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?

81 posts in this topic

The Beatles hit American shores in February 1964, roughly 3 months after JFK's assassination. People were looking for something to feel good about after such a tragic, senseless event. They were the right thing at the right time.... but they also had the goods. Everyone old enough to remember The Beatles on Ed Sullivan remember where they were when they watched it.. Thousands upon thousands site that as a life changing event.. I get what you're saying LPman, I really do.  But, The Beatles were so much more than just a band. 

Share this post


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

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'.

^^^

You cannot be serious! Epstein was a disinterested businessman who finally relented and went to see the group as their local popularity in Liverpool escalated. Having seen them for himself, a couple of months later he signed them to a management deal. He can quite rightly be credited with putting them in suits, as unsurprisingly he placed a primary emphasis on their physical appearance and fashion--he had originally wanted to become a dress designer. However, their music? That's John, Paul, George, Ringo and (Sir) George Martin all the way. They had been paying their dues together for years, refining their musical chops by playing night after night.

Gerry & The Pacemakers did score three consecutive UK #1 singles with their first releases. Unfortunately, for your side of this debate, The Beatles FIRST SEVEN ALBUMS scored #1 on the charts (1963-1966). Four of those hit #1 in 1963-1964!  By the way, EIGHT MORE ALBUMS have scored #1 since.

Perhaps your championing Gerry & The Pacemakers merely because they too were an Epstein-managed act? Regardless, I don't have peer-reviewed sources at the moment to further substantiate that which my towering intellect has presented here, but aside from basic common sense and logic I can readily provide the following links:   

https://www.beatlesbible.com/people/brian-epstein/

http://comprehensivebeatles.blogspot.jp/2010/11/how-brian-epstein-met-beatles.html

http://blog.sonicbids.com/5-forgotten-ways-the-beatles-changed-pop-music

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/sep/09/beatles-albums-singles-music-rock-band

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it's numerous things but to be quick.... It's not just how they changed the face of music. It's also the way so many bands have tried to emulate them but just fail to do so, the music is just too pure to themselves. The best bet you have is to incorporate some things in to your own style, but I must emphasize that I feel not one band did this right (IMO) until much later. I think it took a lot of people many years to truly understand just how great Led Zeppelin were, and truly understand what each member brought to the table stylistically, which is hard to replicate but so many mistake as easy, simplistic or Sloppy (in the case of Jimmy). That always sounds melodramatic to say as they've been so popular for decades but I hope some will understand what i mean. I actually think the internet (bootlegs/videors) has brought more understanding of their greatness, as well as the DVD release in 2003 followed by how the west was won. Even a song like the most notorious "Still of the night" might have a zeppelin quality but to me it's nothing like led zeppelin, the only strong similarity is maybe Coverdale's voice and the octave riff within the song.

Their best attribute is how timeless they are and it's due to very honest, organic production, as well as unparalleled energy and chemistry emitted while playing together which was captures through the aforementioned production (especially 1968-1975). The diversity in their style is just as important, but also arguably what is most key. The way they blended various forms of folk and did it with an energetic, enthralling feel unlike anyone else is the biggest thing that set them apart from other hard rock bands before and after them. It also helped that their heavier songs had a feel and experimentation unlike any other due to each members style, and this was most certainly emphasized or solidified by John Bonham and John Paul Jones. At times I feel Zeppelin is truly genre-less. That it's almost a disservice calling them just a rock band because they're really much more than just a rock band, as everyone on here knows.

One more quick thought, I feel that Led Zeppelin along with Sabbath were some of the first significant bands to really not care about mass popularity, singles, record sales or any music trends.  It was all about connecting with their souls to create something honest and unique to themselves as artists which they could feel proud of. How many good or even great bands are pushed in to this mindset either by their record companies and or from personal insecurities? If it wasn't for this trait then we wouldn't be discussing them, nor would this forum exist.

Edited by nemophilist

Share this post


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

^^^

You cannot be serious! Epstein was a disinterested businessman who finally relented and went to see the group as their local popularity in Liverpool escalated. Having seen them for himself, a couple of months later he signed them to a management deal. He can quite rightly be credited with putting them in suits, as unsurprisingly he placed a primary emphasis on their physical appearance and fashion--he had originally wanted to become a dress designer. However, their music? That's John, Paul, George, Ringo and (Sir) George Martin all the way. They had been paying their dues together for years, refining their musical chops by playing night after night.

