Are Led Zeppelin over hyped?

[THE BOUNDARY RIDER]

Nah dudes Zeppelin no way are they overrated.
The problem is they were so good, that a thousand other bands just copied them, thus taking the magic away.

Although i rate the doors above zep.

 

[wally funk]

the thing about zep is that they had two 'ok' albums (presence and in thru the out door) which would be damn good albums if 1, 2,3, 4, houses and graffiti didnt come before it and overshadow them

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Very harsh. Plant actually had an amazing voice which was one of the strengths of their better work. But I agree sometimes his *vocals* were annoying - not his voice as such but the way he chose to use it.... eg various ad libbing live efforts..... though the one picked out above ['does anyone remember laughter?'] I thought fitted in well.

It would be like if Jeff Beck played C&W, that would probaby not be enjoyable, though he would still be a fine axeman.

Listen closely to a song like Black Dog, hell even Stairway and tell me you can't hear the faint rumblings(or higher pitched sounds) of A Vince Neill or Axel Rose style voice.

I'm not saying that as neccesarily being a detrimental thing, but it's there.

Beck probably has played C&W

Although these days he doesn't play much at all, spends more time building his hotrods.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Nah dudes Zeppelin no way are they overrated.
The problem is they were so good, that a thousand other bands just copied them, thus taking the magic away.

Although i rate the doors above zep.

Start a thread on it.

 

[Corrosion]

Sorry but that's not correct.

Dave Davies played that solo.

Page was only used for rhythm backing.



I won't go through it all again but i'd just like to point out iv'e always said through this thread i rate them as one of the best bands ever.

The point of thread was that i feel they are overstated by some kind of hero worship that means people can't see past all the smoke and mirrors to see that yes they were great, but there have been bands that as complete packages surpass LZ.


Read this. One of the best review sites ever IMO, this guy truly knows his shit.

http://starling.rinet.ru/music/ledzep.htm

But for those who can't be bothered to read it:

General Evaluation:

Listenability: 4/5. One point off for Robbie Plant ('does anyone remember laughter') and all the generic late Seventies contributions.

Resonance: 3/5. The rockers are great, but Led Zep ballads are very hit-and-miss, so fake at times... Why couldn't they have all their ballads similar to 'Babe I'm Gonna Leave You'?

Originality: 4/5. One point needs to be taken off because Led Zeppelin weren't the ONLY or even the FIRST originators of heavy metal as we know it. Check out Jeff Beck, for instance.

Adequacy: 3/5. Robert Plant totally ruins this one for me.

Diversity: 3/5. This one's pretty obvious. They tried being really diverse a couple of times, but I'm NOT gonna bring the diversity of Houses Of The Holy in their favour.

Overall: 3.4 = C on the rating scale. Close to four stars, but not touching.

No he doesn't.

Just reading up on some bands, and he has no ****ing idea.

 

[UpForGrabs]

Sorry but that's not correct.

Dave Davies played that solo.

Page was only used for rhythm backing.

Did you not seriously see the bit where (at the START of my post) I said this;

"It's Dave's solo alright, but Ray Davies was such a crap guitar player they had to call in Jimmy to do the work instead. You don't get to be such an in-demand sessioner if you're sloppy."

So, in all, thanks for basically saying I was wrong and then reprinting exactly what I said...

As for the link to George Starostin's site - thanks but no thanks. I've been reading and disagreeing with nearly everything he says for over a decade now. Hardly worth the breath.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Did you not seriously see the bit where (at the START of my post) I said this;

"It's Dave's solo alright, but Ray Davies was such a crap guitar player they had to call in Jimmy to do the work instead. You don't get to be such an in-demand sessioner if you're sloppy."

So, in all, thanks for basically saying I was wrong and then reprinting exactly what I said...

As for the link to George Starostin's site - thanks but no thanks. I've been reading and disagreeing with nearly everything he says for over a decade now. Hardly worth the breath.

My mate is a guitarist in a band and he's got hundreds of mags on guitars and guitar aritsts, so i aksed him his opinion.

He told me the way Page holds his guitar and the way his hands don't always co-ordinate is the reason he has been labelled (and he even cited some magazine articles to Page being called) "sloppy".

