Jump to content

How did led Zeppelin change music?


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, IpMan said:

This is just do not understand, that is, your position. Who cares if Rap / Hip Hop are popular, or will remain so for the next 1,000 years while everything else is virtually forgotten. You sound no different than some 50's era Ward Cleaver bemoaning Elvis & Berry and pondering why swing was not strong enough to keep those hooligans at bay. Every genre has their day in the sun, some longer than others and in the end it does not matter. It's not like once Rap & Hip Hop came about some edict from on high forced people to only listen to Rap & Hip Hop.

Now regarding the Beatles, or what I call, the worlds first boy band. When the Beatles first started out under Brian Epstein, he took a pretty good bar band and formed them into what he thought the public wanted, image and music. They were a product, and for all intent and purpose, a shitty one at that. However they appealed to the masses (just like most shitty boy bands do) and became massive. As far as I am concerned the Beatles as a creative entity did not truly exist prior to Rubber Soul. Rubber Soul was the transitory album between shitty, teen bubble gum pop and truly innovative music. Revolver was their first, fully realized and innovative record. So for me there are three Beatles: the pre-Brian Epstein bar band which had style and integrity; then the early Brian Epstein driven & controlled Beatles which sucked; and finally the latter, band driven pioneers of rock music Beatles who helped change music along with Hendrix, the Yardbirds, Floyd, and Cream.

Zeppelin however started out mostly strong (exception was their first album being mostly covers) and became incredible as writers and composers over time. Their impact cannot be denied, nor can their creativity. This IMO places them in the top six innovative bands of the 60's: The Beatles, Hendrix, The Yardbirds, Cream, Floyd, & Zeppelin in that order. Notice I did not put the Stones on that list. This is because even though they were (notice I stress the word were here) a great band, they were not innovators and did not bring anything new to the table except maybe for image, or rather perceived image. I still get a laugh that the Hamburg Hooligans (Beatles) were considered the good boys while the Stones were considered the bad boys, talk about turning the truth on its head.

I hear you about the early Beatles but they were superb songwriters and craftsmen.  They also played everything in addition to writing most of it, so not really a "boy band".  Many of their songs up through the album Help are fantastic, and I think they started to stretch the boundries a bit earlier than Rubber Soul.    A year before Rubber Soul they released Beatles for Sale with "I'm a Loser" and "No Reply".  In April 65 they released Ticket to Ride.  In July 65 they released Help and I'm Down, an amazing gritty, powerful rocker.  In August the Help album included "You've Got to Hide Your Love Away."  Rubber Soul is great and on the same day it was released (Dec 3, 1965) they put out a double A side single with Day Tripper (one of the early riff based classics) and We Can Work it Out.

One  thing about the Beatles is that  released so many fantastic singles that never appeared on albums.  As another example, in June 1966 two months before Revolver they released one single with BOTH Paperback Writer and Rain !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, John M said:

I hear you about the early Beatles but they were superb songwriters and craftsmen.  They also played everything in addition to writing most of it, so not really a "boy band".  Many of their songs up through the album Help are fantastic, and I think they started to stretch the boundries a bit earlier than Rubber Soul.    A year before Rubber Soul they released Beatles for Sale with "I'm a Loser" and "No Reply".  In April 65 they released Ticket to Ride.  In July 65 they released Help and I'm Down, an amazing gritty, powerful rocker.  In August the Help album included "You've Got to Hide Your Love Away."  Rubber Soul is great and on the same day it was released (Dec 3, 1965) they put out a double A side single with Day Tripper (one of the early riff based classics) and We Can Work it Out.

One  thing about the Beatles is that  released so many fantastic singles that never appeared on albums.  As another example, in June 1966 two months before Revolver they released one single with BOTH Paperback Writer and Rain !!!

