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.

Strider

Jimmy Page Responds to Keith Richards

278 posts in this topic

They have all cemented their place at least in the UK music scene. BBC 6 music which caters for hard core music fans plays Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, The Stones et al interspersed with brand new contemporary acts and guess what none sound dated and true music lovers are always looking backwards and forwards. I was too young to appreciate Zeppelin during their years of pomp but boy the music has resonated. As the station is a doorway to teens and well as music lovers of all ages a new audience discovers these acts every day.

 

Edited by anniemouse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/13/2016 at 0:08 AM, SteveAJones said:

The UK press also published rumors that Page was joining The Rolling Stones in 1975. Of course, the job went to Ronnie Wood instead, who, according to Ronnie's book, was actually the one who formed Led Zeppelin in 1968.

Yes, this was what I was referring to about Keef harboring some ideas about "stealing" Jimmy for the band.  They were hanging out quite a bit in 1975-76, etc.  Not that Page would really consider leaving Led Zep, but there may have been some sort of courtship going on. Richards and Page have always had a genuine affection for each other in any case, and quite a few common interests.  

As far as other issues - Lester Bangs, one of the more insightful writers of the 1970s, felt that the Beatles represented a kind of false sentimentality in the 1970s, a longing "for a neverland 1960s that never really happened that way in the first place" ...  That was from a 1980 John Lennon obit published in the LA Times.  The Doors represent that as well, at least in the US in the 1980s.  The amount of Velvet Underground people listen to today in some parts of the US is astonishing.  This generation is after something.  The Stones and people like Bruce Springsteen represent something different, something bigger and longer lasting, a great sprawling rock and roll mythology about American music that never stops rolling along to some undefined and probably pointless yet satisfying end. 

The connection people have to Led Zeppelin (in the US) is more direct -- yes, they dominated the mid-1970s when the Stones were coming out with albums like Black & Blue and Sucking in the 70s -- 1975 Billboard charts were dotted with all six Zep albums released up until then, and they never left the hard rock airwaves.  "Get the Led Out" segments are something you hear almost every day in most major US radio markets.  It's an incredible phenomena, pisses some people off, too.  It pissed Lester Bangs off in the mid-1970s, but too much so.  In my lifetime, most of it spent in the Midwest USA, there has never been a time, a year, or any period where Led Zeppelin was not part of daily life.   From the comments, it sounds like it's quite different in the UK.  I once asked a friend from Scotland what their daily music was like, and for him and his friends (not sure what city he was from) it was the Stones that held our "Led Zeppelin place" in the culture.  That seemed to make sense to me, though when he said they also listened to a lot of John Lee Hooker, I had to laugh. Chicago's just down the road. 

 

Edited by Mercurious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keith Richards thought it was two guys playing ,first time he heard Robert Johnson.

Isn't Johnson famous, because he was recorded? I mean he didn't primarily invent that way of playing the blues?

It's first  years later we are normally able to understand how important a musician/band was, ie. when you strip away the image.

Abba was first healded 20 years later from their heyday for their songwriting. Led Zep was persona non grata in the 70's. Look at them now!

Mozart was some kind of a clown. If you listen to his contemporary Salieri, who was revered in the 17th century, and compare his music to that of Mozart's, it's nolo contendeere.

Beatles are great songwriters, but they did not invent that  pop idiom, they merely wrote their own songs. Great songs, but there are thousands of great songs.

Kids today don't care about the longhaired Beatles or the dangerous Stones. So when the bands image fades, there is nothing left

The foundation of a band is the rhythm, the drums.  Ringo and Watts are boring drummers.

- Bonham is spectacular

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^

Your posts to this thread have become nonsensical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Stones are a total snooze.  People are better off just watching a cover band at a bar on a Weekend.    Richards talks so much smack about everyone even Black Sabbath and Metallica.

Any kind of Led Zeppelin reunion would have been a mockery for later generation kids seeing old people on stage. 

I'd love to see a 4 piece (only, no separate keyboard and bass) Stones lineup try and pull anything off live.

Edited by TheGreatOne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, boylollipop said:

Keith Richards thought it was two guys playing ,first time he heard Robert Johnson.

Isn't Johnson famous, because he was recorded? I mean he didn't primarily invent that way of playing the blues?

It's first  years later we are normally able to understand how important a musician/band was, ie. when you strip away the image.

Abba was first healded 20 years later from their heyday for their songwriting. Led Zep was persona non grata in the 70's. Look at them now!

