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.

MortSahlFan

Little Things You Don't Like About Led Zeppelin?

176 posts in this topic

On July 31, 2016 at 10:08 PM, jabe said:


My main beef would be the same as others: Lack of massive live footage.

You've hit the proverbial nail on the head.  Peter Grant's fault on that one, for sure.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think lack of massive footage is almost criminal. When you see those compilation videos/dvds, and Page and Plant

in particular are just literally being moved by the music they themselves are creating, it's for me a magical sight.

But of course, 5 minutes here, 3 minutes there, AND the songs chopped up, totally frustrating. I must say that in a

way though, this has added considerably to their legend, as many of the clips are far more powerful than anything

in TSRTS. Some of Page's stage moves later75' and on really made the combo of music and entertainment a real

spectacle.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Walter said:

You've hit the proverbial nail on the head.  Peter Grant's fault on that one, for sure.  

I wouldn't totally blame peter grant. there just wasn't really a point to film a bunch of concerts back then. there wasn't sites like youtube (obviously :D) to upload the footage so unless they were planning on releasing movies or it was to be broadcast on tv, filming show on a regular basis just wasn't logical. most of the footage from bands of the 60's - 70's we have now is either from tv specials, documentaries or from music festivals. as for bootleg footage, I doubt there would be much more even if peter grant didn't have his reputation, as the footage situation is basically the same for most bands of that era, a few clips from people in the crowd but not much and not that great of quality. I know jimmy didn't like the cameras much either so im sure it was just as much his decision to only film the shows when it felt right.

led zeppelin at royal abert hall and tsrts, black sabbath at california jam and live in paris 1970, pink floyd live at pompeii, woodstock, ect.... all these performances were filmed with a purpose not just because they wanted to have the footage for future reference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2016 at 4:59 PM, JTM said:

I don't agree at all, The Crunge is a fantastic show of some brilliant musicianship , it's a really complex piece of music, it's place is well deserved on HOTH as is D'Yer Maker, just don't get the 'hate' thrown at those two numbers....

 

On 8/1/2016 at 7:06 AM, Valerie Sunshine said:

I do not understand why many zep fans do not like dy'er maker. I've always loved it 😍

Thank YOU! :goodpost: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2016 at 2:18 PM, sk8rat said:

you're overthinking it. the simple explanation is that they liked the songs and didn't have much original material that they felt fit the album.

Maybe. But "You Shook Me" remains that little thing I don't like about Led Zeppelin 1.  It's showy and overblown, Beck's version on Truth is more interesting, and they dropped it from their live sets before "I Can't Quit You".    What I like the least about it is it's the track critics honed in on and hammered in the reviews, and that it upset Beck.  Jimmy might have saved himself some grief simply by finding something else to fill out the album. "Travelling Riverside Blues" and "We're Gonna Groove" and "Think About It" would have been good choices.  "Glimpes II" would have been great.  I've always wondered why they didn't do a new version of "Think About It".  

Anyway, this is my one and only meager complaint about the greatest band in rock history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I don't like is John Paul Jones  using the Alembic bass for "The Song Remains the Same" on the '77 and '79 tours.  That Alembic bass sounds like it has rubber-bands for strings.  Don't mind it being used on other songs (I kind of like it on Heartbreaker myself) but it just doesn't work on TSRTS.  Maybe there's a good bootleg version with it out there but I haven't  heard it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that Alembic sound, IMO pluses and minuses. The opener TSRTS in 77' , too percussive(bright) but remember 

that the whole band particularly Page this song then was often chaotic. At some encores WLL into RNR I thought

the Alembic sounded great, with Bonzo and Jones really pumping. That sound you just simply couldn't get with

Jones' previous basses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two little things...whenever he sings " push, push, push!" ...or "Oh My Jesus!!"  <_<

One big thing...Plant's vocal abilities after summer 1972. Cracking notes left and right, vocal range pretty much gone by 73. There are so many cringe worthy moments that I often wish I could fade down his vocal track and just listen to the band.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lack of outtakes.  You're not gonna tell me what we got in the companion discs was all there was...cmon.  Give us the 30 or 40 starts and half-baked versions of Stairway or Kashmir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/8/2016 at 4:54 AM, porgie66 said:

Two little things...whenever he sings " push, push, push!" ...or "Oh My Jesus!!"  <_<

One big thing...Plant's vocal abilities after summer 1972. Cracking notes left and right, vocal range pretty much gone by 73. There are so many cringe worthy moments that I often wish I could fade down his vocal track and just listen to the band.

Oh yeah I do not like  the push push at all 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, in_the_evening said:

A lack of outtakes.  You're not gonna tell me what we got in the companion discs was all there was...cmon.  Give us the 30 or 40 starts and half-baked versions of Stairway or Kashmir.

