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.

Strider

Jimmy Page Responds to Keith Richards

278 posts in this topic

 

Keef always makes me chuckle. He's a rancorous old gem and the put-downs are always with tongue firmly planted in cheek. Keef and the barbarians supported Zep at Knebworth and Jimmy played on One hit to the body. Page and Keef have always had a good rapport and healthy respect for each other.

Not so sure about the healthy aspect : according to what's reported in Barney Hoskyns's book, Trampled Underfooot, this is Keith Richards who introduced Jimmy Page to the use of heroin. I can't stand KR, personally. For some reason, I think he played a pivotal role in the demise of Led Zeppelin.   

Edited by seaweed gate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I severely doubt that. I imagine that in the history books The Beatles, and then The Stones will be the two post-war bands of the 20th century that are always referenced. Led Zep will, as always, be wrongly labelled as the band that launched the heavy metal movement.

I think Keef is a better songwriting of traditional verse-chorus stuff, while Jimmy is better at soundscapes and more progressive material. Each brilliant in their own fields.

Jimmy missed a beat when he didn't go into the soundtrack world post Zep. His eerie synth guitar on Death Wish 2 was great. He should have tried to carve a niche out in that field. Although, I suspect, it wasn't rock 'n' roll enough for him.

Keef always makes me chuckle. He's a rancorous old gem and the put-downs are always with tongue firmly planted in cheek. Keef and the barbarians supported Zep at Knebworth and Jimmy played on One hit to the body. Page and Keef have always had a good rapport and healthy respect for each other. Now, Clapton and Page, that is another subject...

I don't think so, there is a quality to Zeppelin's music that transcends time, they only grow more legendary as the years go by. With spotify and YouTube everyone has access to every artists entire catalog, and the aspects of Zeppelin that used to be overlooked by the masses are now becoming more well known. 

If anecdotal evidence counts for anything, I'm in my early 20s, American, and among people my age Zeppelin is hugely popular. Actually their acoustic stuff and the "trippy jam" style of stuff seem to be more popular their straight up rockers. 

Meanwhile the Stones seem to be appreciated as a great rock and roll band, but mostly ignored in a way. I don't think they have anything the near the rabid fanbase of young fans that Zeppelin has consistently attracted even all these years later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Led Zep will, as always, be wrongly labelled as the band that launched the heavy metal movement.

I'm not sure who would say that. While there are metal overtones in some of the songs, that's where it stops.

Black Sabbath started Heavy Metal, no question. Led Zep will always be a Hard Rcok band.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think so, there is a quality to Zeppelin's music that transcends time, they only grow more legendary as the years go by. With spotify and YouTube everyone has access to every artists entire catalog, and the aspects of Zeppelin that used to be overlooked by the masses are now becoming more well known. 

If anecdotal evidence counts for anything, I'm in my early 20s, American, and among people my age Zeppelin is hugely popular. Actually their acoustic stuff and the "trippy jam" style of stuff seem to be more popular their straight up rockers. 

Meanwhile the Stones seem to be appreciated as a great rock and roll band, but mostly ignored in a way. I don't think they have anything the near the rabid fanbase of young fans that Zeppelin has consistently attracted even all these years later.

I agree with your last paragraph.  The Stones fan base doesn't seem to grow, unlike Zeppelin.  Every generation that has come along after 1980 has embraced Zeppelin's music, where as the Stones fan base seems to be decreasing with each generation.  They're still huge, obliviously, but I don't think their catalog will have the lasting impact in the future.

 

Edited by Walter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see where you're coming from, but in 200 years time, the pecking order in the history books will be The Beatles, The Stones, then the rest -  The Who, Zep, etc. The Beatles and The Stones are part of the cultural fabric, they transcend music and were archetypes in their fields. You've got to bear in mind that the Stones have been touring and releasing albums for 50 years! That breeds a bit of apathy in the listening public, whereas Zep never reformed for more than one gig, keeping the public wanting more. Once the stones stop playing and die off the mythology will start to build again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see where you're coming from, but in 200 years time, the pecking order in the history books will be The Beatles, The Stones, then the rest -  The Who, Zep, etc. The Beatles and The Stones are part of the cultural fabric, they transcend music and were archetypes in their fields. You've got to bear in mind that the Stones have been touring and releasing albums for 50 years! That breeds a bit of apathy in the listening public, whereas Zep never reformed for more than one gig, keeping the public wanting more. Once the stones stop playing and die off the mythology will start to build again.