Mozart was some kind of a clown. If you listen to his contemporary Salieri, who was revered in the 17th century, and compare his music to that of Mozart's, it's nolo contendeere.

Beatles are great songwriters, but they did not invent that  pop idiom, they merely wrote their own songs. Great songs, but there are thousands of great songs.

Kids today don't care about the longhaired Beatles or the dangerous Stones. So when the bands image fades, there is nothing left

The foundation of a band is the rhythm, the drums.  Ringo and Watts are boring drummers.

- Bonham is spectacular

Great job on the final sentence, however everything else is not only wrong but borderline delusional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IpMan said:

Great job on the final sentence, however everything else is not only wrong but borderline delusional.

Outstanding!  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a shame Leslie West does not get any respect.  Leslie is a billion times better than Keith Richards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheGreatOne said:

It's a shame Leslie West does not get any respect.  Leslie is a billion times better than Keith Richards

Does he deserve more? Absolutely. But everyone that knows anything about him knows his incredible talents..

Besides, he's Howard Stern's favorite guitarist..

West would wipe the floor with Keith in a duel. But I don't think he's a better songwriter than Richards.

Edited by the chase

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yea absolutely.  Stones has the biggest amount of hits and songwriting advantage.

Howard used to worship Leslie but not sure how their relations are now.   I've heard Howard make some bad fun of Leslie though

I wonder what Richards thinks of Molly Hatchet and Judas Priest.  The Who singer hates both singers of AC/DC and said they sing like they have a spike/nail stuck in their toe

Edited by TheGreatOne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2016 at 8:21 AM, boylollipop said:

Keith Richards thought it was two guys playing ,first time he heard Robert Johnson.

Isn't Johnson famous, because he was recorded? I mean he didn't primarily invent that way of playing the blues?

It's first  years later we are normally able to understand how important a musician/band was, ie. when you strip away the image.

Abba was first healded 20 years later from their heyday for their songwriting. Led Zep was persona non grata in the 70's. Look at them now!

Mozart was some kind of a clown. If you listen to his contemporary Salieri, who was revered in the 17th century, and compare his music to that of Mozart's, it's nolo contendeere.

Beatles are great songwriters, but they did not invent that  pop idiom, they merely wrote their own songs. Great songs, but there are thousands of great songs.

Kids today don't care about the longhaired Beatles or the dangerous Stones. So when the bands image fades, there is nothing left

The foundation of a band is the rhythm, the drums.  Ringo and Watts are boring drummers.

- Bonham is spectacular

Everyone:  I found that if you read this post backwards, beginning with the statement about Bonham, then read up, it does makes sense - all but the Mozart statement which is out of place, somehow.  Anyhoo, backwards kind fellows, not top-down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Mercurious said:

Everyone:  I found that if you read this post backwards, beginning with the statement about Bonham, then read up, it does makes sense - all but the Mozart statement which is out of place, somehow.  Anyhoo, backwards kind fellows, not top-down.

Also helps if you take purple microdots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/24/2015 at 10:49 AM, BlackDog71 said:

For me, its simple: Richards is an asshole. He's always been an asshole. He says stupid things about artists all the time. His comments on Zeppelin are no different. Me thinks some jealousy is at the core of it. Or maybe because he's....you know....an old, bitter, asshole. 

But that's' just my take on it. 

It is funny, I think it has something to do with in that Richards knew who Jimmy was early on before anyone had heard of Jimmy, and suddenly to Richard's mind Jimmy comes along and steals his thunder so to speak from behind in a studio taking orders from people similar to Richards to where Jimmy was now calling the shots - so perhaps Richards felt like he was part of a generation that were replaced by Jimmy? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.  Keith's comments about Bonham:

Bonham was certainly in-control, but I see what Keith was getting at, it was just a poor choice of words.  Part of the beauty of Bonham's playing was that it gave the illusion of being out-of-control, or at least of teetering right on the edge.  Zeppelin's music called for more aggressive/flamboyant/bombastic drumming.  Bonham certainly doesn't fit the mold of what Keith is looking for in a drummer, but what Keith doesn't seem to understand is that Watts would be just as poor a fit in Zeppelin as Bonham would be in the Stones.  Bands do not reach Zeppelin/Stones stature without the styles and skill-sets of each of their members being perfectly suited to the style of music they're playing.

