Nutrocker Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Regarding mirrors on stage, the Rolling Stones in 1972 was the first time I saw mirrors used to reflect stage lights in concert. Led Zeppelin borrowed this effect on their 1973 US tour. My bad, I forgot the Stones pioneered the technique back in '72...a very cool effect no matter who's using it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ListenToThis Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 I know many are keen on this show. I've listened intently whenever I give it a go - its good but it doesn't stand out to me performance wise. The band and particularly Bonham on the 28th in Cleveland seemed to be at full tilt, but this is somewhat of a return to the standard '77 fare. I will say I love the disco hi-hat Bonham employs during Trampled at the 04/27, 04/28 and this day's event. I completely recognize each has their own opinion. But is it the atmosphere that makes this show so appealing? Or the fact there is video? What is it about this concert? I will say the photo of Plant and the after show tales from the Troy Hilton do give it some backstory and create a "day in the life of Led Zeppelin" attraction. How nice it would be to have a comprehensive release, with live and backstage photos, stories, facts and a soundboard. I'd pay handsome for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AIRSHIPLED Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 AIRSHIPLED, just think of the song, "Brother, can you spare a dime?" ha ya that helps alot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallas Knebs Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 hoarders be hoarding I am confident Houston, Pontiac, Montreaux and Zurich exist. It's been more than 35 years without any proof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geezer Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 (edited) hoarders be hoarding I am confident Houston, Pontiac, Montreaux and Zurich exist. Pontiac was proshot as evidenced by the cameramen seen in photos, but how would you prove that the other three shows were filmed? Edited February 12, 2013 by Geezer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallas Knebs Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 I am not a hoarder nor would I ever presume it to be my place to prove anything Geezer. Proof is subjective anyway, one can always disqualify it, nitpick it, slime it. Just because I see a camera doesn't mean there was film in it... doesn't mean it was turned on. Or that the recorder was on. Or that the film was any good. And so on... Usually under the influence of pride, ego and alcohol and stuff, those who are hoarders boast and have been known to do stupid things that get out of their private (they think) trusted circles. Hoarding is a sickness and as such cannot be reasonable. One guy I do know personally (we are not friends) says because he heard a voice tell him that he is the chosen keeper and protector and upon his demise must choose a worthy successor to do the same. Utter bs. The same guy has no problem hawking merchandise for 20x what it's worth even if it's possibly fake but oh no way is he going to share a videotape and a handful of cassette tapes. Now, he will send word that it's for sale for a price that is out of reach when confronted or when he is off his meds or on whatever pharma cloud he is under at the time is running his sh**. Something will click and he and the rest of the hoarders will trade their high of having control and power for a high of glory of being the one to bring stuff to light. Usually once they feel their illusion of control start to slip, they jump ship and grab for glory of being a hero. Just share. It's ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geezer Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 (edited) I am not a hoarder nor would I ever presume it to be my place to prove anything Geezer. Proof is subjective anyway, one can always disqualify it, nitpick it, slime it. Just because I see a camera doesn't mean there was film in it... doesn't mean it was turned on. Or that the recorder was on. Or that the film was any good. And so on... Why would any cameramen hold a camera for more than 3 hours if there was no tape in it? Usually under the influence of pride, ego and alcohol and stuff, those who are hoarders boast and have been known to do stupid things that get out of their private (they think) trusted circles. Hoarding is a sickness and as such cannot be reasonable. I agree. Who doesn't? As for the Montreux shows... Which one are you referring to -- 1970 or 1971? Anyway, I've been sifting through the photos of all three shows and I can assure you that there were no cameras onstage during any of them. The same for Zurich. Edited February 12, 2013 by Geezer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reezon Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Keep in mind there was a close circuit system in the silverdome which that cameraman seen on stage is said to be there for that purpose of showing the band on the big screen that was in place for the show. there is absolutley no evidence what so ever of a proshot recorded for that show Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidZoso Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Keep in mind there was a close circuit system in the silverdome which that cameraman seen on stage is said to be there for that purpose of showing the band on the big screen that was in place for the show. there is absolutley no evidence what so ever of a proshot recorded for that show That was the funtion of the closed circuit system at Seatlle as well and well yet it was recorded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geezer Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 There are no photos in which the screen is in use. My question: why would the band have the hired cameramen if the screen was not going to be used? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reezon Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 That was the funtion of the closed circuit system at Seatlle as well and well yet it was recorded Yes your right about that, and there is evidence to back that up, but like i said there is no evidence that supports the same for pontiac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidZoso Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 There is no evidence to support that it doesn't exist either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reezon Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 There is no evidence to support that it doesn't exist either. ok, u got me there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidZoso Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 ok, u got me there I believe there is so much stuff in private collectors/hoarders hands that we would be very surprised what actually exists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reezon Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 There are no photos in which the screen is in use. My question: why would the band have the hired cameramen if the screen was not going to be used? The band didnt hire any camera man for this show. I know many people that where at this show and indeed the big screen was in use that night Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reezon Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 I believe there is so much stuff in private collectors/hoarders hands that we would be very surprised what actually exists. This is one show that if it was pro shot and professionally recorded it would have come out. The band was absolutely on fire that night. there are people who will argue this based on the exsisting bootlegs out there. Which are crap. As for hoarders, who are you referring to, Jimmy? Peter Grant? They would be the one's in control of such a recording. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glyn Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 I don't see how they would have gone through the trouble of tolerating the cameramen on stage and not at least end up with a copy of it. Now, if the tape has happened to get out and into collectors hands, that is another thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geezer Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 (edited) The band didnt hire any camera man for this show. What do you mean? If the band hadn't hired the cameramen, they wouldn't have appeared there. Simple. I know many people that where at this show and indeed the big screen was in use that night Are there any photos that could verify that the big screen was in use? If the screen really was in use, then I'm seeing these options: 1. Each camera was sending its feed to the video room. The vision mixer was choosing the best shots for display on the big screen. What was being shown on the big screen was being taped (just like the Seattle show). 2. Each camera was sending its feed to the video room. Individual feeds were being taped (unlikely). 3. Each camera had its own tape, the way the Knebworth concerts were shot (highly unlikely) Edited February 12, 2013 by Geezer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reezon Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 What do you mean? If the band hadn't hired the cameramen, they wouldn't have appeared there. Simple. Are there any photos that could verify that the big screen was in use? I dont know if i have much more energy to continue this conversation, but ill just say that over the last 35+ years this subject has been talked about plenty and if i had the motivation to drag out my archives then i would show u some proof but im just to lazy to do it. Sorry. And that camera man was there for the close circuit feed and not hired by the band. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glyn Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 First hand account from Bruce "the Buckeye" Deerhake that the screens were in use http://www.oldbuckey...acsilverdome77/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reezon Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 First hand account from Bruce "the Buckeye" Deerhake that the screens were in use http://www.oldbuckey...acsilverdome77/ Thank u Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nutrocker Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 First hand account from Bruce "the Buckeye" Deerhake that the screens were in use http://www.oldbuckey...acsilverdome77/ Thank u Indeed. I don't even see the point of arguing about whether the damned Pontiac show was filmed; it was. So was Seattle, difference is the film of the Seattle show leaked out -last 'reel' first if I remember correctly- and Pontiac didn't. Or hasn't, or won't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geezer Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 (edited) If Page has the Seattle tape in his vault, I think it has become clear enough that he has the Pontiac one, too. Edited February 12, 2013 by Geezer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glyn Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 I wasn't around when all of this stuff was happening, but isn't it that the first time Seattle 77 and Knebworth were seen was on the MTV Rockumentary in 1990? It would seem (from my perspective anyways) that MTV's use of those two shows dislodged them from the vaults. If Page does indeed have a copy of it, you have to wonder why it wasn't used instead of Seattle? Listening to the Pontiac show for the first time now, quite phenomenal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geezer Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 If Page does indeed have a copy of it, you have to wonder why it wasn't used instead of Seattle? Are you referring to the 2003 DVD release? If so, then the reason is obvious -- the concert was not multitracked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.