Nah...Zeppelin, The Who and Pink Floyd will be right there alongside The Beatles and The Stones when it comes to the history books. Those are the Big Five. Sure, The Stones have been around for over fifty years, but they haven't released a new album in ten years, and probably haven't been relevant musically or sociologically for close to fourty years, and even that seems overly generous. All they do now -and I say this as a big Stones fan- is milk their fans with increasingly overpriced and sloppily played versions of their greatest hits. 

Actually when it comes to the big picture, Beatles aside, I'd put Zeppelin higher up in the pecking order than The Stones. If for no other reason but that the 'kids' are still 'discovering' Zeppelin whereas I think it is safe to say that in this day and age The Stones are clearly looked upon as "Boomer music"- I doubt they gain many new fans, just the same old ones...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I severely doubt that. I imagine that in the history books The Beatles, and then The Stones will be the two post-war bands of the 20th century that are always referenced. Led Zep will, as always, be wrongly labelled as the band that launched the heavy metal movement.

I think Keef is a better songwriting of traditional verse-chorus stuff, while Jimmy is better at soundscapes and more progressive material. Each brilliant in their own fields.

Jimmy missed a beat when he didn't go into the soundtrack world post Zep. His eerie synth guitar on Death Wish 2 was great. He should have tried to carve a niche out in that field. Although, I suspect, it wasn't rock 'n' roll enough for him.

Keef always makes me chuckle. He's a rancorous old gem and the put-downs are always with tongue firmly planted in cheek. Keef and the barbarians supported Zep at Knebworth and Jimmy played on One hit to the body. Page and Keef have always had a good rapport and healthy respect for each other. Now, Clapton and Page, that is another subject...

What a nice, level-headed response. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Led Zeppelin's reputation will grow over the decades. I think at least here in the UK their myth overtook the work but a reassessment does seem to be taking place and as long as there is an interest in Rock and Roll all the major acts will be remembered.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think of it this way, if you asked Joe Bloggs on the street to name two classical composers they would probably say Beethoven and Mozart. Same way as in a few hundred years time if you asked Joe Bloggs to name two rock groups from the 20th century, I imagine they would say The Beatles and The Stones. I'm not saying their better than Zep, just that their more ingrained in mainstream culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, I think the two named will be Floyd and Zep. Their fans are the fans with the will to keep a legacy alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see where you're coming from, but in 200 years time, the pecking order in the history books will be The Beatles, The Stones, then the rest -  The Who, Zep, etc. The Beatles and The Stones are part of the cultural fabric, they transcend music and were archetypes in their fields. You've got to bear in mind that the Stones have been touring and releasing albums for 50 years! That breeds a bit of apathy in the listening public, whereas Zep never reformed for more than one gig, keeping the public wanting more. Once the stones stop playing and die off the mythology will start to build again.

In 100 years from now Ruby Tuesday will waft softly throughout the elevator tube with gentle soothing sound waves and standing inside the elevator will be a kid wearing ear gel inserts jamming to Achilles Last Stand and reading about Page's most recent clone announcing possible tour dates in 2116 along with new music. Going up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 100 years from now Ruby Tuesday will waft softly throughout the elevator tube with gentle soothing sound waves and standing inside the elevator will be a kid wearing ear gel inserts jamming to Achilles Last Stand and reading about Page's most recent clone announcing possible tour dates in 2116 along with new music. Going up?

:yesnod:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO any of those scenarios is possible, but the Beatles in particular have become so much ingrained

in the fabric of society. Actually I don't think you can really predict more than 20 yrs into the future,

simply because the world is changing so fast and there are tremendous threats to global stability.

But if you assume everything the way it is now, just 100 yrs later, Zep, The Stones and even a certain

amount of 60's-70's Rock  will still be playing. I am prejudiced, the 60's-70's Rock is the golden age for

me. There certainly has been great music made later, but not so much quality in a small timespan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Keith Richards has always said great things about Jimmy Page even used him on Stones records as he did with John Paul Jones too. He didn't call Led Zeppelin a joke, for he did say that about  Black Sabbath and Metallica. What Keith Richards doesn't know is anything about John Bonham . Bonham was always light and heavy. To me Keith Richards and the Rolling Stones have  sucked ass since Mick Taylor left the band and he knows it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they are all a pretty safe bet to be remembered in 100 years. Look at the recognizable names from the silent film era .. Chaplin, Arbuckle, Keaton, Lloyd, Fairbanks, Barrymore, Pickford, Gish, Chaney... Etc.. I'll bet most here recognize these names and know at least some of their work... and the world was a very different place.. 