2.  Page vs. Richards:

It's hard to isolate their individual contributions as song-writers, but I would rank Jagger/Richards over Page/Plant, with Lennon/McCartney ahead of both of them. However, that hierarchy flips (1. Zeppelin, 2. Stones, 3. Beatles) when it comes to pure musical ability/virtuosity on their given instruments and ability as performers.  Now, with that being said, the only virtuosos in the true sense of the word in either the Stones or the Beatles are McCartney and Mick Taylor in my opinion.

3.  Stones-bashing:

I am a big Stones fan.  I've seen them three times (all since 2013--I'm only 21), and hope to see them again this fall.  Make no mistake, the vast majority of their output up until Mick Taylor's departure is fantastic, and Beggars Banquet thru Exile On Main St. is as good of a run of studio albums as anyone has ever had in rock.  However, the vast majority of their post-Mick Taylor output, which now accounts for 77% of their career time-wise, has been decidedly mediocre.  That goes for Some Girls as well, which is a good album, but not legendarily so, and certainly should not be their highest-selling studio album--perhaps if more people owned Sticky Fingers instead they would have a better reputation!  Other than "Beast of Burden," "Before They Make Me Run," "Just My Imagination," and "Miss You," what makes that album good--its humour--is also what disqualifies it from being taken seriously as a great album in my opinion ("Lies" notwithstanding, which is an average and shitty song in every way in my opinion).

4.  Who history will remember:

Like others have said, all of the big names.  Even if the Beatles and the Stones become the Beethoven & Mozart-equivalent, there will always be people who want to go against the grain and like someone with less mainstream popularity--I'm sure there are many classical aficionados who think of Bach/Beethoven/Mozart like pop and prefer someone a bit less well-known, at least in part because they are less well-known.  But I do think the Beatles, Zeppelin and the Stones will all be remembered quite well.  

As others have said, the Stones' exposure level has been grossly disproportionate to both the quality and quantity of their creative output for the past 35 years at least.  That contributes a great deal to the apathy towards them by non-die-hard Stones fans (and even some die-hards now).  Once they retire and/or start dying off, their reputation will start to be more in-keeping with their overall body of work, and eventually their reputation will be based mostly on their peak-period.  The other factor is that people seem to be much more oblivious to their "deep-cuts" than they are to Zeppelin's.  Part of this is because people are forced to listen to all of Zeppelin's studio catalog since they haven't played a full concert in North America in 39 years, and have precious few official live releases (we bootleg nuts are a relatively small minority, even among people who would list Zeppelin as their favourite band), whereas the Stones roll through every couple years and play the greatest hits, so it's less common for people's thirst for "more Stones" to have to be satisfied by exploring the deep-cuts.  The Stones are also their own worst enemy in this regard, though.  It's a cyclical thing where they only play the greatest hits (more or less) because they think that's all most of the audience knows, which is true, but part of that is because that's all they ever play.  

As for Zeppelin being discounted because of the perception of them having started heavy metal, I don't think that label will stick 100+ years from now.  The only people who still believe that shit are either people who were growing up (likely in high school) when that was a popular theory, or their kids if they choose to adopt their parents' views on the matter.  It can be very hard to change someone's initial opinion of a band (whether developed on their own or adopted from someone else), no matter how many facts you present to disprove their assessment.  However, these sorts of petty and inaccurate stereotypes will eventually fade, and when someone 100+ years from now begins to study rock with no pre-conceived notions, I trust that they will be able to make an even more accurate and objective assessment of who started what and who was better than who than we can today.

Edited by Bonzo_fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the father of a teen boy, I can tell you that his group LOVES the Beatles, Stones, and Zep.  Makes long car rides so awesome!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/28/2016 at 0:10 AM, Bonzo_fan said:

there will always be people who want to go against the grain and like someone with less mainstream popularity

Yeah, those blasted Rush fans. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Page 'manufactured'  Zep.Grant handled 'business'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/30/2016 at 1:13 AM, Balthazor said:

Yeah, those blasted Rush fans. :D

Yep i'm one of those blasted Rush fans,always going against the grain.Zep and Rush stand proudly side by side on my shelf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides what has been mentioned, there is the issue of much Stones music being played in a tight ensemble format.

This causes deep misunderstandings because Zep could play tightly as an ensemble, but live except for JPJ there was

a decided effort by most of the band to quite frequently try to play in a virtuosic manner. This makes the music more

unpredictable and exciting, but also subject to more mistakes and rough spots. Pink Floyd, with David Gilmour, live

combined the Zep and Stones approach: there would be extended solos and jamming, but little if any of it would 

be free-form or where the entire band(like Zep) is all improvising at once. Listening to the Stones many songs have

a certain groove that is locked in, and I have a hunch that Richards dislikes bands that can't do or play the R&B or

soul grooves he prefers. Of course he is still a cranky old bastard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎9‎/‎2016 at 8:21 AM, boylollipop said:

Keith Richards thought it was two guys playing ,first time he heard Robert Johnson.

