Content: Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Background: Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Pattern: Blank Waves Notes Sharp Wood Rockface Leather Honey Vertical Triangles
Welcome to 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 Dane1968

Profile Information

  • Location
  1. I never implied, if taken, that his lack of sustain was a bad thing. It was just unusual compared to his contemporaries of the time. Blackmore was incredible for his heavy Strat tone. Paul Kossoff, Free, could also sit on one note all day. Then it comes back to the great misconception that Page carried the whole sound, whereas the reality is Jones gave a great foundation to enable Page to ease back on the guitar, and yet still get a great band sound, not just a guitar sound. A lot of amp gain will give more sustain, but then you lose the clarity and subtle notes - and then you lose the whole light and shade thing. I think Ian Paice was as loud as Bonham, playing live he was, but then he was competing with more instruments so would not sound as prominent. He also had a somewhat lesser album recording sound and mix. When Ringo played, you could cough louder than he hit, but now I've kinda lost track of my point. Maybe that the belief is that Page was a loud raucous player when he was not at all - at least not all the time.
  2. Sixpence thanks, nice reply. A couple of things, they are my opinion, and they are mostly true: Bonham was no where as loud as people have been led to believe. Yes he was loud, in the context of the 60's and 70's. But at the time drummers did not tend to beat the shit out of their kits like they do today, so he was perceived as being extra ordinarily loud compared to everyone else. J P Jones has stated, loosely "No he wasn't as loud as people think..." Bonham was a solid largish six foot kinda guy, so he had a bit of natural weight behind him. I would not like to be on the receiving end of a punch. When you watch him play he did not pound his kit, he hit it correctly and solidly. If you hit a drum too softly it rattles and has no depth, hit to hard and it chokes the sound. Bonham knew the sweet spot in between. He knew how to tune a drum to get the maximum sound benefit. Playing a Tele or Les Paul has no real difference in volume, that is the amp's job. There will be a difference in sound but not volume. Sometimes a Tele will sound louder as higher frequencies carry faster than lower frequencies. You can probably hear a Tele better in your ears, and feel a Les Paul better in your body. This wasn't the topic, but Ace is one hell of a lead player. So much personality and feeling. He can, and does, sit on one or two notes and really just make you think he is playing more than he is. A lot of it was his confidence surpassed his ability. The greatest thing is seeing a player walk out on stage and believe in himself. It makes you believe you are seeing something better than you actually are. Page had that too. You could see he walked out on a stage and just loved playing and didn't care if he was the best or not.
  3. I don't get much time to post. Go to work, come home, cook food, wash dishes, do laundry, and have maybe two hours till I have to sleep and repeat. Some people call that life. I don't but it is what it is. Whoever invented money needs a good 'talking' to... Dane
  4. Presence is perhaps my fave. Then again some of it sounds like a Strat, but Jimmy said, and I only quote loosely, that he played all of it "...rightly or wrongly, it was all done on a Paul...". If that was the case, again I'm guessing, he was so pressed for time he didn't want to, or have the luxury, to mess around getting different guitar sounds set up. And yet he did get different sounds. But that's the point maybe. On some albums he had time, but the results sound rushed, and on Presence he had no time but it sounds like he had all the time in the world. None of this is a criticism, but when you make a point of stating a guitar's strength and why you chose that guitar, at times I don't think he got what he was looking for in a guitar tone. Then again a recording is not always a true result of the sound of a band playing together loudly in a room. Sometimes you get what you get and have to move on. It is not like today when a band takes three years to record ten songs - really? Presence is probably their best recording sound wise, very clear and distinct. Out Door is pretty damn good except for the low guitar mix.