I guess we will have to disagree to a point on this, however they did write catchy tunes early on like you mentioned, but nothing groundbreaking IMO. Plus, much of the Merseybeat stuff was being done by other bands which did that genre better than the Beatles did. If they would have broken up pre-Rubber Soul they would likely have been a footnote in music history, remembered in the same vein as Herman's Hermits or Gerry & The Pacemakers except the latter would be in the prominent position as opposed to the Beatles. Ironically enough, both the Beatles and Gerry & the Pacemakers were from Liverpool and both managed by Brian Epstein. So one could argue the real genius in the Beatles was Epstein, not Lennon or McCartney, at least the pre-Rubber Soul era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, IpMan said:

I guess we will have to disagree to a point on this, however they did write catchy tunes early on like you mentioned, but nothing groundbreaking IMO. Plus, much of the Merseybeat stuff was being done by other bands which did that genre better than the Beatles did. If they would have broken up pre-Rubber Soul they would likely have been a footnote in music history, remembered in the same vein as Herman's Hermits or Gerry & The Pacemakers except the latter would be in the prominent position as opposed to the Beatles. Ironically enough, both the Beatles and Gerry & the Pacemakers were from Liverpool and both managed by Brian Epstein. So one could argue the real genius in the Beatles was Epstein, not Lennon or McCartney, at least the pre-Rubber Soul era.

Of course you would champion the gay manager who died young as the real genius in The Beatles as opposed to the distinguished Sir George Martin. To suggest that if they had broken up pre-Rubber Soul they would have been a footnote says nothing really. Cut the existence of any band that lasted less than ten years in half and I'm sure there are few worth recalling. However, in this case you'd still be wrong as it was The Beatles that put the Mersey sound on the map for the world. "Gerry & The Pacemakers"...GTFOH.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, SteveAJones said:

Of course you would champion the gay manager who died young as the real genius in The Beatles as opposed to the distinguished Sir George Martin. To suggest that if they had broken up pre-Rubber Soul they would have been a footnote says nothing really. Cut the existence of any band that lasted less than ten years in half and I'm sure there are few worth recalling. However, in this case you'd still be wrong as it was The Beatles that put the Mersey sound on the map for the world. "Gerry & The Pacemakers"...GTFOH.

 

Is there any way you can possibly debate a subject Steve without insulting the person you are debating? I have no idea what you are such a miserable, cranky person but please do not take it out on me or anyone else. The fact you show a homophobic slur in there is just the cherry on your sundae of hate. You are a real piece of work Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, John M said:

I hear you about the early Beatles but they were superb songwriters and craftsmen.  They also played everything in addition to writing most of it, so not really a "boy band".  Many of their songs up through the album Help are fantastic, and I think they started to stretch the boundries a bit earlier than Rubber Soul.    A year before Rubber Soul they released Beatles for Sale with "I'm a Loser" and "No Reply".  In April 65 they released Ticket to Ride.  In July 65 they released Help and I'm Down, an amazing gritty, powerful rocker.  In August the Help album included "You've Got to Hide Your Love Away."  Rubber Soul is great and on the same day it was released (Dec 3, 1965) they put out a double A side single with Day Tripper (one of the early riff based classics) and We Can Work it Out.

One  thing about the Beatles is that  released so many fantastic singles that never appeared on albums.  As another example, in June 1966 two months before Revolver they released one single with BOTH Paperback Writer and Rain !!!

:goodpost:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, John M said:

I hear you about the early Beatles but they were superb songwriters and craftsmen.  They also played everything in addition to writing most of it, so not really a "boy band".  Many of their songs up through the album Help are fantastic, and I think they started to stretch the boundries a bit earlier than Rubber Soul.    A year before Rubber Soul they released Beatles for Sale with "I'm a Loser" and "No Reply".  In April 65 they released Ticket to Ride.  In July 65 they released Help and I'm Down, an amazing gritty, powerful rocker.  In August the Help album included "You've Got to Hide Your Love Away."  Rubber Soul is great and on the same day it was released (Dec 3, 1965) they put out a double A side single with Day Tripper (one of the early riff based classics) and We Can Work it Out.

One  thing about the Beatles is that  released so many fantastic singles that never appeared on albums.  As another example, in June 1966 two months before Revolver they released one single with BOTH Paperback Writer and Rain !!!