Doesnt mean he's not a great guitarist, but it means he not as technically proficient as others.

Page was a session player because he loved the money.

That's why he went through the whole of the 60's putting nothing out but backing for other artists.

Even once he joined the Yardbirds he contributed little.

As for Dave davie being a crap guitarist thats bollocks.

He was only 17 when he did You Really Got Me.

What was Page doing when he was 17?

 

[UpForGrabs]

My mate is a guitarist in a band and he's got hundreds of mags on guitars and guitar aritsts, so i aksed him his opinion.

He told me the way Page holds his guitar and the way his hands don't always co-ordinate is the reason he has been labelled (and he even cited some magazine articles to Page being called) "sloppy".

Doesnt mean he's not a great guitarist, but it means he not as technically proficient as others.

As for Dave davie being a crap guitarist thats bollocks.

Can you seriously not read?

I never said Dave Davies was a crap guitarist. Never in my post have I said that and never will I. I said RAY Davies - songwriter, singer. Maybe you've heard of him. Dave's great, but he's by no means 'a great'. I can name at least a dozen led guitarists that I prefer. And to hold the solo of 'You Really Got Me' up as some landmark in the history of the world is laughable. It's a passable solo by a 17 year old who was still learning to play. By the time the song's over you don't think "wow, that solo", you think "wow, that song".

As for Page being "sloppy", technical prowess has never been an effective tool to gauge the level of someone's brilliance. Give me half a "sloppy" Page solo anyday over 400 technically perfect Steve Vai or Joe Satriani solos - solos that are technical to the point of boredom.

As for when Page was 17 - it was 1961 and he was probably either playing skiffle or doing session work for the money. Yes - the money. He declined joining the Yardbirds at first after Clapton left because he was making too much money as a sessioner. He then recommended his good mate Jeff Beck for the job. As for not contributing much to the Yardbirds anyway - I agree. By the time Page took control, they were on the way down. But he more than made up for that in Led Zeppelin.

Edit: I should also add that you probably won't find me sticking up much for The Yardbirds - not my cup of tea at all. There were better groups doing what the Yardbirds did at a much better level, and every major member of the band (i.e Clapton, Beck, Page) had latter work that simply burns the bum hair off what they did in the Yardbirds.

 

[evo]

I'm sorry Smitty,youre getting your ass handed to you on a platter.

Great posting 'up for grabs'

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

I'm sorry Smitty,youre getting your ass handed to you on a platter.

Great posting 'up for grabs'

All i see is blind idol worshiping from people who aren't capable of seeing flaws.

I love the Kinks but i can see exactly why people wouldn't rate them in certain areas.

The thread was never about saying LZ were crap, it was discussing why they in my opinion don't rank up there with artists like the Beatles when people discuss greatest of all time.

And i'm happy to stick by that opinion.

 

[UpForGrabs]

All i see is blind idol worshiping from people who aren't capable of seeing flaws.

No, what you're seeing is people who, in spite of the band's flaws, still consider the band to be one of the greatest of all time and deserving of all the praise and 'hype' that may be thrown their way.

You know what flaws are? Flaws don't diminish great bands like Led Zeppelin. Flaws accentuate the fact that these were four blokes. That's all. They never had to resort to a touring band that doubled the size of band (ala Pink Floyd). The never needed to hire someone to play second guitar to Page to try and recreate what was done in the studio. They left it at just the four men and did the most with what they had. If that's a flaw then sign me up for more bands like them.

But of course they were flawed. Plant was a womanising showoff whose best years were the early ones, when his position in the band was still not guaranteed. Once the band got so big and his position as frontman was too important to discard, he became someone who would resort sometimes to a caricature of what he would've liked to have become. Edit: and considering that from 1973-1979 he had to put up with major vocal surgery, a crippling car accident that nearly killed him and his wife and left him recording Presence in a wheelchair, and the death of his young son, I'm willing to give his dodgier latter years the benefit of the doubt.

John Bonham was a drunken menace with an appetite for excess bought on by massive bouts of homesickness due to the band's incessant touring. But he could play the drums with more power and finesse than anyone this side of Miles Davis' bands.

