Are Led Zeppelin over hyped?

[AndSmithMustScore]

Furthermore,I'm sure your aware ASMS,Page was not just a session guitarist turned band guitarist he was also one of the most innovative sound engineers of his era with use of placement of michophones,reverse echo etc.

I am aware of this yes, that's why i elluded to earlier them being brilliant song arrangers and production of their material.

But the method he used with the microphones wasn't really new, he actually went back to using methods first experimented on by Sun Studio engineers in the 50's.

 

[The_Eagles]

Cool. I soooooo want to turn this thread into a Radiohead vs Muse fight.

in the chanting words of a bogan in the Tool moshpit '**** off muse, **** off muse'


and **** off radiohead

 

[Jimi]

AndSmith I'm really confused about your view.

You admit that Led Zep are great, then go after their song writing prowess and say Jimmy Page was unoriginal and sloppy. Both of those statements are utter shit.

Replace Page with any guitarist and you get a lesser product than what Zeppelin was. Page wrote some of the greatest riffs ever, was an excellent live performer, an innovator in the studio, and has been one of the biggest influences in rock and heavy metal music over the past 3 decades.

If anything Zeppelin are underrated. Show me a band that has a tighter catalogue of pure rock music than LZ.

 

[FIGJAM]

in the chanting words of a bogan in the Tool moshpit '**** off muse, **** off muse'


and **** off radiohead

I love all of the aforementioned bands, but Led Zep own all of them.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

AndSmith I'm really confused about your view.

You admit that Led Zep are great, then go after their song writing prowess and say Jimmy Page was unoriginal and sloppy. Both of those statements are utter shit.

Replace Page with any guitarist and you get a lesser product than what Zeppelin was. Page wrote some of the greatest riffs ever, was an excellent live performer, an innovator in the studio, and has been one of the biggest influences in rock and heavy metal music over the past 3 decades.

If anything Zeppelin are underrated. Show me a band that has a tighter catalogue of pure rock music than LZ.

I admit they are a great band for their instrumental talents easy enough.

Show me where and why they rank with the great song writers of all time if i'm so full fo shit.

Page ripped riffs no doubt, but unlike other artists he tried to pass them off as his own, but the law suits got him in the end.

Was he innovative? in some ways, in others he wasn't. He wasn't innovative in the 60's when the great guitar innovations occured that lead to heavy metal, he was a session muso. Once he went to the Yardbirds it was Beck driving the innovations not Page.

Was he and his band as infulential as other artists? nah, but they sure had influences over more than a few artists.

LZ are great because of their musical talents, thats why they rate so highly.

And your statement of asking for another band with a catalogue provides a nice example of the fact thats all they were in the end a rock band.

They didn't have the creative energies or talents to be able to shift styles like other bands. Whenever they tried to step away from what they knew it ended in disaster.

 

[evo]

Now 'shifting styles' is the criteria is it ASMS?

Why the hell would anyone shift styles when there pumping out such supreme quality in their chosen style?

You're really diggin a deep hole here bro

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Now 'shifting styles' is the criteria is it ASMS?

Why the hell would anyone shift styles when there pumping out such supreme quality in their chosen style?

You're really diggin a deep hole here bro

Hardly digging a hole.

Most bands seem to grow as artists do they not?

Did LZ really grow that much from where they began? imo opinion they didn't that much.

I can look at the Beatles and see a maturing and honing of talents as they grow into bonafide stars.

It's why we saw them go from the pop at the start of the first few albums to producing some of the finest albums ever.

I don't see that same development from LZ.

Plant sings most of his parts: stuttering, wavering, inserting lots of (quite often pointless) interjections, 'ah-ahs', 'oh-ohs' and suchlike. In just a couple of years this would become totally unbearable.

You ask why would they change that style and thats a fair question.

But isn't that the same reason someone will become bored of an artist because they end up sounding the same?

I'm never going to convince LZ hardcore fans any of this rings true.