Spot on, a lot of The Beatles' early stuff was absolutely brilliant & light years ahead of the likes of Gerry & the Pacemakers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, IpMan said:

Is there any way you can possibly debate a subject Steve without insulting the person you are debating? I have no idea what you are such a miserable, cranky person but please do not take it out on me or anyone else. The fact you show a homophobic slur in there is just the cherry on your sundae of hate. You are a real piece of work Steve.

That's a rebuttal that fails miserably to rebut. Your getting thrashed in the arena of ideas today. Tap out!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question: when did the term "gay" become a "homosexual slur"? I guess you could say it has to do with the context its used in, but in this case its a real stretch. Kinda like calling someone a racist for using the term 'black' instead of 'african american'. I understand how offensive names such as meat smoker, booty bandit, fudge packer, rump rooter (just made that up), pudding pusher, turd tickler, gerbil jouster, anus angler....are all obvious homosexual slurs...but "gay"? 

Political correctness is a pet peeve of mine....sorry.

THIS THREAD MUST BE DERAILED

 

 

Edited by blindwillie127
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back on topic, as much as I love Zep and they will ALWAYS be my favorite band ever, I still think the Beatles earn the spot of "best" rock and roll band ever.  Both bands borrowed from earlier artists, both contributed with original recording techniques and both influenced the culture and more than one generation of musicians that followed.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody dis-credited Sir George Martin from what I read. 

Brian Epstein turned The Beatles from greased back hair, leather jacket wearing hoods into the suit wearing mop top fab 4. Positive or negative change of image is debatable, but his influence and directed change of image help launch  Beatlemania. Whoever booked them on Ed Sullivan (and I would bet that was also Brian Epstein) also deserves some major credit. 

Can't take that away from him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, the chase said:

Nobody dis-credited Sir George Martin from what I read. 

Brian Epstein turned The Beatles from greased back hair, leather jacket wearing hoods into the suit wearing mop top fab 4. Positive or negative change of image is debatable, but his influence and directed change of image help launch  Beatlemania. Whoever booked them on Ed Sullivan (and I would bet that was also Brian Epstein) also deserves some major credit. 

Can't take that away from him.

Fair enough, but such was Sir George Martin's brilliance that he not only produced them...he plucked them from obscurity and signed them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SteveAJones said:

Fair enough, but such was Sir George Martin's brilliance that he not only produced them...he plucked them from obscurity and signed them.

No doubt. Sir George was the 5th Beatle and a true genius. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blindwillie127 said:

Question: when did the term "gay" become a "homosexual slur"? I guess you could say it has to do with the context its used in, but in this case its a real stretch. Kinda like calling someone a racist for using the term 'black' instead of 'african american'. I understand how offensive names such as meat smoker, booty bandit, fudge packer, rump rooter (just made that up), pudding pusher, turd tickler, gerbil jouster, anus angler....are all obvious homosexual slurs...but "gay"? 

Political correctness is a pet peeve of mine....sorry.

THIS THREAD MUST BE DERAILED

 

 

Yes, the thread got derailed...but there is an undercurrent of derisiveness to use gay as an identifier in this case. Why do we need to know his sexual orientation? Its not necessary info. If black were used... or short, or lesbian, or Jew , or white, or fat  in place of gay in this case, it would still sound pejorative. It's irrelevant to the discussion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Beatles were not a boy band. Boy Bands do not write their own music, play instruments. Before they become huge The Beatles would do 8 hour sets. Just cause they wore matching suits and happened to appeal to young females does not make them a boy band. Boy bands hardly last 3 years, and they have no legacy. Every week there is a new book about the Beatles, (what more can be said at this point?). I think Zeppelin gets a few books a year and that is still awesome. As for the early material, I don't understand the slogging. What band's of that era trumped what the Beatles were doing in the pop realm?

Edited by Tremelo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, porgie66 said:

Yes, the thread got derailed...but there is an undercurrent of derisiveness to use gay as an identifier in this case. Why do we need to know his sexual orientation? Its not necessary info. If black were used... or short, or lesbian, or Jew , or white, or fat  in place of gay in this case, it would still sound pejorative. It's irrelevant to the discussion. 

The discussion itself is irrelevant.