  5. Jimmy has said one reason he went from a Telecaster to a Les Paul was the increase in sustain. Nigel Tufnel comes to mind, having time to indulge in a bite to eat in between notes on his '59 Les Paul. Jimmy played a '59 and never seemed to enjoy that benefit. A bit odd considering much of Page's playing has no sustain at all. In many of his lead breaks, the notes just die off very quickly. Won't go through song by song, but on Houses of the Holy and Physical Graffiti albums it is very apparent. Yes I know he played a variety of guitars, but still.... Page never used much amp gain, but he would have had his amp volume cranked. If you cant get sustain with a loud amp, what's going on? I'm guessing Jimmy had a very light touch, while Ace Frehley is well regarded for having huge sustain while bending and vibrating the hell out of his strings. Both had similar setups. Most players in the 70's just cranked a Strat or Les Paul straight into a Marshall Plexi, didn't they? Different players, yeah I know. Fair enough live, when Jimmy was playing rhythm, lead, then quickly back to rhythm again; he didn't have time to just sit on one note. But in the studio?
  6. Poorly educated Punk rockers was perhaps a general statement. Yes, many were well educated but they liked to give the impression they were uneducated and stifled by the constraints of middle upper class, to appeal to those that actually were. Punk was about giving the finger to establishment, and you couldn't get away with that if you were born from/into the establishment. That is my understanding of English punk anyway. Apparently England in the late 70's was the wrong time to be bragging about being rich and educated - Thatcher recession? American punk was just about having a good time, English punk was to prove a point (more or less), and that having a chip on your shoulder was a valid excuse for being a teenager. Punk was also about that you didn't have to be an indulgent musical virtuoso (Page, Blackmore) to be in a band. The stated rock bands were just 'general examples': the point being that to progress into the eighties you had to somewhat alter your sound and image, which those bands that were successful did just that. Compare the Stones, Queen, Pink Floyd etc, their early work to their later work and it is obvious they grew and adapted to the times.
  7. Some people seem to confuse a producer with an audio engineer. A producer's primary job is that of a performance coach: to get the most appropriate instrument performance parts for the song. The audio engineer is jointly responsible for getting sounds, of which the producer has to direct what type of sound is required. The mixer then mixes, and again the producer will have directed what type of mix is required. A producer does a lot more than just making it sound good; it has to play good as well. In sporting terms, the producer would be the football coach, and the team play the best game they can under the coach's guidance. Page happened to be both.
  8. Hypothetically if everything was well within Led Zeppelin, you would have to ask where would they go musically into the 1980's? The 1970's had become an embarrassment: the music, fashions, lifestyles, shag pile carpets etc. Everything was about being new: new music styles, computer technology so on. The 70's were fantastic but things move on or get left behind. There was the New Wave of British Metal like Iron Maiden, New Wave pop bands like Human League, poorly educated Punk rockers. If you were past 30 years old it was over. Many successful rock bands of the 70's did not know how to fit in. Kiss were struggling, Aerosmith, Deep Purple and the Stones likewise. The great irony is that many older bands had improved playing and songwriting wise, with no body in the general public interested.
  9. As far as recording songs, this is usually more difficult than writing the songs. A band does not just walk into a studio, set up, hit record and play the song through once or twice. A band may play from five up to forty takes of a song. The usual run down is to record the drums, and maybe bass at the same time, while the guitar and vocals just play as a place keeper so everybody knows where they are in the song. Sometimes the guitars are kept, sometimes not. I have a bootleg of the studio recordings of Babe I'm Gonna Leave You. There are at least 15 takes. I think about take 12 was used for the final version. Bonham's playing was pretty appalling on some of the takes, all over the place, speeding up and slowing down. Maybe he was having a bad day but it took him 10 run through's to settle into the song. And after all that playing, Page would then do his own overdubs. So you can imagine the amount of playing Page did on each recording. Some bands like to record mostly live, others like to do bit by bit. I would think Zeppelin liked to get the whole song down as complete as possible. From these multiple takes, recorded on physical tape, the best parts are literally cut out of the tape then stuck/spliced together using adhesive tape to form a final continuous take. This final continuous take could have anywhere from three to twenty different pieces of tape stuck together (the tighter the band/drummer, the less pieces of tape.) This would then be duplicated onto a new reel of tape, and all the guitars, vocals etc would be overdubbed onto. Of course, this was the 1970's when a good performance was necessary. Modern recordings on computer are completely different, where a good performance is an afterthought: you could record a spicy dinner violently leaving your body and make it sound good. It is almost unheard of for a band to record the entire song with all instruments at the same time, in one take without mistakes, and keep all those parts for the final mix. Then again, some days everyone is just on, and it happens very quickly.