But there's been a few people who seem to understand where i'm comming from.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Dazed and Confused is a classic track, but it's just a Yardbirds rip off.

They were actually called the New Yardbirds originally. Probably not all that surprising then.

Don't really understand you using cover versions as a criticism. Bob Dylan's entire first album was made up of cover versions. Does this mean he was an average songwriter bereft of ideas? Or was he finding his voice? And Dylan's had a few less than impressive albums (or decades) along the way to say the least. Do you judge Dylan on his peaks, his troughs or as a whole? Do his shit 80's albums take away from the quality of Blone On Blonde in any way?

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

They were actually called the New Yardbirds originally. Probably not all that surprising then.

Don't really understand you using cover versions as a criticism. Bob Dylan's entire first album was made up of cover versions. Does this mean he was an average songwriter bereft of ideas? Or was he finding his voice? And Dylan's had a few less than impressive albums (or decades) along the way to say the least. Do you judge Dylan on his peaks, his troughs or as a whole? Do his shit 80's albums take away from the quality of Blone On Blonde in any way?

Just to correct you there.

They became 'The New Yardbirds' around late 66 early 67's after Samwell-Smith left mid 66 and Beck left late in 66.

And Page actually contributed sod all to The Yardbirds in his time there.

Dylan has proven he is one of the greatest song writers of all time.

Page and Plant aren't in his league when it comes to song writing.

As iv'e stated i respect Page's talent as a song arranger.

And song arranging isn't the same as being a great song writer.

Stairway to Heaven is musically awesome, lyrically it's nonsensical.

I just feel for a band to be rated so highly they should be better song writers.

People seem to be taking what i say to harshly as a critcism.

If i was to offer a rating i'd rate the Beatles a 10, i'd rate LZ an 8 to 8.5 which is still bloody high. espcially seeing by my own personal rankings most bands would be close to 4-5 ratings.

 

[krisholio14]

Just to correct you there.

They became 'The New Yardbirds' around late 66 early 67's after Samwell-Smith left mid 66 and Beck left late in 66.

And Page actually contributed sod all to The Yardbirds in his time there.

Dylan has proven he is one of the greatest song writers of all time.

Page and Plant aren't in his league when it comes to song writing.

As iv'e stated i respect Page's talent as a song arranger.

And song arranging isn't the same as being a great song writer.

Stairway to Heaven is musically awesome, lyrically it's nonsensical.

I just feel for a band to be rated so highly they should be better song writers.

People seem to be taking what i say to harshly as a critcism.

If i was to offer a rating i'd rate the Beatles a 10, i'd rate LZ an 8 to 8.5 which is still bloody high. espcially seeing by my own personal rankings most bands would be close to 4-5 ratings.

Hmm, i'm interested to know what you find nonsensical about the lyrics. I can tell you right now, there is nothing nonsensical about them. In fact they are some of the most evil lyrics ever written.

 

[Papa G]

Page and Plant aren't in his league when it comes to song writing.

As iv'e stated i respect Page's talent as a song arranger.

And song arranging isn't the same as being a great song writer.

Stairway to Heaven is musically awesome, lyrically it's nonsensical.

I just feel for a band to be rated so highly they should be better song writers.

People seem to be taking what i say to harshly as a critcism.

If i was to offer a rating i'd rate the Beatles a 10, i'd rate LZ an 8 to 8.5 which is still bloody high. espcially seeing by my own personal rankings most bands would be close to 4-5 ratings.

Once again:

If your talking average lyrics, I give you: Yellow Submarine, Hello Goodbye, Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da and I am the Walrus for starters.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

People underrate their wide musical styles. I cant year any Yardbirds influences in songs like Going To California, Kashmir, D'yermaker, Hot Dog, Bron'y Aur Stomp or Over The Hills and Far Away...........

 

[WildernessMirror]

You can’t overhype the band that created Achilles Last Stand.