The Beatles Elvis Dylan The Stones Led Zeppelin Pink Floyd The Who Zappa Elton John Bowie etc will be remembered in 100 years. No doubt in my mind. 

500 years is the big question. 

Edited by the chase

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Chase your comment about 500 years can be answered in the following way. Look at Jane Austen who was seriously out of fashion decades after her death. It took the likes of Henry James to bring her back into the mainstream.

Also look at the discipline of Egyptology. A civilisation lost thousands of years ago; their language lost to the ages. Within the last 100 years or so look at what has been revealed.

As long as humans enjoy music I think the greats will be remembered. Do you think the remaining members would ever give a full and frank interview of the bands history or is that not how they operate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Edited by BlackDog71

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete Townsend has said similar things about Zep as a band.  Nice guys but just can't get into their music, or something like that.  That bums me out somehow, because Townsend was a brilliant musician in his day.  I think he, too, was somewhat put off by Zeppelin's overwhelming success, since he has mentioned that Zeppelin became bigger than The Who ever was.  Zeppelin was, at various times, bigger than the Beatles, the Stones and the Who.  I'm sure that didn't go over great with some of them.  

Not sure what the "manufactured" bit is supposed to mean.  Or "hollow," either.  I don't believe for a second that the Stones worked any less on their presence and image than Zeppelin did, and I don't see any facts that make the Stones' formation any more organic or natural than Zeppelin's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion on what I have read about Keef's comments and the comments about Keef's comments on this forum is this:

Keith Richard(s) is/was a good songwriter and a good rhythm guitar player.  Nothing more, nothing less.  From what I have seen of Keith Richards playing of the guitar in the past 20+ years is that he just seems to strum his guitar just above the body of the guitar.  Just that and the (kind of) stupid body movements or gestures that he does after just strumming the guitar. 

Jimmy Page was a great songwriter and the very best lead guitar player in the history of Rock and Roll.  We all know that Jimmy has not done anything substantial in the past couple of decades (recording or live playing wise), but James Patrick Page will go down in history as the most talented and definitely the most influential guitar player of all-time.  This statement is a fact and not just my opinion. 

For those that say I am discounting Jimi Hendrix, all I have to say is this:  Jimi was great in the 4 years that he made his mark, but, unfortunately Jimi Hendrix has been dead for 45 years.  4 years of brilliance does not, in my opinion, make Jimi Hendrix the greatest guitarist of all-time.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manufactured?  Peter Grant? 

Robert Plant just getting his chops with Allison Krause?

Keith has a very poor sense of time and space and these type of comments show why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keith's complaints about almost every other famous rock band under the sun always strikes me as ironic, because I've honestly never understood all the fuss about the Rolling Stones, particularly when compared with The Beatles, The Who, Zeppelin, Pink Floyd etc. etc. A few of their hit singles are really good but most of their 'classic' output just sounds very average to me, a lot of clumsy overrated noise being passed off as raw and edgy blues rock just because "It's the Stones, man, THE STONES!!!" Millions of people vehemently disagree I know, but personally I feel that The Stones got lucky by riding the initial coat-tails of Beatlemania, then later became worshipped more for what they did offstage than on it. "Hey, Mick's just porked another right tasty bird and Keef's just snorted a lot of powder, so the new album MUST be great, especially now they've got Mick Taylor to prop 'em up!" 

Now of course, everybody is entitled to their opinions and Richards would know far better than me, but hey, since he seems to spend an inordinate amount of time trashing every band not called the Rolling Stones, I just can't help wondering if it's time that he took a look at the craggy old face in the mirror......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Azapro911 said:

Keith's complaints about almost every other famous rock band under the sun always strikes me as ironic, because I've honestly never understood all the fuss about the Rolling Stones, particularly when compared with The Beatles, The Who, Zeppelin, Pink Floyd etc. etc. A few of their hit singles are really good but most of their 'classic' output just sounds very average to me, a lot of clumsy overrated noise being passed off as raw and edgy blues rock just because "It's the Stones, man, THE STONES!!!" Millions of people vehemently disagree I know, but personally I feel that The Stones got lucky by riding the initial coat-tails of Beatlemania, then later became worshipped more for what they did offstage than on it. "Hey, Mick's just porked another right tasty bird and Keef's just snorted a lot of powder, so the new album MUST be great, especially now they've got Mick Taylor to prop 'em up!" 

