off again.

alls i knows is that you still see 10-year olds in Led Zeppelin t-shirts. you won't see anyone in Beyonce shirts ten years from now.

Not for nothing, but I don't see a lot of Beyonce shirts now, but then -- Beyonce fans don't seem to be the t-shirt type. Moreover, t-shirt sales and popularity (or album sales or merit or even awareness) aren't really parallel. Witness the vast number of Motorhead, Ramones, Iron Maiden and CBGB shirts worn by people who've never actually heard those bands or been to that venue. People are posers.

Alex, you're smarter than this.

Who knows or CARES

Dan is the majority ever wrong in your world

who knows or CARES what "people" will listen to in 20 years? The job of a critic is to unearth things people overlook and say great stuff about it if it deserves the praise.

Alex, you're smarter than this.

Hahahaha... don't be so sure.

agreeed

the role of the critic is also to ignore loathsome icons in favor of exciting new things.

critics have jobs?

"Who knows or CARES what "people" will listen to in 20 years?"

OTM. If anything, it will be something everybody here despises, or just isn't aware of.

Vampire Weekend?

no..just callings

Dan is the majority ever wrong in your world

Dan "Slave To The Majority" Perry, that's me. That's why I like The Cure and My Life With The Thrill Kill Kult so much.

If you're going to say stupid shit and not actually think, there's not much point in talking to you.

OTM. If anything, it will be something everybody here despises, or just isn't aware of.

Hanna Montana and Hillary Duff and Paris Hilton and The Cheetah Girls.

(The non-mean version of my last post is "What is the point of paying attention to a fringe opinion on a massively popular, massively successful artist with proven longevity and universal appeal?" but I need to go home so I can't continue banging my head against this worse-than-Geir wall of willful illogic.)

zeppeling fucking rules

lock thread

What is the point of paying attention to a fringe opinion on a massively popular, massively successful artist with proven longevity and universal appeal?

yes what is the point of minority opinions, why don't they just shut up already

Shakey, all Dan is suggesting is that a band with Zep's sales figures (I mean, have you checked them?) and cultural exposure will never disappear.

finally you're talking some sense. xp

there is so much wrong on this thread

I don't think they really dated at all, they just have groupies lined up and ready to go.

people won't be wearing this thread's t-shirt in 20 years, i'll tell ya that for free

will anyone remember laughter?

Anyway, Zepplin good, Jackson causes tears.

Sorry, I hate 'em both.

Shakey, all Dan is suggesting is that a band with Zep's sales figures (I mean, have you checked them?) and cultural exposure will never disappear.

oddly I don't think this was Dan's point at all cuz if it was I'd agree with it. I was more arguing the merits of MJ and his dubious claims to being a monarch, Thriller being "the greatest album of all time" etc.

Zeppelin's dated a whole lot better than fuckin' Thriller, and anyone who begs to differ has got a large, brown, runny turd for a brain.

Ew.

Off The Wall is the only MJ that's aging well.

Thriller and Physical Graffiti (to pick one album) sound nothing like each other and have different aims.

"get people [in the UK] who are pretty into music by any country's standards who literally haven't heard of Rush or CCR."

Depressing.

-- Bill Magill, Thursday, 28 February 2008 22:36 (57 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

Wouldn't it be boring if we were all the same?

otoh no one in the US knows who Cliff Richard is

Not depressing.

http://www.spirit-of-metal.com/les%20goupes/Y/Youth%20Of%20Today/pics/1.jpg

no one in the US knows who Cliff Richard is

It's so funny how we don't rock anymore.

*without reading any of this thread -

I guess it sounds "dated" inasmuch as it's readily apparent that it didn't come out last week, but I don't think it has aged poorly at all. By contrast, I heard Bon Jovi's "Bad Medicine" on the radio today for the first time in probably a decade and a half and it sounded kinda jarring (bad drums, poorly mixed vocals). Then again, maybe I'm not quite ready for the inevitable bon jovi reappraisal.

of course, pitting zep against bongiovi risks making this a Classic Rock vs. Hair Metal thing, or in a broader sense the emergence of digital vs. tried-n-true analog (r*ckism ahoy). This isn't my intention at all. It's not that the tools are inherently bad, just the way they are employed in this instance.

also, Zep rules.