 

[chaddles]

You cant overhype one of the most influential musical acts to ever exist- if there was no Led, no Tool (arguably the greatest band of the modern era), and no Wolfmother for example.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

You cant overhype one of the most influential musical acts to ever exist- if there was no Led, no Tool (arguably the greatest band of the modern era), and no Wolfmother for example.

They don't have the influence other bands do.

And i feel often their influence is overstated.

They never insitgated heavy metal, sure they helped it along but it wasn't their baby.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

They never insitgated heavy metal, sure they helped it along but it wasn't their baby.

They are far too musical and talented to be regarded as the founders of heavy metal.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Once again:

If your talking average lyrics, I give you: Yellow Submarine, Hello Goodbye, Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da and I am the Walrus for starters.

And yet go to the other level of a bands best lyrics and The Beatles have better and more material than LZ by a long way.

In fact The Beatles, The Stones, The Kinks etc. all have a far superior lyrical catalogues than LZ.

Not that that should be taken as a negative, it's just a fact those bands i named had some of the best creative partnerships ever in music.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

They are far too musical and talented to be regarded as the founders of heavy metal.

As iv'e already stated i don't deny their great musical talents.

But once again they were great musical arrangers.

That means they took something already there and put their own spin on it.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

That means they took something already there and put their own spin on it.

What band hasnt done that - I really dont understand your point.

Do you think the Stones invented blues or Bob Dylan invented folk?

 

[evo]

Hardly digging a hole.

Most bands seem to grow as artists do they not?

Did LZ really grow that much from where they began? imo opinion they didn't that much.

I can look at the Beatles and see a maturing and honing of talents as they grow into bonafide stars.

It's why we saw them go from the pop at the start of the first few albums to producing some of the finest albums ever.

Page had already done his 'maturing' by the time he formed Led Zepplin.What you hear in their brilliant albums(IMO) is the result.

All this really speaks to is that the Beatles weren;t 'mature' when they first started recording.In that I agree.But I hardly see how this can then be a slight on LZ's talent.

I don't see that same development from LZ.

Thas because they were already mature.By the time the 'New Yardbirds' were formed Page had already had the benefits of playing with some of the greates ,the likes of Clapton,the over rated Beck and many others as a session guitarists

Plant sings most of his parts: stuttering, wavering, inserting lots of (quite often pointless) interjections, 'ah-ahs', 'oh-ohs' and suchlike. In just a couple of years this would become totally unbearable.

Thats fair enough.Plant isn't for everyone.He was good,but his singing didn't represent the highlight of band(to me).Surely you at least rate his lyric writing ability.Yes?

You ask why would they change that style and thats a fair question.

But isn't that the same reason someone will become bored of an artist because they end up sounding the same?

I'm never going to convince LZ hardcore fans any of this rings true.

But there's been a few people who seem to understand where i'm comming from.

I'm yet to come across many people who got 'bored' with Led Zepplin.Their consistency in excellence was maintained throughout their career(again IMO)

Maybe it was lucky for them Bonham died when he did and this thing you allege(non maturance) would've bitten them.But it didn't happen so i say why speculate.Great music is great music over analyse not required.

Look mate,i believe i can look at this logically.If you put up a rational argument I'm willing to agree-LZ are one of my favourites but I'm by no means obsessed by them.For 10 years or so I never listened to one of my albums of them.Prefering others bands and types of music.

 

[Papa G]

And yet go to the other level of a bands best lyrics and The Beatles have better and more material than LZ by a long way.

In fact The Beatles, The Stones, The Kinks etc. all have a far superior lyrical catalogues than LZ.

Not that that should be taken as a negative, it's just a fact those bands i named had some of the best creative partnerships ever in music.

Maybe, maybe not - but that is your opinion, although you tout it as an absolute fact.

Any rate in most cases in music it's not the actual lyric that's important, but how it sounds.

It really is the tune that is important to most people - How many times have you sung the words to a song and they have turned out to be completely incorrect?

