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.

Noodleehead

How did led Zeppelin change music?

102 posts in this topic

I know they were the greatest band ever etc, but how did the band change music, what barriers did they break down? I've heard people compare their impact to the Beatles but I'm just not sure the impact was a big. Let me know what you guys think 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking other artists songs and claiming them as their own is the extent of how they changed music. Their impact on popular culture is nowhere close to that of The Beatles. They did have an impact on the music industry, specifically the percentage of the gate receipts they took as their share and touring without an opening act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

Taking other artists songs and claiming them as their own is the extent of how they changed music.

I had to read this twice to confirm I had not misread this.

Wow.

Possibly the shittest thing I have read here from someone who appears to be one of the most knowledgable with incredible detail.

Each to their own I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen to rock music from 1968 (The Who, The Stones, Hendrix etc.), then listen to any rock music from 1969 onwards (Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, James Gang etc.), the difference is clear for all to hear. The drums, the riffs, the sounds, the singing, the power, everything changed.

Other bands were involved like Cream, Blue Cheer, Vanilla Fudge and Iron Butterfly but I don't think any of them had anywhere near the lasting impact Led Zeppelin had.

I've written this on my phone so have not gone into great detail, which I'm sure someone more articulate than me will do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think its a hard question. The bands influenced by Zeppelin seemed to be influenced by one aspect of the band, the bombastic heavy side. While Zeppelin itself was pretty diverse in its output. I think that is the magic that cannot be captured and copied.

Alright I would say Heart at least did the heavy and the acoustic pretty well for a band influenced by Zeppelin. 

 

Edited by Tremelo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

Taking other artists songs and claiming them as their own is the extent of how they changed music. Their impact on popular culture is nowhere close to that of The Beatles. They did have an impact on the music industry, specifically the percentage of the gate receipts they took as their share and touring without an opening act.

Uh oh, I guess Jimmy is not returning Steve's calls these days.

Share this post


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

Uh oh, I guess Jimmy is not returning Steve's calls these days.

There's really nothing to talk about after 11-11-16.

 

Share this post


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

There's really nothing to talk about after 11-11-16.

 

For crying out loud Steve, get over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, rm2551 said:

I had to read this twice to confirm I had not misread this.

Wow.

Possibly the shittest thing I have read here from someone who appears to be one of the most knowledgable with incredible detail.

Each to their own I guess.

Were they incredibly popular? Yes. Incredibly influential? Yes. Did they impact the industry in a positive way? Yes, absolutely. However, I fail to see where they "changed music". Six of the nine songs on their debut album are directly inspired or derived from other artists. Three of nine on their second, third and fourth albums. Elvis Presley, The Beatles, probably Chuck Berry, possibly Jimi Hendrix and Eddie Van Halen changed the course of music in popular culture. Led Zeppelin were masters of amalgamation and mystique more so than genuine musical pioneers. This is merely an opinion. Views may vary, and indeed they do.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, IpMan said:

For crying out loud Steve, get over it.

I didn't bring it up, you did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

There's really nothing to talk about after 11-11-16.

 

Someone please fill me in?

Share this post


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

Someone please fill me in?

Here it is in all it's glory..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welp, this thread took a turn for the worst.  Id like to still discuss the topic if anyone else is interested 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

Taking other artists songs and claiming them as their own is the extent of how they changed music.

Were you the guy passing out brown acid at Woodstock?

 

The same way the Beatles broke and recreated the molds for what was possible in Pop/Rock music, Zeppelin created new templates for Rock/Hard Rock. While LZ excelled in failing to give proper credit, all bands have and continue to lean on and borrow from influences to create new music. Bur few (any?) have created as body of varied influential epics on par with "Stairway To Heaven", "No Quarter", "The Rain Song", "Kashmir", "Ten Years Gone", "Down By The Seaside", "In The Light", "Achilles Last Stand", "Nobody's Fault But Mine", "In The Evening", "Carouselambra" as well as definitive examples of psychedelic rock, blues rock,  acoustic rock, country rock, jazz-fusion and progressive rock while setting standards in songwriting, production and performance.

The degree to which Led Zeppelin affected not only it's contemporaries and future rockers but artists outside the realm of Rock music can't be calculated, only under-estimated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Badgeholder Still said:

Were you the guy passing out brown acid at Woodstock?

