Slate Chocolate Marble
Slate Chocolate Marble

Led Zeppelin Official Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About JohnOsbourne

  • Rank
    Zep Head

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    The Darkest Depths of Mordor

Recent Profile Visitors

963 profile views
  1. I like the outfit from the Seattle-Vancouver shows in '73.
  2. Agreed, very nice cover version.
  3. Well, your exact statement was "Taking other artists songs and claiming them as their own is the extent of how they changed music." Claiming someone else's work as your own is the definition of plagiarism, no? And plagiarism is usually cause for dismissal, I'd say. At any rate, I don't disagree with you that their impact on popular music *as a whole* was not as revolutionary as the Beatles. It is true that hard rock existed before Zep (e.g. the great Cream is underappreciated here), but as others have already noted in this thread, hard rock after Zep was very different, and other pioneers in the genre (Sabbath, Purple) acknowledge Zeppelin's trail-blazing here. I'd say their influence on the sub-genre of metal/hard rock (say what you want about it, it is not simply a minor or niche market) IS revolutionary.
  4. It is true their popular impact was not nearly as revolutionary as The Beatles (or Elvis). Although, they were probably the first band to inspire an almost communal following in their fans (admittedly, not necessarily a good thing, and it could be a particularly American manifestation, not sure how fervent European Zep fans are). However, it seems pretty extreme (not to mention petty) to dismiss their musical impact as amounting to plagiarism. Or are you simply claiming that subsequent musicians are not completely forthright in acknowledging their influences due to Zeppelin's precedent? If so, who cares?
  5. Good points. Even the other two contemporary bands who, with Zeppelin, can be considered the founders of heavy metal - Sabbath and Purple - explicitly acknowledge Zeppelin's influence in framing their sound.
  6. If someone willingly posts a show without controlling who downloads it, they shouldn't complain when others do, in fact, download it for free.
  7. Is this a bootleg? Who uploaded it, the band, one of it's representatives, a random fan, etc.?
  8. If true, that sucks.
  9. 7-28-73 is probably the best. Even though the '75 versions don't get a lot of love, the 3-12 version from Long Beach is just killer.
  10. 7-6 has some really good playing from Page and Bonham, however. 7-6 is interesting because it seems clear from the sound that there are two different sources: the first half is kind of flat-sounding, almost like NO or Dallas, while the second half is very clear and sharp-sounding.
  11. I stand corrected: MD is on the soundboard.
  12. 7/29 only has part (10 min or so) of Dazed, no? Isn't Moby Dick also missing?
  13. Sure, np. Almost all of the '73 boards are fragments (either first 2/3 or last 1/3), and the complete ones (2nd NY, 1st Chi, NO) predate the "revolution". Not sure if they're from a single source or not, but pretty sure they're not from the '75 and '77 source.
  14. All of the "soundboard revolution" releases so far have been from a specific window of shows from '75 and '77 (and nothing from '73). Obviously whoever is releasing the shows chooses at will when and which ones to release, but so far the releases have been a good mix of classics, rarities, and duds (conforming with general assessment of the shows, subjectivity doesn't play a big role in that claim). It seems reasonable, then, to view the particular choices as essentially a random draw. The probability that this many shows from '75 (almost half), say, would have been released without ANY January shows is statistically tiny. (Again, there is no reason to think that the source is just waiting for the right moment to release Bloomington, say, and assuming he's like most fans it's doubtful he thinks the January shows are the best.) Same for '77, although maybe you could argue that the '77 sample is still too small to make a strong conclusion, fair enough. The observed pattern of releases is most consistent with the claim that whoever is behind the "revolution" only has a specific subset of shows, and not the entire batch. (It's a falsifiable claim, as well, I revised my skepticism about the LA '75 shows when 3-21 was announced.) This does not mean of course that soundboards of other shows might not exist from a different, non-Page source. But so far (based on available evidence), I have no reason to think that such a source either exists or is forthcoming with releases.
  15. Not sure what their motivation is, but by releasing 3-21 now (when it's almost certain they still have 2-27 [unreleased], 3-10, and 3-12 [another all-time great]), they seem to be signaling that they have the LA '75 shows as well, which will obviously be a big event (even though none of those shows count among the best of the tour, at least overall). They most likely have the Greensboro '77 show, which is unreleased in any form (possibly Birmingham and Baton Rouge as well), so whatever show gets released after Seattle '75 will probably be exciting. (I seriously doubt they have any LA '77 shows, however.)