I think the question should really be, who is over 30 and has the balls to wear a Led Zeppelin t-shirt in public?

people that rock

don't let shakey get you guys upset, he is the same dude who posted this:

I guess the Byrds are more "important", but the Beau Brummels have more songs that I actually like and listen to (Deep Water, Turn Around), so they win.
-- Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 13 October 2004 21:36 (3 years ago) Link

so just let it go, we can't all be friends, some differences are irreconcilable, etc.

I'll take ... Eric Carmen ... over Michael Jackson or Elvis any fucking day of the week.

-- Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 28 February 2008 20:58 (Yesterday) Bookmark Link

Dan I was thinking about Dylan even as I posted that! Which makes me think that actually he could be the exception that proves the rule.

- I love watching MJ haters dig their own graves.

- The almost total lack of anything interesting being said here about LZ is interesting.

In the interview, Keith Richards also belittled Led Zeppelin's December one-off reunion gig, telling Uncut: "They had one? Well, well done Jimmy and Robert ... Stairway To Heaven don't make it for me, baby."

The almost total lack of anything interesting being said here about LZ is interesting.

That's because the hivemind/CW surrounding LZ is that they rock balls. No one really has more to say about them than that.

led zep are so awes.

Keef being disingenuous, blaming it on "addled."

Plays w/ Sheryl Crow, appears in Johnny Depp blockbuster, is OBLIVIOUS to biggest rock show in twenty years covered up the wazoo by a magazine sharing his band's name.

Doesn't know his bassist opened for them, right.

Led Zeppelin: still punker than the Stones.

why ?

Classic, but they have this strange power to reduce highly intelligent people to just grunting and going "Yeah! Fucking sick dude!" a lot.

-- Hurting 2, Tuesday, December 11, 2007 2:03 AM (2 months ago) Bookmark Link

Short answer: "Communication Breakdown"

Really though, despite the riches they were in-house and nearly DIY if such a thing is possible on that scale. No singles, no cooperation with the press, more or less uncooperative with the industry & aggressively unfashionable.

Also, Plant said their 9th studio album was going to sound like The Damned.

And did it?

The thing I like about them is that a lot of their songs sound rough and dirty but contain a bunch of really neat musical ideas/tricks (weird meter switching, all kinds of polyrhythms, unexpected riffs built off of familiar chord progressions).

They only made eight.

ok. by the way, I don't think the stones were punk at all. except keith (who set the attitude for most of the punks to follow !)

The only thing that sounds particularly dated to me about Zep is some of Plant's vocals, especially the "ooh b-b-baby give it to me" bits, but lots of classic Zep didn't include that in the first place.

Led Zeppelin: still punker than the Stones.

I'd suggest listening to Some Girls and having a good re-think.

actually, saying the exact contrary of what I just said, the stones were much punker than most bands (including LZ) since I don't think there's been a more cynical band on earth !

it all depends on what you call punk, eventually...

They only made eight.

-- Hadrian VIII, Friday, 29 February 2008 14:33 (13 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

Including "Coda"? (like I care)

Yeah.... Queen were supposedly going to make an album that sounded like the Dammned as well. Only, they actually made that one (NOTW) with "Sheer heart attack" the song. I.e. no.

Coda wasn't a studio album of new material, was it?

I'd say something interesting but I feel like I've said most of what I have to say on many other LZ threads and this question doesn't really inspire me to wax eloquent.

I think Coda was all outtakes.

"Wearing & Tearing" = pretty punk

"Wearing & Tearing" = pretty punk

Nah. "Wearing & Tearing" is Zep's sour grapes at Punk.

"ok. by the way, I don't think the stones were punk at all. except keith"

o hai stones career and music 1962 - 1970

I'll say it again:

"I wanna be your man" as by the Stones is about the most DERANGED sounding hit single ever!