 

The same way the Beatles broke and recreated the molds for what was possible in Pop/Rock music, Zeppelin created new templates for Rock/Hard Rock. While LZ excelled in failing to give proper credit, all bands have and continue to lean on and borrow from influences to create new music. Bur few (any?) have created as body of varied influential epics on par with "Stairway To Heaven", "No Quarter", "The Rain Song", "Kashmir", "Ten Years Gone", "Down By The Seaside", "In The Light", "Achilles Last Stand", "Nobody's Fault But Mine", "In The Evening", "Carouselambra" as well as definitive examples of psychedelic rock, blues rock,  acoustic rock, country rock, jazz-fusion and progressive rock while setting standards in songwriting, production and performance.

The degree to which Led Zeppelin affected not only it's contemporaries and future rockers but artists outside the realm of Rock music can't be calculated, only under-estimated.

Masterfully put.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Badgeholder Still said:

Were you the guy passing out brown acid at Woodstock?

 

The same way the Beatles broke and recreated the molds for what was possible in Pop/Rock music, Zeppelin created new templates for Rock/Hard Rock. While LZ excelled in failing to give proper credit, all bands have and continue to lean on and borrow from influences to create new music. Bur few (any?) have created as body of varied influential epics on par with "Stairway To Heaven", "No Quarter", "The Rain Song", "Kashmir", "Ten Years Gone", "Down By The Seaside", "In The Light", "Achilles Last Stand", "Nobody's Fault But Mine", "In The Evening", "Carouselambra" as well as definitive examples of psychedelic rock, blues rock,  acoustic rock, country rock, jazz-fusion and progressive rock while setting standards in songwriting, production and performance.

The degree to which Led Zeppelin affected not only it's contemporaries and future rockers but artists outside the realm of Rock music can't be calculated, only under-estimated.

This 100%. Hard rock existed before Led Zeppelin, but a lot of it was done within a certain element. You had MC5, for example, who were more precursors to punk than anything else. Then you had The Yardbirds, who, like early Zeppelin, were rooted firmly in the blues. Yet a lot of their stuff today sounds tame. Then you had groups like The Jimi Hendrix Experience, Vanilla Fudge, and Iron Butterfly. Their stuff was certainly heavy for its time, but it was done within trippy psychedelic songs. None of this is meant as a diss towards any of these groups, but the point is that all the elements of hard rock were there, but it was fragmented. What Zeppelin did was amplify and unite these elements, creating the idea of a hard rock group we know today, what with a virtuoso guitarist, a powerful singer with a huge range, a thunderous drummer, and a tight bass player.

They were also an important influence in terms of fashion and overall look. Virtually every hair metal band of the 1980s was essentially copying Zeppelin's long-haired, flamboyant stage look (albeit taking it to ridiculous proportions). Not to mention the whole no opening acts at concerts, light shows, lazer pyramids, epic three hour shows, which are still emulated today.

I don't know if SAJ is trolling or is just having a bad day, but I honestly can't believe anyone with almost 20,000 posts in a Zeppelin forum would say such nonsense. Who cares if their initial albums were full of covers? So were The Beatles. The Ramones had at least one cover on each of their first five albums, but that doesn't make them any less influential. Hell, Elvis Presley barely wrote any songs at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ZepHead315 said:

I don't know if SAJ is trolling or is just having a bad day, but I honestly can't believe anyone with almost 20,000 posts in a Zeppelin forum would say such nonsense. 

Steve is a very sensitive soul who, if not given what he perceives as the proper respect, tends to be a bit prickly. Since he feels slighted by Page personally for what happened last year, he is prone to lash out.

Don't worry, once Steve gets his fill of Hentai he will be back to his usual, affable self.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

9 hours ago, ZepHead315 said:

This 100%. Hard rock existed before Led Zeppelin, but a lot of it was done within a certain element. You had MC5, for example, who were more precursors to punk than anything else. Then you had The Yardbirds, who, like early Zeppelin, were rooted firmly in the blues. Yet a lot of their stuff today sounds tame. Then you had groups like The Jimi Hendrix Experience, Vanilla Fudge, and Iron Butterfly. Their stuff was certainly heavy for its time, but it was done within trippy psychedelic songs. None of this is meant as a diss towards any of these groups, but the point is that all the elements of hard rock were there, but it was fragmented. What Zeppelin did was amplify and unite these elements, creating the idea of a hard rock group we know today, what with a virtuoso guitarist, a powerful singer with a huge range, a thunderous drummer, and a tight bass player.

They were also an important influence in terms of fashion and overall look. Virtually every hair metal band of the 1980s was essentially copying Zeppelin's long-haired, flamboyant stage look (albeit taking it to ridiculous proportions). Not to mention the whole no opening acts at concerts, light shows, lazer pyramids, epic three hour shows, which are still emulated today.