  10. Does the lack of replies confirm what I am thinking? That this is not the place for blatant self-promotion, and used-car salesman tactics?
  11. You can take tribute/cover bands in three ways: -- A hard core fan in which nothing can ever replace the original, and it is insulting to even try, and degrading to listen to. -- A casual fan that just likes to hear the songs and doesn't care who plays them. -- Musicians that like to see the songs performed live, just to see what the chords are and how parts of the song are played. It is kind of like a learning tutorial experience if you will never see the actual band play live. An average person might get to see their favorite international band perform live maybe five times ever in their own lifetime. It can be a good substitute. You know it is not the real deal, and if you accept it as such, it is just a fun night out - if the band can play well. Trying to impersonate with the wigs etc is ridiculous though, just play the songs. Where does the Jason Bonham LZ Experience fit in? It is just a cover band, one of many, in reality. A bit sad to be riding your father's coat-tails, but it also lets people see and hear the songs live when there is no way ever of seeing the original band again; which I think was the whole well-intentioned point of it.
  12. My internet has been down, or rather, I couldn't afford the bill. In Melbourne. No I don't like any football, rugby, not much sport as all as I am hopeless at it. Maybe cricket. I used to film football games as a job, so I have seen far too many games that I don't ever want to see another. Don't mind the bogans, really - good for a laugh. I rocked a pretty mean mullet in the 80's, along with every one else. Never went as far as the Billy-Ray Cyrus though. Aussie's have an odd way of complimenting each other by way of trading insults. Goes over well in person but not in text.
  13. I was a bit harsh here. There was no fault in asking, and that wasn't the answer it deserved, so I retract my comments. I was wrong.
  14. Oh my fn god. Of course he is done. Put yourself in Jimmy's shoes... there are no more great songs to write as they have been done over and over... He is of a mature age that physically would find it difficult and tedious. Hotels and traveling is not fun for anyone long term, especially when the novelty wore off in the 80's, 90's. If you were Jimmy probably the last thing you would want to do is tour. You would love to record, one day...There is just that one last song to get out... It is a harsh reality to admit to yourself when it is over. You are a selfish prick really for asking. He is in realty an old man. An old man, by societies definition. Would you ask and expect your own grandfather to put up with the crap that is called touring? He would just shake his head and look at you like, are you for real? It ended long term in 1980. ... 1980... we have had some stuff here and there since, but fucking come on. Just get over it and put on the records/CDs. Every aging musician dreams about still being on the stage, but they know deep down it won't really happen. Dreaming keeps you alive but everyone knows realistically it is just a dream. Jesus man, come one,
  15. The thing I like most about Australia is the easy going, 'we are all friends here', atmosphere. Especially to foreign travelers. We like to extend welcoming open arms to everybody. To Aussie "Slave to Zep" : that's a sexy avatar photo you have. Evster looks kind of ok, rocking in his 90's cut-off jeans with the double neck. The thing I like least about Australia is the horrendous lazy accent, lack of speaking ability, and the bogans, and there are many that hang around like a plague. For the international traveler, a 'bogan' is what we call, in your language; home grown white trash, uneducated, unsophisticated, redneck, hillbilly chev scum; that is, people that do not have the ability to speak properly, have no teeth, and see no reason why they should. -- Here is a reason: you are a minority world wide embarrassment that tarnishes our whole country's reputation, and you should fuck off and die. Then again every country has them, I suppose. Bogans are the crap that gets stuck on your shoe sole, where it is easier to just throw away the shoe than clean it off. Then again, there are some sophisticated Australians that have university educations and don't want to fuck the first thing they see that moves. There are some. Bogans only have the limited mental capacity to say "Straya", which they think, in their peanut brains, translates to what should be said as "Au-stra-li-a." Here is a tip for the Aussie bogans: finish one word before you say the next word, finish one sentence before you start the next sentence. Intelligent people may then have an understanding of what you are trying to mumble. I think you know where I now stand - no I'm not stuck up, but I like to elevate rather than lower my standards sometimes, but not all times. Sometimes I go low.