Alex, Plant has said they weren't taking the piss, that they were energized by what they were hearing at the time & that W&T was indicative of their new direction had they kept on...

Alright, fair enough. It has been documented that Page & Plant attended the odd Damned gig. I don't deny that they appreciated Punk (Plant has gone on record saying that Big Black's Songs About Fucking is one of his all time faves), but that doesn't mean that "Wearng & Tearing" suddenly turned them into punks any more than "Sheer Heart Attack" (the song, not the album) turned Queen into punks.

The `Stones were closer to the mark, however choreographed it might've been.

the fact that often noone really can say anything interesting about lz proves why they endure...to most they just rock or are just awesome...that vague value will endear more believers than a concrete value. (xactly why we get the critical vs popular acclaim split so often)...nothing new or complicated

will always(/already) endear
^

previous poast

Can a music matter if its fans don't especially want to read about it?

to click or not to click?

(i do want to do some damned writing this am)

Amount-of-stuff-written / Interstingness-of-stuff-written

In Zeppelin's case, it's about a million to one. Not my favorite band in the world, but I like 'em, and I can't think of a band that I'm less interested in reading about.

So, finally I get a Zep albums box set (it even has all the InThrough alternate sleeves, finickity bunch..)

And the first is dull, the second has good bits but all were done better by the Small Faces..

The third is getting there, the fourth has the big ones and I can appreciate it if not love it.

Houses of the Holy. Now, then. This is the one where it all works! I know it has the two tracks the zep afich love to hate, but the whole thing works!

Phys Graf I have already, and about half of it I like. It seems those tracks are the "old" ones..

Anyway, I did Presence today, it's ok I guess but I won't be returning to it..

So, I have, um, SongRemains and InThrough and Coda to go.

I dunno, it seems like a slog. Are there riches ahead?

you've been through the best, InThrough is boring, SongRemains = meh live recording, Coda I haven't heard.

Houses of the Holy is my fav, but man seeing "first is dull" and "second has good bit" makes me wanna ;_;

Their only good song is All of my Love

I think I speak for everyone when I say that

http://media.capetowndailyphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/img_1705.jpg
http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/wp-content/blogs.dir/417/files/2012/04/i-ce3aadd3e91ba496c68df484bc256079-115973.jpg

*All my Love. I always mess up that title.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9XSDoHSsTg

InThrough is boring

lol waht

it is! I fuck with Presence but Out Door can succ it

And the first is dull, the second has good bits but all were done better by the Small Faces..

RONG

soo wrong that I cannot even begin to explain why

except just ;_;

Led Zep 2 is my fav of the first four. "Lemon Song" is the shit

The studio version of 'We're Gonna Groove' on Coda is great. But even better is the live version on the DVD.

Led Zeppelin through Houses of the Holy are all 5 star albums. it just takes a while to get to that point but it usually happens.

and than you get the double Physical Graffiti.

SongRemains = meh live recording

The original version, maybe, but the Rhino reissue is amazingly well remastered and includes a bunch of bonus tracks, and the whole thing is re-sequenced - now it's an amazing live album. Highly recommended, in fact.

will have to check it out. I actually only had a beat-up vinyl copy of it!

I : Babe I'm Gonna Leave You
II : Ramble On
III : Tangerine / Immigrant Song
IV : When The Leeve Breaks
Houses of the Holy : over the hills / rain song

Those songs alone give the albums at least 4 stars for containing them.

Let's Talk About The Led Zeppelin Epic Track- "Carouselambra"

moka otm

over the hills is my fave led zep, on certain days

SongRemains = meh live recording

The original version, maybe, but the Rhino reissue is amazingly well remastered and includes a bunch of bonus tracks, and the whole thing is re-sequenced - now it's an amazing live album. Highly recommended, in fact.

― 誤訳侮辱, Thursday, 4 July 2013 03:26 (5 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I believe this is the version in the box..

And the first is dull, the second has good bits but all were done better by the Small Faces..

Agree with this mostly fwiw. Led Zep I to me is just Communication Breakdown + a load of boring hippy crap. It's not that I hate Led Zep, I like a lot of stuff from II-Physical Graffiti.