Edited by blindwillie127
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tremelo said:

The Beatles were not a boy band. Boy Bands do not write their own music, play instruments. Before they become huge The Beatles would do 8 hour sets. Just cause they wore matching suits and happened to appeal to young females does not make them a boy band. Boy bands hardly last 3 years, and they have no legacy. Every week there is a new book about the Beatles, (what more can be said at this point?). I think Zeppelin gets a few books a year and that is still awesome. As for the early material, I don't understand the slogging. What band's of that era trumped what the Beatles were doing in the pop realm?

Nope not a boy band.. agreed. 

They had a media friendly image in that they were very like-able.

Plus they wrote some of the catchiest songs of all time.. in their early 20's ..

They consistently developed and improved as well.  That the same band who wrote Love Me Do wrote Strawberry Fields Forever four years later is just incredible..  

I Saw Her Standing There 

All My Loving 

It Won't Be Long etc.. timeless 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, porgie66 said:

Yes, the thread got derailed...but there is an undercurrent of derisiveness to use gay as an identifier in this case. Why do we need to know his sexual orientation? Its not necessary info. If black were used... or short, or lesbian, or Jew , or white, or fat  in place of gay in this case, it would still sound pejorative. It's irrelevant to the discussion. 

It is entirely relevant insofar as the methodology IpMan applies to discerning who he'll single out for praise or assign credit to in any given scenario.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Beatles "boy band" thing is all about the notion that their early fan base seemed to be squealing teenage girls who were almost undoubtedly more interested in the Beatles as personalities than in the music they created. I wouldn't try to make a direct comparison between the Beatles and, say, the Backstreet Boys, for any number of a million obvious reasons, some of which have already been mentioned. But there's no denying that the Beatles appeal to throngs of squealing teenage girls was no different than the appeal of the Backstreet Boys to their throngs of squealing teenage girls. The fact that the Beatles were talented musicians and songwriters was almost irrelevant to that equation, but was certainly relevant to the ability of the Beatles to outgrow and outlive their "boy band" phase and become recognized for their musical talents and accomplishments, something which can't be said for the Backstreet Boys or any of the other cookie-cutter boy bands that keep infecting the pop music scene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

That's a rebuttal that fails miserably to rebut. Your getting thrashed in the arena of ideas today. Tap out!

As is typical of you Steve, anyone who disagrees with you fails miserably, that is the typical crux of your arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Balthazor said:

I think the Beatles "boy band" thing is all about the notion that their early fan base seemed to be squealing teenage girls who were almost undoubtedly more interested in the Beatles as personalities than in the music they created. I wouldn't try to make a direct comparison between the Beatles and, say, the Backstreet Boys, for any number of a million obvious reasons, some of which have already been mentioned. But there's no denying that the Beatles appeal to throngs of squealing teenage girls was no different than the appeal of the Backstreet Boys to their throngs of squealing teenage girls. The fact that the Beatles were talented musicians and songwriters was almost irrelevant to that equation, but was certainly relevant to the ability of the Beatles to outgrow and outlive their "boy band" phase and become recognized for their musical talents and accomplishments, something which can't be said for the Backstreet Boys or any of the other cookie-cutter boy bands that keep infecting the pop music scene.

Thank you Sir, this is exactly what I was trying to convey. For me, the Beatles started out as a boy band in the fact that they were a created product of Brian Epstein. Yes, they were talented musicians and writers, but when a manager plucks you from obscurity, completely changes your look and musical style, and then essentially begins to market you, that to me is a boy band concept. 

Also, this is why I dared to mention Gerry & the Pacemakers in the same paragraph as the Beatles. I don't know if anyone on the site is of an age where they were in their teens or early 20's around 1963 but Gerry & the Pacemakers were one of those bands that were crazy popular for a few years. Even more so than the Beatles were at the same period as it was them, not the Beatles who scored three consecutive UK #1 singles with their first releases, something the Beatles never did. So, my point was based on popularity more than anything else. Of course the Beatles are a much better group than Gerry, however that was because of what they accomplished over the course of their career, not because of what they accomplished from 63'-64'.

I want to just say this is all my opinion, and unlike another poster here, I am not trying to change anyones opinions and in fact I respect everyone else opinions on this and other matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...