Jimmy Page, if all accounts are to be believed, was a satan worshipping junkie with a penchant for the younger groupies the band attracted. But it didn't disguise the fact that the band was his baby and most of the success could be attributed to his acumen.

John Paul Jones was a gentleman as far as I know. The worst thing I could say about him was that his fashion sense at times lacked a bit of intelligence.

As for why they don't rank with the Beatles. The Beatles are untouchable because they were the likeable ones who happened to give it away at the right time, plus the fact that they re-kickstarted the rock and roll era after the death of Buddy Holly and the whole 'payola' era. Whenever people are polled about these things, the people they poll were in their formative years when the Beatles arrived, something that's going to help them. Zeppelin don't lag far behind - do some more checking aside from that website you consider your bible.

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.

Also, I just saw this earlier 'review' of Coda. You do realise that this was an odds & sods album made up of outtakes from the band's duration and put out mainly as a contractual obligation in 1982 don't you? The only work done on it was Page overdubbing a second guitar part to the opening track "We're Gonna Groove", which had been recorded live at the Royal Albert Hall in 1970.

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.

Btw...

Led Zeppelin - Coda

1. We're Gonna Groove - Recorded live on Jan 9, 1970
2. Poor Tom - Led Zeppelin III outtake
3. I Can't Quit You Baby - Recorded live on Dept 1, 1970
4. Walter's Walk - Houses of the Holy outtake
5. Ozone Baby - In Through the Out Door Outtake
6. Darlene - In Through the Out Door Outtake
7. Bonzo's Montreaux - Presence Outtake
8. Wearing and Tearing - In Through the Out Door Outtake

Half the album is outtakes from their final two albums. So "Alot of this stuff comes from early on in the LZ piece" isn't really true now is it? Two were outtakes from their third and fifth albums (out of only eight total albums). The other two were live covers, one of which was recorded at a soundcheck.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

No, what you're seeing is people who, in spite of the band's flaws, still consider the band to be one of the greatest of all time and deserving of all the praise and 'hype' that may be thrown their way.

From you i see a great knowledge and much respect for that.
But there's too many people who say LZ rocks and that's all you get from them.

You know what flaws are? Flaws don't diminish great bands like Led Zeppelin. Flaws accentuate the fact that these were four blokes. That's all. They never had to resort to a touring band that doubled the size of band (ala Pink Floyd). The never needed to hire someone to play second guitar to Page to try and recreate what was done in the studio. They left it at just the four men and did the most with what they had. If that's a flaw then sign me up for more bands like them.

But of course they were flawed. Plant was a womanising showoff whose best years were the early ones, when his position in the band was still not guaranteed. Once the band got so big and his position as frontman was too important to discard, he became someone who would resort sometimes to a caricature of what he would've liked to have become. Edit: and considering that from 1973-1979 he had to put up with major vocal surgery, a crippling car accident that nearly killed him and his wife and left him recording Presence in a wheelchair, and the death of his young son, I'm willing to give his dodgier latter years the benefit of the doubt.

As iv'e always stated instrumentally they are awesome, my main qualms against having them ranked besides the Beatles were Plants overall vocal use of his talents and their song writing which can't be compared to the true legends of music as writers imo.

As for why they don't rank with the Beatles. The Beatles are untouchable because they were the likeable ones who happened to give it away at the right time, plus the fact that they re-kickstarted the rock and roll era after the death of Buddy Holly and the whole 'payola' era. Whenever people are polled about these things, the people they poll were in their formative years when the Beatles arrived, something that's going to help them. Zeppelin don't lag far behind - do some more checking aside from that website you consider your bible.

I rarely mention the Beatles because i'm more into The Kinks and The Who.

But the Beatles great strengths were in being able to shift styles better than other bands.

In Lennon and McArtney they had one of the greatest song writing duos ever.
That's where the Who and The Kinks fall down in that they only had one song writer of that kind of calibre each.

Instrumentally as great as LZ, hell no.

But iv'e stated this before that for mine what made the Beatles greater than all their contemporaries was the 5th member, Mr Martin

Also, I just saw this earlier 'review' of Coda. You do realise that this was an odds & sods album made up of outtakes from the band's duration and put out mainly as a contractual obligation in 1982 don't you? The only work done on it was Page overdubbing a second guitar part to the opening track "We're Gonna Groove", which had been recorded live at the Royal Albert Hall in 1970.