:((((((((

I do think you have to be picky with most of them tbh. I and II have filler. PG *might* but I've never quite got my head round the whole thing. Presence I used to feel, but it's a slog for me now (oddly, the two ten-minuters fly by). Coda you only need to flick through once.

But III, IV, HOTH and on a good day ITTOD are straight-through grand.

Intrigued about this SRTS edit though. It's always had good bits, but no way did I think there was a great album in there busting to get out.

I did presume "InThru" to be the last 'jewel' in the box, do have to 'slog' through SomgRemains (hey, that's a Stump song!) as rules is rules..

PhysGraf, I do consider one of the all time "great double album, but needs lots of playing before you know it" like the Beatles' white album, and "Sandinista" (I know,etc)

"Good Times, Bad Times" is one of the greatest Album 1, Side 1, Track 1s of all time. OF ALL TIME.

I'd skip Song Remains The Same and pay attention instead to the BBC Sessions

"Good Times, Bad Times" is one of the greatest Album 1, Side 1, Track 1s of all time. OF ALL TIME.

― This amigurumi Jamaican octopus is ready to chill with you (Phil D.), Thursday, July 4, 2013 8:16 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

otm

Besides the opening vocal on "Bring It On Home" (II)- one of the few Plant vocals that I really dislike - the power of that track is ALL TIME.

A good place as any to post Marcello's outstanding review of Presence: http://nobilliards.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/led-zeppelin-presence.html

I'd skip Song Remains The Same and pay attention instead to the BBC Sessions

Is not in't box.

What does the box look like?

A cube (I mean each side the same size), black, inside slides out..

http://www.toymania.com/columns/spotlight/images/s1hellraiserbox.jpg

No, more like http://image.blog.bitcomet.com/postpic/20081020/7954358_engcdf081020081511.jpeg

Isn't the version of We're Gonna Groove on CODA just the live take with overdubs?

Anyway, yes to BBC sessions and Lemon Song. Turns out that, contrary to my Jimmy Page-worshipping teens, every Zep song I truly love has JPJ's funk at its core: Lemon Song, Travelling Riverside Blues, How Many More Times, etc. etc.

Yeah, Royal Albert Hall recording w/overdubs. xpost

I know the OP is 5 years old now but I hear variations on this sometimes:

Jimmy Page's solos ("Heartbreaker" for one) were always ridiculously slapdash

Are there even any 'slapdash' moments after the first two albums, let alone ones that are ridiculously so? I definitely don't think this is a sensible thing to say about e.g. "Achilles's Last Stand".

The comments about the production seem insane too.

Hot dog solo is remarkably pathetic

OK, I don't listen much at all to that album, admittedly, and never thought of "Hot Dog" as more than throwaway filler. "Always" is pretty OTT though.

"Good Times, Bad Times" is one of the greatest Album 1, Side 1, Track 1s of all time. OF ALL TIME.

― This amigurumi Jamaican octopus is ready to chill with you (Phil D.), Thursday, July 4, 2013 8:16 AM (12 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Also, "I'm Gonna Crawl" one of the most affecting Last Album, Side 2, Last Tracks of all time.

no

yes.

even if it wasn't intended to be their last album, but that's part of why it's so affecting for me.

"In Through The Out Door" was the only Zep album i'm old enough to rembember when it was new. I only listened to pop/top-40 radio at the time, and it sounded like nothing else I'd ever heard on the radio. It also didn't sound much like any other Led Zeppelin album. I still think it's underrated, at least compared to their other albums.

they sound a hell of a lot better to me now than they did in the 80s, so i figure they've dated rather well

Hot dog solo is remarkably pathetic

― the Spanish Porky's (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, July 4, 2013 6:26 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

They really should have flown in James Burton to overdub that one. Jimmy was aiming for it, but the H was taking it's toll that day.

Eh, so his timing and articulation are off a bit. I still think "Hot Dog"'s a great little anomaly in the Crunge/D'yer Maker tradition.

