McSeven Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 What do you think each took from the blues that made thier sound different from each other? To me Zep amplified it and made it more dramatic. The Stones were pretty standared with it and made the blues more straight for the times. Mind you I listen to a lot more Zep than Stones. It almost like Zep electricuted the blues. The Stones smoothed it out. Anyways. I am just curious about the differences in your mind on what both bands took from the blues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2bitnogoodjive Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaiser Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 The Stones weren't playing just blues but mostly R&B & they are not the same thing despite what people think. Zeppelin's most famous "blues" song "SIBLY" is closer to a soul song than a blusinging but gets labelled a blues because of the guitar despite that the vocal approach and organ are pure soul, again not the same as blues. I think what both bands did was confuse their audience as to what the blues is. Plant & Page know what the blues is as does Jagger & Richards but their respective audiences seem to think if the influence is from an African American artist from the 50's or before it's instantly a blues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matjaz1 Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 I always liked your posts McSeven! I think The Stones played the blues a lot more straightforward yeah and that had a lot to do with their technical abillity! Zeppelins techical abillity was just incredible and they were also tremendous arrangers, so when they took the blues, they just made pure gold out of it, that even if it still was the blues, it was just pure Led Zeppelin! The Stones did it quite well to, but it was many times acoustic kind of stuff, quite similar to the original, where Jagger style did quite a bit, but the rest not that much, except for that the old bleusman played without the drums many times! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JP78 Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 The Stones weren't playing just blues but mostly R&B & they are not the same thing despite what people think. Zeppelin's most famous "blues" song "SIBLY" is closer to a soul song than a blusinging but gets labelled a blues because of the guitar despite that the vocal approach and organ are pure soul, again not the same as blues. I think what both bands did was confuse their audience as to what the blues is. Plant & Page know what the blues is as does Jagger & Richards but their respective audiences seem to think if the influence is from an African American artist from the 50's or before it's instantly a blues. how about " tea for one" . how would you describe that one? i know in live performances parts of tea for one seemed to be included in SIBLY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matjaz1 Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 I think Tea for one is a very atypicall blues, pure Zeppelin! You can't find much of Willie Dixon or Robert Johson in there! You got monstrous Page riffs and lots of stuff that make it pure Zep and the lenght and the drag and Robert exclaming 'I feel this way' make it very dark, bleak and also serene in a way, even if the lyrics are about sort of nervous pain and loneliness! I find the all of the music on Presence to be kind of white, bleak in color, like the album cover! I also find Houses of the holy songs to be orange, except for The rain song which I find sort of bright greenish and No quarter which I find to be blue and black! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaiser Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 how about " tea for one" . how would you describe that one? i know in live performances parts of tea for one seemed to be included in SIBLY. The whole structure of "Tea For One" is a post 1950's Chicago blues in the style of what Albert & BB King were doing in the mid to late 60's. By the time of their popular recordings the blues genre was almost totally removed from the 1920's to 1940's Delta blues that Zeppelin captured perfectly on their truest blues song & one of their most maligned being "Hats Off To (Roy) Harper". That's truly a blues song, it's not some sort of hybrid of other genres as "SIBLY", "Custard Pie", "Whole Lotta Love", "Trampled Underfoot", "NFBM", & "I'm Gonna Crawl" are. "When The Levee Breaks" is another true Delta blues song except that it's 30 years later & pumped up on steroids. JPJ did not listen to the blues, he liked soul, that's the influence he brought to "SIBLY" & "I'm Gonna Crawl" as Plant's vocals are following the foundation of what JPJ wrote & played on the song rather than Page's post 1950's blues guitar fills. As far as the Stones their most authentic blues are probably their studio versions of "Prodigal Son", "Love In Vain", & "You Got To Move" which are all covers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaiser Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 The Stones weren't playing just blues but mostly R&B & they are not the same thing despite what people think. Zeppelin's most famous "blues" song "SIBLY" is closer to a soul song than a blues song but gets labelled a blues because of the guitar despite that the vocal approach and organ are pure soul, again not the same as blues. I think what both bands did was confuse their audience as to what the blues is. Plant & Page know what the blues is as does Jagger & Richards but their respective audiences seem to think if the influence is from an African American artist from the 50's or before it's instantly a blues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.