Btw...

Led Zeppelin - Coda

1. We're Gonna Groove - Recorded live on Jan 9, 1970
2. Poor Tom - Led Zeppelin III outtake
3. I Can't Quit You Baby - Recorded live on Dept 1, 1970
4. Walter's Walk - Houses of the Holy outtake
5. Ozone Baby - In Through the Out Door Outtake
6. Darlene - In Through the Out Door Outtake
7. Bonzo's Montreaux - Presence Outtake
8. Wearing and Tearing - In Through the Out Door Outtake

Half the album is outtakes from their final two albums. So "Alot of this stuff comes from early on in the LZ piece" isn't really true now is it? Two were outtakes from their third and fifth albums (out of only eight total albums). The other two were live covers, one of which was recorded at a soundcheck.

I refered to that as being a sign they were running out of a bit of creativity.

Maybe that was a bit harsh.

But i just look at the other great bands that they are ranked up there with and they jsut to me seem to have a far more in depth greater body of work.

And as for that site i don't use it as my bible, ive got trunk loads of old MNE and Melody Maker and Rolling Stones to read to help formulate my opinions on music.

I appreciate this kind of discussion though so cheers

 

[Carlos]

And as for that site i don't use it as my bible, ive got trunk loads of old MNE and Melody Maker and Rolling Stones to read to help formulate my opinions on music.

I reckon the 2 things hanging off either side of your head would be better value, but hey, each to their own dude.

 

[UpForGrabs]

I appreciate this kind of discussion though so cheers

No worries. Hopefully didn't come across as someone having a dig at you personally - it's just that I've had these kinds of discussions before and I'll always stick up for Zeppelin.

The thing about why I don't like comparing them to anyone else is because there was no one like Zeppelin - not even remotely. You can't call them a heavy metal band, or a strict blues band, because there was a complete other side to their music that wasn't just a genre exercise.

And FWIW, you might find it hard to believe this, but Zeppelin are by no means my favourite group of all time. I've got plenty of other artists that I'd rather listen to - but I did (like so many others) go through a 'Zeppelin' phase that was quite fanatical, and even though I'm not like that anymore, I still think they're great. I also think The Kinks and The Who are great, although with both of those bands, I'm more interested in Ray Davies and Pete Townshend specifically. I rank Townshend's Lifehouse Chronicles as one of modern music's landmark achievements. It's a shame that the piece as a whole (not just the stuff on Who's Next) isn't more widely acknowledged than it is.

I refered to that as being a sign they were running out of a bit of creativity. Maybe that was a bit harsh.

Unfortunately for Zeppelin fans, there was no chance of creativity. This compilation (which it really is) was pieced together by Jimmy Page in the year or so after John Bonham died, so it doesn't exist as a unified piece as to what their next move would've been had Bonham had lived, although Page has said that 'Wearing & Tearing' (easily the album's best track) did provide a hint that the group would've rocked out a bit more.

Most Zeppelin fans I know don't actually count this as a proper album - it sits along side the BBC Sessions, The Song Remains the Same and How the West Was Won (not to mention the Greatest Hits discs) as 'asides' to the proper albums (of which In Through the Out Door (from 1979) was the last).

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

I reckon the 2 things hanging off either side of your head would be better value, but hey, each to their own dude.

You might be right.

I guess i don't hear what others do when the listen to LZ.

The fact i like the bands i do probably suggests i like more melodic based music than power driven and i like a bit of a story told during the song.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

I also think The Kinks and The Who are great, although with both of those bands, I'm more interested in Ray Davies and Pete Townshend specifically. I rank Townshend's Lifehouse Chronicles as one of modern music's landmark achievements. It's a shame that the piece as a whole (not just the stuff on Who's Next) isn't more widely acknowledged than it is.

Well they are both creative geniuses.

But of course that came as a cost for both of them with break downs.

 

[evo]

All i see is blind idol worshiping from people who aren't capable of seeing flaws.

I've already explained to you I don't worship them,not by a long shot.In fact the type of music they played is not even my favourite genre.