Ha, those are the two songs that bring down HotH from 10/10 status for me.

I mean, it would be hard to flawlessly master all the styles Page tried to play with.

But e.g. "The Rover" and "Stairway" are two more really elegant, memorable solos on top of the one I mentioned. Pretty much everything on Presence is very well-played and well-constructed imo.

Some of JP's weeeirdest soloing on "Presence" too! All that Fender wangbar abuse.

(Love "The Crunge", don't care much for "D'yer Maker" but they both served my point anyways)

Hell yeah

https://traxman1.bandcamp.com/album/traxman-vs-zeppelin-e-p

What fresh, hot garbagey Hell is this?

Guess I should have posted on the footwork thread

Oh god, why?!

Let's remix Led Zeppelin but squash the drums -- the best part -- and replace them with extremely shitty digi-hats and handclaps!

Ok

(LZ drums are all-time but still don't stand up to an 808 on a soundsystem)

This is definitely Not For Me™️

sorry Jord, swing and a miss lol

omg

I find myself appreciating Led Zeppelin more than I ever did other than the time in my life when I was just being exposed to loud, guitar-based music and they served as one of several gateway drugs. And with this newfound appreciation, I find the band's music to be both a perfect encapsulation of a long-gone era, but also somewhat timeless.

See AC/DC for an even better example of what I speak of.

(LZ drums are all-time but still don't stand up to an 808 on a soundsystem)

mix isn’t great but I’d rather hear it than any of their classics

You do you!

it gets much worse

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO8m6yilFSI

I'm a drummer, I looove JB, but the 808 clap has made more people dance than his snare drum sound.

(also if the kick is also meant to be the source of bass in the track, it's usually layered with other samples)

Too lazy to ctrl + f for Page/Mattix jokes but I’m sure ILXors of Time Past got that covered.

People will remember Beyonce and think: Holy Crap, what an insane amount of time, attention and money was abjectly wasted on an egomaniacal, undercooked, overblown 'talent.' She's a pretty face and little more beyond that.

^ better joke than the "Whole Lotta Love" remix
xp

(Sorry Jordan!)

I’m not even a huge beyonce fan but comparing her to zeppelin is almost unfair on zeppelin

TS: ‘Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)’ vs songs about the One Ring.

Ring Cycle obv

otm

(LZ drums are all-time but still don't stand up to an 808 on a soundsystem)

In 2005, I had a chance to see Destiny's Child and I passed it up because of 'school'. I don't know why I air quoted school, I actually had a test. I thought I could catch them on the next tour, but I think you know what happened.

You can still see Beyonce.

All I would see are the two that aren't there.

Jordan's convinced me. All drum tracks should be retroactively swapped out with 808s. Cause dancing, sound systems, etc.

*Throws challops flag*

this is the purest calstars bait (that doesn't involve bars) <3

It does kind of involve children where they shouldn’t be though

this isn't even a well-used or well-mixed 808! It sounds like shit!

^^^
Is this guy intentionally defecating on all sides of the beat?

Like I could see elements (mellotron, etc.) of No Quarter being used in a bobbins way, but this dude (gotta be a dude) wants shooting.

I love footwork but Traxman has always bamboozled me and err... yeah not a fan of this

Ok I'm not going to die on this hill, it's just a silly EP of chopped Led Zep samples in a juke context.

Buuut speaking of context...if the 'When the Levee Breaks' break sounded good in fast dance music, it would be used in fast dance music. JB's drums are huge, wide, and aggressive and so they're usually sampled at slower tempos when you want that rock energy (Beastie Boys, Bjork, blah blah blah). There's a reason why he's not sampled much in drum & bass (although sure, anything's possible).

And 808 bass/kicks/claps are not objectively worse than even the best drummer when it comes to recorded music, they're just different. There's also a reason why you hear them 1000000000x more than Led Zep drum loops, and it has to do with how effective they are, which partly has due with the sheer frequencies involved, and the cultural weight at this point. I really should not have to explain this in 2020.

Dunno, who did Led Zeppelin go out with?