I don't know if SAJ is trolling or is just having a bad day, but I honestly can't believe anyone with almost 20,000 posts in a Zeppelin forum would say such nonsense. Who cares if their initial albums were full of covers? So were The Beatles. The Ramones had at least one cover on each of their first five albums, but that doesn't make them any less influential. Hell, Elvis Presley barely wrote any songs at all.

"What Zeppelin did was amplify and unite these elements, creating the idea of a hard rock group we know today, what with a virtuoso guitarist, a powerful singer with a huge range, a thunderous drummer, and a tight bass player".

Yeah, in other words as I said they were masters of amalgamation and mystique more so than genuine musical pioneers. The four piece lineup you describe--The Who, among others, already established that nearly a decade prior. Granted, Elvis Presley isn't noteworthy as a songwriter, but entire books have been written describing how he changed the course of popular music in America if not the course of popular culture itself. I'm not saying Led Zeppelin wasn't influential -- they are easily among the most influential musical acts of all time -- I'm simply saying they didn't change the course of popular music.   

Edited by SteveAJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Zep weren't heavy metal, but they were the catalyst for it, and one could argue that was the greatest change they made to popular music (a dubious honour if you ask me).

It's undeniable that Zep are now omnipresent in rock, but to say they changed the course of popular music, like the Beatles, is a step too far for me. 

I would say that Peter Grant revolutionised the management side of rock by demanding higher cuts of albums royalties and touring receipts, etc.

He was far more of a game changer and innovator.

 

Edited by Boleskinner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2017 at 11:51 PM, Noodleehead said:

I know they were the greatest band ever etc, but how did the band change music, what barriers did they break down? I've heard people compare their impact to the Beatles but I'm just not sure the impact was a big. Let me know what you guys think 

In addition to the replies above, JP was also an innovator (or at least an "improver") in how songs were recorded in the studio. His use of distance miking (i.e., miking for a particular instrument up close and also further away in the recording studio to capture both immediate and ambient sound) is, IMHO, one of LZ's greatest contributions to recording music. Again, I don't think he invented this technique, but his particular variety of it is one of the key ingredients as to why Led Zeppelin songs sound so majestic. I don't know any other band that has the same feel in its recorded music.

Of course, another thing that made them such a remarkable band was their ability to take their already great songs and make them sound even more awe-inspiring live. Most songs by professional musicians, if the band is any good, will have more of an impact live than in the studio; however, not every band has the sonic alchemy to improvise on a regular basis in performance and also have those improvisations come off so impressively - that only happens with a select few bands. This is one of the reasons why the trading community is so obsessed with getting any live recording of the band - there was always something unique and special about an LZ show. Now, of course, not every show was a blinder - they're human beings after all and can have off-days just like anyone else - but, their on-days were absolutely superlative and gave people joy they couldn't get any other way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who really gives a shit whether or not LZ changed music? Whatever it is that they did made one hell of an impact and I'm still feeling it. Nobody really changes music anyways, except for the music industry, they decide what to feed the masses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2017 at 11:51 PM, Noodleehead said:

I know they were the greatest band ever etc, but how did the band change music, what barriers did they break down? I've heard people compare their impact to the Beatles but I'm just not sure the impact was a big. Let me know what you guys think 

Part 2 to my response just given above...

They also changed music in that they arrived at the precise moment that music changed in the late 60's - I would go even further and say that they were the main group that caused this change. I'll explain.

Before the New Yardbirds, a lot of the most popular bands were members (at least tangentially) of the hippie movement who often espoused a hippie philosophy - a lot of exploration of peace, love, and drugs and their effects (it was the 60's after all) with bands from California and Swingin' London. Their focus was mostly collective - i.e., striving towards a mass enlightenment of sorts exploring these topics through music. Robert was (and most probably still is) an adherent of that mindset - the lyrics of songs like "The Rover" are proof. However, at their inception, LZ in their lyrics transformed the desire for love from the collective to the individual in a very pronounced fashion - even the instrumentation in the songs displayed this new focus. Music at the time was mostly "yin"; LZ (and a few others becoming popular at the same time or shortly thereafter) delivered a whole lotta yang...