Now of course, everybody is entitled to their opinions and Richards would know far better than me, but hey, since he seems to spend an inordinate amount of time trashing every band not called the Rolling Stones, I just can't help wondering if it's time that he took a look at the craggy old face in the mirror......

satisfaction, under my thumb, jumpin jack flash, sympathy for the devil, street fighting man, salt of the earth, honkey tonk woman, gimmie shelter, midnight rambler, monkey man,  brown sugar, can't ya hear me knocking, bitch, dead flowers, sway, Angie, some girls, beast of burden, miss you...

Thats a short list. Keith talks a lot of shit, but the songs he & Jagger wrote together are some of the best ever in rock n roll. Saying that Zeppelin was a "manufactured" band is complete bullshit though. 

He should have said that about The Jimi Hendrix Experience, which really was a manufactured band.

Chas Chandler discovers Hendrix in America, flys him back to England, hires a drummer and bassist, puts them in a studio and gets them a record deal.

Keith picks on everybody, but not Hendrix, he steers clear of that because I guess Jimi just walks on hollowed grounds for these guys.

Zeppelin never got any respect anyways, but they seem to have done quite well without it.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎22‎/‎2015 at 6:47 AM, Walter said:

I don't think their catalog will have the lasting impact in the future.

The Jagger/Richards juggernaut is second only to Lennon/McCartney.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎2‎/‎2016 at 6:10 PM, kingzoso said:

My opinion on what I have read about Keef's comments and the comments about Keef's comments on this forum is this:

Keith Richard(s) is/was a good songwriter and a good rhythm guitar player.  Nothing more, nothing less.  From what I have seen of Keith Richards playing of the guitar in the past 20+ years is that he just seems to strum his guitar just above the body of the guitar.  Just that and the (kind of) stupid body movements or gestures that he does after just strumming the guitar. 

Jimmy Page was a great songwriter and the very best lead guitar player in the history of Rock and Roll.  We all know that Jimmy has not done anything substantial in the past couple of decades (recording or live playing wise), but James Patrick Page will go down in history as the most talented and definitely the most influential guitar player of all-time.  This statement is a fact and not just my opinion. 

For those that say I am discounting Jimi Hendrix, all I have to say is this:  Jimi was great in the 4 years that he made his mark, but, unfortunately Jimi Hendrix has been dead for 45 years.  4 years of brilliance does not, in my opinion, make Jimi Hendrix the greatest guitarist of all-time.  

Richards is merely a good songwriter and rhythm guitar player? Wow, cause I was kind of thinking he's not only the heart and soul of the greatest rock n roll band of all time, and half of rock's second greatest songwriting duo, but the living definition of the genre itself. 

 

On ‎1‎/‎30‎/‎2016 at 3:11 AM, Azapro911 said:

Keith's complaints about almost every other famous rock band under the sun always strikes me as ironic, because I've honestly never understood all the fuss about the Rolling Stones, particularly when compared with The Beatles, The Who, Zeppelin, Pink Floyd etc. etc. A few of their hit singles are really good but most of their 'classic' output just sounds very average to me, a lot of clumsy overrated noise being passed off as raw and edgy blues rock just because "It's the Stones, man, THE STONES!!!" Millions of people vehemently disagree I know, but personally I feel that The Stones got lucky by riding the initial coat-tails of Beatlemania, then later became worshipped more for what they did offstage than on it. "Hey, Mick's just porked another right tasty bird and Keef's just snorted a lot of powder, so the new album MUST be great, especially now they've got Mick Taylor to prop 'em up!" 

Now of course, everybody is entitled to their opinions and Richards would know far better than me, but hey, since he seems to spend an inordinate amount of time trashing every band not called the Rolling Stones, I just can't help wondering if it's time that he took a look at the craggy old face in the mirror......

The fuss about the Rolling Stones? I don't even know where to begin. Got lucky riding the coat-tails of Beatlemania? History shows they worked their asses off for years prior to that, and worked hard to be a rhythm & blues alternative to The Beatles more pop-oriented sound and presence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, SteveAJones said:

The Jagger/Richards juggernaut is second only to Lennon/McCartney.   

I couldn't disagree more.

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