I would love to hear the two other "Stairway to Heaven" with the two different guitar solos. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎26‎/‎2016 at 0:35 PM, IpMan said:

My only complaint, though not a big one, is I wish they had a somewhat fluid setlist at live shows, 60% set and 40% change from night to night. I know most bands don't and play the same set night after night but...just a thought, and a moot one at that.

I fully agree. I wish the sets would have changed up more. Maybe play some more obscure cuts...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OH !  I have only just come across this thread and am almost speechless . But sorry guys, actually not speechless. 

So from this thread, on balance, the Led Zeppelin fandom is expressing the view that the problem with the band is TOO MUCH SEX ?!?!   WTF ??   The sex IS Led Zeppelin and when you talk about the musicality, certainly of early Led Zeppelin, you are talking about the use of (technically brilliant) music as an expression of sex.  

It is lemonsqueezingcrotchgrippinghandwavinggirlsblousewearingposturingmoaninggroaningscreamingoh.my.god.allaboutsex. 

Kellygirl is thoughtful and forgiving enough to think that LZ's sexuality is just a female thing. But that can't be right : how does that expression of red-blooded raw male sexuality - matched totally to their music - NOT work for their male audience ?  

Apart from Kellygirl I am relieved to read the posts of Mithril46, Walter and Blindwillie .. thank you, so I'm not going mad. 

But I'm still reeling a little from some of these comments.  I'm actually really questioning my appreciation of that music... of course some of their songs are not overtly sexual, but I can't imagine not seeing their music through that prism .  Yes, it's quality music.  But if I COULD see it in a more neutered form, I don't think  I could love it so much. 

As Philip Larkin said "  Sexual Intercourse began in 1963 ..  between the end of the Chatterley ban and the Beatles' first LP" .  What happened next ?  Did it END again after thirty years or so ?  

Some of these comments make me wonder ... 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add:  kiwi led zep fan/porgie66/valeriesunshine ...   without meaning to sound lewd I do not have a problem with "push push push" ;)  and the great virtue of that and all other such moaning allusions was that YES, IT WAS SUPER-EMBARRASSING FOR YOUR PARENTS TO HEAR WITH YOU ! 

I guess I didn't have the problem ( or the pleasure ) of a parent who wanted at all to listen to Led Zeppelin .   I lost out on bonding .. but all of that helps you carve out a bit of teenage territory. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh sorry....  you wanted something I DON'T like ?    JPJ's jacket in TSRTS, looking like Christmastree baubles hanging off it ..   And the hair is a serious problem at that point.  

Trivial objections, huh?   

More seriously I agree with the point about the very limited filming of Led Zep.   Limiting interviews ( to foster mystique) was a strategy which can be easily understood . Limiting controlled filming seems tragically wrong.   Documentaries have emerged featuring the Stones ( Gimme Shelter, lots of backstage footage) and David Bowie.  In each case, controls were clearly put in place over the material at the time, and hence there are tight rules over their use. But they exist.  Someone at the time had the vision to see what access might enable .. and also to retain control over it.   I think that is Led Zeppelin's failing.  I wouldn't entirely blame Peter Grant : I rather think Jimmy was the one who felt cameras would steal his soul  ( indeed perhaps he still does ) .  

What a huge reflection of their legacy has been missed as a result.   As years go by that feels like more of an omission. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm always a little put off by the slightly sharp vocals on Fool In The Rain. I don't blame Plant as he likely didn't chose the master take, the producer, I presume Page did. I'm sure Page heard it and either it was the best take and a compromise or he likes it sharp. 

I'm not fond of the sped up vocals on The Song Remains The Same on Houses Of The Holy. 

 

Small potatoes in a vast and wonderful musical output.

I don't give a shit what they wear, who they sleep with or if they recycle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/7/2016 at 1:36 PM, blindwillie127 said:

Me neither. In 1975 Mick Jagger was riding a giant inflatable cock onstage, Iggy Pop was pulling his dick out of his pants regularly, and Bowie was looking like a hermaphrodite. And, Hendrix was fucking his guitar and amps long before this time. Zeppelin pales in comparison in the "overtly sexual department" IMO. Anyways, they all look timid compared to what goes on in todays mainstream commercial world of music:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxtIRArhVD4

Share on Facebook

:D👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, I don't know.  I just accept it all for what it is, which is great.  I guess the only thing I don't like, but I understand, is that they haven't really hit the road with Jason on drums.  They should have years ago.  Jason is an awesome drummer and the nearest thing to his Dad that I've ever heard.  Plus, he loves his Pop and would truly honor his legacy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their reluctance to film working in the studio.