Of course they had flaws,hell the're just humans.

Additionally I've conceded that Plant wasn't a particulalry good front man(although i don't see why Plants name need even come into it this discussion.Your original premise is all based around Page's credibility as an inovatator,or lack there off.

The thread was never about saying LZ were crap, it was discussing why they in my opinion don't rank up there with artists like the Beatles when people discuss greatest of all time.

And i'm happy to stick by that opinion.

I know your aren't saying they were crap,you saying Page wasn't innovative.The way i see it you opinion is flawed because it relys on the 'evidence' that because Page was successful and highly sought after as a session guitarist prior to forming LZ is somehow proof that it follows he wasn't innovative.It's a ridiculous argument.

I'm sorry ASMS,you have a reasonably good knowledge on a number of music genres through history,but you really are pushing shit up hill on this particular one.

Plus what Carlos said...

I reckon the 2 things hanging off either side of your head would be better value, but hey, each to their own dude.

If you think LZ work constitutes a mere ripoff of the Yardbirds Smitty, i highly recommend you have another listen...

 

[Papa G]

I reckon the 2 things hanging off either side of your head would be better value, but hey, each to their own dude.

Agree, didn't NME rate OK Computer as the best album of all time one year?

 

[Carlos]

Agree, didn't NME rate OK Computer as the best album of all time one year?

They also rated the first Arctic Monkeys album as the 5th best British album of all time.

 

[evo]

haaargh haaargh!

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

They also rated the first Arctic Monkeys album as the 5th best British album of all time.

NME was a great publication back when.

Now it's gone to the shitter

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

I've already explained to you I don't worship them,not by a long shot.In fact the type of music they played is not even my favourite genre.

Of course they had flaws,hell the're just humans.

Additionally I've conceded that Plant wasn't a particulalry good front man(although i don't see why Plants name need even come into it this discussion.Your original premise is all based around Page's credibility as an inovatator,or lack there off.

My original premice was simply why i can see they arent in the top 5 bands of all time.

Top 10 easily though.

I know your aren't saying they were crap,you saying Page wasn't innovative.The way i see it you opinion is flawed because it relys on the 'evidence' that because Page was successful and highly sought after as a session guitarist prior to forming LZ is somehow proof that it follows he wasn't innovative.It's a ridiculous argument.

I made reference to Beck's album to suggest they weren't the innovators of a heavy metal sound album.

But i credit them with doing it better than anyone who did it before them.

I made reference to what he did before LZ without the word innovative, i said creative.
It was the 60's anyone and everyone who could write was writing songs, i just found it strange that there's nothing from Page for the greater part of the 60's.

Surely he should have come up with something during his time with the Yardbirds that was memorable.

I'm sorry ASMS,you have a reasonably good knowledge on a number of music genres through history,but you really are pushing shit up hill on this particular one.

Plus what Carlos said...If you think LZ work constitutes a mere ripoff of the Yardbirds Smitty, i highly recommend you have another listen...

I never said they were a Yardbirds rip, i said they ripped a Yardbirds song and didn't credit it.

So that was referring to one song not them as a band. The Yardbirds were nothing like LZ.

 

[Jimi]

Smith, most of your so called LZ idol-worshippers form their opinions based on what they listen to, rather than some dodgy, hypocrisy filled website run by a guy with an obvious agenda against Led Zep and Page in particular (he rates Genesis, Brian Eno, Talking heads, The Ramones, etc above them!).

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Smith, most of your so called LZ idol-worshippers form their opinions based on what they listen to, rather than some dodgy, hypocrisy filled website run by a guy with an obvious agenda against Led Zep and Page in particular (he rates Genesis, Brian Eno, Talking heads, The Ramones, etc above them!).

Agendas?

It's music, not world politics

 

[UpForGrabs]

Smith, most of your so called LZ idol-worshippers form their opinions based on what they listen to, rather than some dodgy, hypocrisy filled website run by a guy with an obvious agenda against Led Zep and Page in particular (he rates Genesis, Brian Eno, Talking heads, The Ramones, etc above them!).

Nothing wrong with Talking Heads or The Ramones. Don't know about Genesis though - as soon as Peter Gabriel left them the dodginess started to creep in.