Isn't Johnson famous, because he was recorded? I mean he didn't primarily invent that way of playing the blues?

It's first  years later we are normally able to understand how important a musician/band was, ie. when you strip away the image.

Abba was first healded 20 years later from their heyday for their songwriting. Led Zep was persona non grata in the 70's. Look at them now!

Mozart was some kind of a clown. If you listen to his contemporary Salieri, who was revered in the 17th century, and compare his music to that of Mozart's, it's nolo contendeere.

Beatles are great songwriters, but they did not invent that  pop idiom, they merely wrote their own songs. Great songs, but there are thousands of great songs.

Kids today don't care about the longhaired Beatles or the dangerous Stones. So when the bands image fades, there is nothing left

The foundation of a band is the rhythm, the drums.  Ringo and Watts are boring drummers.

- Bonham is spectacular

Keith did think it was 2 guitarist, first time he heard Johnson, I have the interview.

If Johnson wasnt recorded, we wouldn't know who he was also true.

3 and 4 I agree too, Zeppelin was hated by critics then, I didn't like nirvana till 20 years later, after all the hype was gone and just listened to the music, most of grunge, I didn't appreciate till last year or so.

Mozart you were right about that too. I saw the movie lol

I don't see why you got so much hate, when what you said was true, maybe some didn't understand what you ment.

 

Edited by #1fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2015 at 2:10 AM, Strider said:

Oh, and it was no surprise that it was a Rolling Stone magazine writer who stirried up the pot in the first place by asking Keef those questions and then inserting himself into the article. Hey Patrick Doyle...nobody gives a rat turd what your feelings on Led Zeppelin are. You were hired to interview Keef about his new album, not share your opinions on Led Zeppelin. I guess Jan Wenner and company are still pissed that time has shown Rolling Stone was on the wrong side of history when it came to Led Zeppelin and that their reviews and stance on Led Zeppelin back in the 1970s makes them look idiotic.

Well said Strider. . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of Zep bashing tends to be sour grapes but in Keith's case I think its understandable given his own tastes. He's always had a strong connection with Blues/RnB/US country and if you value those things above all in rock music I can understand being less of a fan of Zep who whilst they obviously featured influence from these areas weren't nearly so confined to them as the Stones and never really focused that much on creating an "authentic" recreation of them. With Zep you can add in a stronger influences from Rock n Roll, UK folk, Funk and perhaps most importantly(compared to the Stones) I would say classical music, not just in terms of Page quoting a few pieces but in the focus on dramatics.

At the end of the day really the Stones weren't a very political band bar Satisfaction, they arguably came to represent a more political era for rock but like Zep they were really a mix of good times rock and creating there own legend/atmosphere. Just take your pick, the mystical world hopping of Zep vs the US time warp of the Stones.

Edited by greenman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the things I've always liked about Jimmy is that he seems to be a "if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything," kind of guy, with rare expections.  I wonder if he's puzzled by the fact that lots of his peers, who claim to respect him as a guitarist, are so outspoken in their dislike of his "baby".  I mean, Clapton gets visually agitated when he's asked about Zeppelin, or in "Beware of Mr. Baker" when Bonzo comes up in relation to Ginger Baker.  Even his old friend Beck has made some crappy statements about Jimmy from time to time over the years, not to mention Keith and lesser lights like Nugent, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if Keith Richards saw what he said in print, he would reword  his comments.  We all say things which just come out differently than intended.

In terms of legacy, I can report as the father of young people, it is Zeppelin which holds their interest.  Not the Stones, and certainly not the Beatles.  I love all 3 of these bands, but our 4 virtuosos captured something transcendent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/3/2016 at 4:12 PM, greenman said:

At the end of the day really the Stones weren't a very political band bar Satisfaction, 

Why do you suggest Satisfaction has political leanings? Anyway, so many of their songs provide social commentary, especially Sympathy For The Devil, but also Doo Doo Doo Doo (Heartbreaker), Street Fighting Man, Salt of the Earth, so many others. Of course, their most overtly political song is almost certainly Highwire, with Sweet Neocon not far behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now