 

Most of the other Super-Groups filmed in the studio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2016 at 1:43 PM, sk8rat said:

I wouldn't totally blame peter grant. there just wasn't really a point to film a bunch of concerts back then. there wasn't sites like youtube (obviously :D) to upload the footage so unless they were planning on releasing movies or it was to be broadcast on tv, filming show on a regular basis just wasn't logical. most of the footage from bands of the 60's - 70's we have now is either from tv specials, documentaries or from music festivals. as for bootleg footage, I doubt there would be much more even if peter grant didn't have his reputation, as the footage situation is basically the same for most bands of that era, a few clips from people in the crowd but not much and not that great of quality. I know jimmy didn't like the cameras much either so im sure it was just as much his decision to only film the shows when it felt right.

led zeppelin at royal abert hall and tsrts, black sabbath at california jam and live in paris 1970, pink floyd live at pompeii, woodstock, ect.... all these performances were filmed with a purpose not just because they wanted to have the footage for future reference.

For posterity, at least one gig from EACH tour should have been filmed. Not the 8 camera variety. Just a single camera in the balcony, above the fray, with a wide shot encompassing the entire stage. The video screen footage presentation is *not* optimal. (I'm talking Earl's Court here)...

The logic being, when someone, anyone watches the film of the concert, they could direct their eyes to the part of the stage, and look at what they want to, when they want to.

You know... like when you're in the audience watching a concert.

All that, vs. the "MTV style" 2 second shots all the way through.

And for a multi camera shot, I would expect nothing less than the above, PLUS an isolated camera on each member whilst they are onstage.

That's all I ask. As a Fan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The Rover said:

For posterity, at least one gig from EACH tour should have been filmed. Not the 8 camera variety. Just a single camera in the balcony, above the fray, with a wide shot encompassing the entire stage. The video screen footage presentation is *not* optimal. (I'm talking Earl's Court here)...

The logic being, when someone, anyone watches the film of the concert, they could direct their eyes to the part of the stage, and look at what they want to, when they want to.

You know... like when you're in the audience watching a concert.

All that, vs. the "MTV style" 2 second shots all the way through.

And for a multi camera shot, I would expect nothing less than the above, PLUS an isolated camera on each member whilst they are onstage.

That's all I ask. As a Fan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree about the way they film concerts. I would actually prefer the audience angle from like the 8th row slightly elevated so that you can see the entire stage but from a spot in the aud that really allows you to "watch" the concert like you were there.  The only close ups should be pertinent ones that focus on a band member during times when it makes sense to focus on them. Although I do like to watch EC. I find the The 8mm stuff to be the most interesting because it literally puts you in the seats unlike Earls court which is all over the place and a lot of close ups at the wrong times .  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, juxtiphi said:

I agree about the way they film concerts. I would actually prefer the audience angle from like the 8th row slightly elevated so that you can see the entire stage but from a spot in the aud that really allows you to "watch" the concert like you were there.  The only close ups should be pertinent ones that focus on a band member during times when it makes sense to focus on them. Although I do like to watch EC. I find the The 8mm stuff to be the most interesting because it literally puts you in the seats unlike Earls court which is all over the place and a lot of close ups at the wrong times .  

Totally agree. I hate seeing images that don't correspond to the actual music. I'd rather see a band shot and focus on whomever I choose that close ups of Bonzos face from anither song. 

Share this post


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

For posterity, at least one gig from EACH tour should have been filmed. Not the 8 camera variety. Just a single camera in the balcony, above the fray, with a wide shot encompassing the entire stage. The video screen footage presentation is *not* optimal. (I'm talking Earl's Court here)...

The logic being, when someone, anyone watches the film of the concert, they could direct their eyes to the part of the stage, and look at what they want to, when they want to.

You know... like when you're in the audience watching a concert.

All that, vs. the "MTV style" 2 second shots all the way through.

And for a multi camera shot, I would expect nothing less than the above, PLUS an isolated camera on each member whilst they are onstage.

That's all I ask. As a Fan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

too much money involved to just film them for posterity. 16mm and 35mm film were/are expensive. plus they have to have someone man the camera since they would have to constantly be swapping out the rolls of film. that means to get a perfectly synced show they would have to have at least two cameras otherwise there would be cuts between swapping out the film.

as for the angles. I would much rather have a concert filmed like royal albert hall than australia 72. looks a lot better imo. I could go on....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, sk8rat said:

too much money involved to just film them for posterity. 16mm and 35mm film were/are expensive. plus they have to have someone man the camera since they would have to constantly be swapping out the rolls of film. that means to get a perfectly synced show they would have to have at least two cameras otherwise there would be cuts between swapping out the film.

as for the angles. I would much rather have a concert filmed like royal albert hall than australia 72. looks a lot better imo. I could go on....

 

They got the editing wrong on Moby Dick at RAH, they totally mess with what you can see while John is doing is best moves by switching the camera angles back and forth so fast that you can't really get "watch" it.  As if switching the angle made it better 

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