The singing, the guitar-playing, and the drumming were all very overtly sensual - that hadn't happened before. This doesn't mean it was all loud, but it was all passionate, even the quieter songs. This was why those who thought that music should be like Jefferson Airplane, The Grateful Dead, or The Beatles were slow to warm to LZ (if they ever did warm to them). This is also one of the few bits that Stephen Davis got right in "Hammer of the Gods", i.e., it was the younger siblings of those who were fans of the "flower power" bands that were LZ's most ardent fans. Tastes change in societies over time, and LZ arrived during (and, in my opinion, helped actively initiate) the shift away from hippie ideals being overtly expressed in the lyrics of songs to lyrics of a more individualized foundation.

They also, without actively seeking it, became the blueprint for hard rock bands which followed. Aerosmith should pay half of their royalties to LZ, Van Halen couldn't have imitated them any more closely (at least on the surface, less so in the music) - hell, even Def Leppard's name is a nod to LZ. So, all in all, they had many effects on the future progression of music.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ForEvermore said:

Part 2 to my response just given above...

They also changed music in that they arrived at the precise moment that music changed in the late 60's - I would go even further and say that they were the main group that caused this change. I'll explain.

Before the New Yardbirds, a lot of the most popular bands were members (at least tangentially) of the hippie movement who often espoused a hippie philosophy - a lot of exploration of peace, love, and drugs and their effects (it was the 60's after all) with bands from California and Swingin' London. Their focus was mostly collective - i.e., striving towards a mass enlightenment of sorts exploring these topics through music. Robert was (and most probably still is) an adherent of that mindset - the lyrics of songs like "The Rover" are proof. However, at their inception, LZ in their lyrics transformed the desire for love from the collective to the individual in a very pronounced fashion - even the instrumentation in the songs displayed this new focus. Music at the time was mostly "yin"; LZ (and a few others becoming popular at the same time or shortly thereafter) delivered a whole lotta yang...

The singing, the guitar-playing, and the drumming were all very overtly sensual - that hadn't happened before. This doesn't mean it was all loud, but it was all passionate, even the quieter songs. This was why those who thought that music should be like Jefferson Airplane, The Grateful Dead, or The Beatles were slow to warm to LZ (if they ever did warm to them). This is also one of the few bits that Stephen Davis got right in "Hammer of the Gods", i.e., it was the younger siblings of those who were fans of the "flower power" bands that were LZ's most ardent fans. Tastes change in societies over time, and LZ arrived during (and, in my opinion, helped actively initiate) the shift away from hippie ideals being overtly expressed in the lyrics of songs to lyrics of a more individualized foundation.

They also, without actively seeking it, became the blueprint for hard rock bands which followed. Aerosmith should pay half of their royalties to LZ, Van Halen couldn't have imitated them any more closely (at least on the surface, less so in the music) - hell, even Def Leppard's name is a nod to LZ. So, all in all, they had many effects on the future progression of music.

Good points.  Even the other two contemporary bands who, with Zeppelin, can be considered the founders of heavy metal - Sabbath and Purple - explicitly acknowledge Zeppelin's influence in framing their sound. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 4:52 AM, SteveAJones said:

Taking other artists songs and claiming them as their own is the extent of how they changed music. Their impact on popular culture is nowhere close to that of The Beatles. They did have an impact on the music industry, specifically the percentage of the gate receipts they took as their share and touring without an opening act.

It is true their popular impact was not nearly as revolutionary as The Beatles (or Elvis).  Although, they were probably the first band to inspire an almost communal following in their fans (admittedly, not necessarily a good thing, and it could be a particularly American manifestation, not sure how fervent European Zep fans are).  However, it seems pretty extreme (not to mention petty) to dismiss their musical impact as amounting to plagiarism.  Or are you simply claiming that subsequent musicians are not completely forthright in acknowledging their influences due to Zeppelin's precedent?  If so, who cares?

Share this post


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

Good points.  Even the other two contemporary bands who, with Zeppelin, can be considered the founders of heavy metal - Sabbath and Purple - explicitly acknowledge Zeppelin's influence in framing their sound. 

Thank you! :)

I was hoping I didn't come across as too over-the-top, but I really think the points I mentioned were revolutionary at the time. (Sabbath and Purple were two of the companion bands I was subliminally referring to above.) When a fan describes what they like about their favorite acts, they can sound like they are deifying them - I don't deify them, but I am in awe of the music they made. The fact that it was created by regular guys who just worked well together makes their accomplishments all the more extraordinary. (I'm also a bit in awe of how long they were able to create great albums and play live so well in spite of various road accidents, massive drinking & drug use, etc. Yes, it caught up with them bitterly in 1980, but how many bands would have expired in a much shorter time having gone through the same experiences as LZ?)

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