Generally it is the musical talent, arrangement, tune or simply the sound that draws you to a song, the actual words or meaning of the song are in most cases secondary.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Any rate in most cases in music it's not the actual lyric that's important, but how it sounds.
.

Smithmustscore has a bustle in his hedgerow over a few words.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Page had already done his 'maturing' by the time he formed Led Zepplin.What you hear in their brilliant albums(IMO) is the result.

All this really speaks to is that the Beatles weren;t 'mature' when they first started recording.In that I agree.But I hardly see how this can then be a slight on LZ's talent.

This i agree with.

And it's why i think Beatles, Stones, Kinks, Who are better because of the shit they were doing in their teens, and it's why when people say oh the early stuff of these bands isn't any good, they are wrong.

They were putting this music out that's still big today when some were still in their teens.

I mean (yes i know iv'e done it again ) Dave Davies was only 17 when he ripped that groundbreaking guitar solo in You Really Got me.

Thas because they were already mature.By the time the 'New Yardbirds' were formed Page had already had the benefits of playing with some of the greates ,the likes of Clapton,the over rated Beck and many others as a session guitarists

Indeed they were, Page actually wasn't much of a player with The Yardbirds because Beck was so good and so innovative he was the one pushing the limits of what a guitar could do not Page.

Page no doubt benefited from working with the pioneering masters, and as evidenced by LZ he put it to very good use.

Thats fair enough.Plant isn't for everyone.He was good,but his singing didn't represent the highlight of band(to me).Surely you at least rate his lyric writing ability.Yes?

As i said i don't neccesarily think he's a terrible singer, he's just got a voice that can wear on one after a while if you aren't a LZ devotee.

As for his lyric writing ability i don't rate him as high as alot of other artists im afraid.
The whole drug induced tolkien period really didn't do much for me after some of the earlier great stuff.

Having said that he was capable of writing a good song. I just don't think he had the consistency or scope of the truly great writers.

I'm yet to come across many people who got 'bored' with Led Zepplin.Their consistency in excellence was maintained throughout their career(again IMO)

I like albums I, II and IV.

What i use as a reference to say they weren't all they cracked up to be is the Coda album.

It's this album that for me shatters the LZ illusion.

Alot of this stuff comes from early on in the LZ piece and i found so much of it unlistenable, but that's jsut me.

It's also the album that said to me Jimmy had run out of ideas or money.

Maybe it was lucky for them Bonham died when he did and this thing you allege(non maturance) would've bitten them.But it didn't happen so i say why speculate.Great music is great music over analyse not required.

Look mate,i believe i can look at this logically.If you put up a rational argument I'm willing to agree-LZ are one of my favourites but I'm by no means obsessed by them.For 10 years or so I never listened to one of my albums of them.Prefering others bands and types of music.

[/QUOTE]

The reason i thought i'd bring it up is because often bands are over valued and some under valued in the grand scheme of music.

I just felt that from listening over the years to a wide range of bands from that era and the previous years and from listening to LZ i was questioning, well really band "X" imo is a better overall package than LZ.

But that's only my opinion, and at least this thread has had some good discussion which is what BF music should be about.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Maybe, maybe not - but that is your opinion, although you tout it as an absolute fact.

Any rate in most cases in music it's not the actual lyric that's important, but how it sounds.

It really is the tune that is important to most people - How many times have you sung the words to a song and they have turned out to be completely incorrect?

Generally it is the musical talent, arrangement, tune or simply the sound that draws you to a song, the actual words or meaning of the song are in most cases secondary.

That's the difference between the good and the also rans.

The true legends of music put great lyrics to great music.

 

[evo]

Indeed they were, Page actually wasn't much of a player with The Yardbirds because Beck was so good and so innovative he was the one pushing the limits of what a guitar could do not Page.

Well it's a bit hard to shine as a guitar player,when you're playing the bass.

If Beck didn't have such a massive ego(preumably pumped up in his day by the likes of your ilk )
then maybe he would've let Page hold his rightful position as lead guitar in the Yardbirds.

Just speculating.