Gerry & The Pacemakers did score three consecutive UK #1 singles with their first releases. Unfortunately, for your side of this debate, The Beatles FIRST SEVEN ALBUMS scored #1 on the charts (1963-1966). Four of those hit #1 in 1963-1964!  By the way, EIGHT MORE ALBUMS have scored #1 since.

Perhaps your championing Gerry & The Pacemakers merely because they too were an Epstein-managed act? Regardless, I don't have peer-reviewed sources at the moment to further substantiate that which my towering intellect has presented here, but aside from basic common sense and logic I can readily provide the following links:   

https://www.beatlesbible.com/people/brian-epstein/

http://comprehensivebeatles.blogspot.jp/2010/11/how-brian-epstein-met-beatles.html

http://blog.sonicbids.com/5-forgotten-ways-the-beatles-changed-pop-music

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/sep/09/beatles-albums-singles-music-rock-band

Steve, I keep saying, over and over ad nauseam I am referring ONLY to the period of 63'-64', not the entirety of their career. I do appreciate your toning down on the insults though as I am always happy when a person turns a corner. Though you still need to work on your modesty and truly hope that is not a bridge too far. As I have been told by several people who indeed were towering intellects, those which are never consider themselves as such, however those who lack are the first ones to crow about how smart they are.

And yes, the Beatles sure paid their dues, some members more than others, no one is disputing that. The point is when they were playing those bars in Hamburg, soaked to the gills on amphetamines, they were playing covers. If they would have whipped out Love Me Do or Please, Please Me in one of those Hamburg clubs no one would have ever heard of the Beatles because the locals likely would have beat them to a pulp and tossed them in some ditch. Those were rough clubs and I doubt the locals would have gone in for one of those tunes.

So, in affect you are correct about the music regarding George Martin, he was a true genius and was likely the driving force behind how the music was arranged and laid down. Knowing their roots it is unlikely the Beatles would have, out of nowhere, come up with those pop style leanings without the direction of Sir George. I assume the songs would have been written, however they likely would have been more along the lines of what they had been doing, so the songs would have been harder and more aggressive in general and likely not have been as popular. However I personally would have loved to hear what those songs would have sounded like without Sir George in the Captains chair.

Edited by IpMan

Share this post


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

Steve, I keep saying, over and over ad nauseam I am referring ONLY to the period of 63'-64', not the entirety of their career. I do appreciate your toning down on the insults though as I am always happy when a person turns a corner. Though you still need to work on your modesty and truly hope that is not a bridge too far. As I have been told by several people who indeed were towering intellects, those which are never consider themselves as such, however those who lack are the first ones to crow about how smart they are.

And yes, the Beatles sure paid their dues, some members more than others, no one is disputing that. The point is when they were playing those bars in Hamburg, soaked to the gills on amphetamines, they were playing covers. If they would have whipped out Love Me Do or Please, Please Me in one of those Hamburg clubs no one would have ever heard of the Beatles because the locals likely would have beat them to a pulp and tossed them in some ditch. Those were rough clubs and I doubt the locals would have gone in for one of those tunes.

So, in affect you are correct about the music regarding George Martin, he was a true genius and was likely the driving force behind how the music was arranged and laid down. Knowing their roots it is unlikely the Beatles would have, out of nowhere, come up with those pop style leanings without the direction of Sir George. I assume the songs would have been written, however they likely would have been more along the lines of what they had been doing, so the songs would have been harder and more aggressive in general and likely not have been as popular. However I personally would have loved to hear what those songs would have sounded like without Sir George in the Captains chair.

I haven't toned down, I'm just doing my show. A bit of cat and mouse is always funnier than insult, insult, insult. My towering intellect refers to my uncanny ability to aggregate essential elements of information into a consistent, cohesive if not entertaining point of view. I would never claim to be "smart", just handsome and powerful. Anyway, it's nothing personal, it's part of the act.

Edited by SteveAJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many guitarists will tell you it was Zeppelin and not Hendrix that influenced them to pick up a guitar. That alone is worthy!

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