Jump to content

sk8rat

Members
  • Posts

    225
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sk8rat

  1. it is not totally original. if you listen to robert johnsons music a lot of it is the same but he had very specific licks and phrases which jimmy used for their version. obviously it sounds very different but you can hear where jimmy got a lot of the phrasing for their version just overall from robert johnson.
  2. I saw this in yesterdays paper. seattle times. mention of jimmy starting in the middle paragraph.
  3. he looks so different with his hair like that.
  4. while I cant say I dislike it because it never happened, I would have loved for them to have reintroduced baby im gonna leave you when they started doing acoustic songs.
  5. yeah, I was told the organ wasn't hooked up to the soundboard so it didn't get recorded.
  6. im sure they had their reasons. they probably just felt that the track listing was better that way. they also put bring it on home at the very end but they played it before the other two during the encore. they also took out heartbeaker, sibly, thank you and long tall sally.
  7. just talking about the angles, not the editing. when they filmed from the stage and the crowd the band looked like it had a much bigger presence. there is magic in the camerawork as well as the editing. film them from down low and up close and they look powerful and in charge, while when filmed from far away they just look like a group of guys mucking around on stage.
  8. 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....
  9. blueberry hill - when they are about to get into that's the way someone says "straight from the deli."
  10. 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 ) 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.
  11. royal albert hall 1970 - whole lotta love, when someone in the audience yells "woman!" and robert plant points and goes "ahh" blueberry hill - when robert says they are going to play sibly someone says "oh my god" and someone else says "beautiful". beautiful it was.
  12. he may have said that but they tend to go back on their word based on mood. I watched a fairly recent interview (I think 2011) with him where he talked about his vocals in the early years and he said that yes, he still had some work to do on his vocals in the early years but it was coming around. also in one of the lz books (iirc) he said that 1970 was his favorite year live and that the rain song was his favorite vocal performance. yes, in the very early days his voice could sometimes go out of control, doing that weird howling sound, or breaking up into a high pitch scream but he seemed to have it tamed by 1970. also it was a lot better than the later days when his voice would crack and when he could no longer hit the high notes.
  13. 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.
  14. no offense but the contrast in opinion is probably because you are not a guy . I dont think many of the guys were too excited to see roberts pants back in those days.. he was always a bit feminine from the early days and as a guy I can say, man did he pull it off but the later days was really more for the ladies than anything. that said it wasnt always extremely over the top but sometimes it could be distracting.
  15. I was thinking about this today. robert plant was what turned me onto led zeppelin with LZI. subsequently, robert plant sort of turned me away from led zeppelins later years. he went from singing with angst and anger in his voice and then he sort of started getting a little too sexual and flamboyant with his singing later on. see 1:27 for an example. the early sexual suggestions were cool but when it became so blatant it just lost its meaning. also, in the beginning, tight but loose is the best way too describe them, the music was loose but the group was tight. later on, for me it feels like they were four musicians playing individually at the same time rather than a group playing together if that makes sense. the band because loose. its not necessarily a bad thing, the band was evolving to something more mature (yet immature at the same time) but the band sprouted into ten different directions rather than just one or two and I think they spread themselves a little too thin. they were a bad ass, angry band in the beginning and I relate to that much more than the later stuff (live anyways). there is obviously the drug use and all but I dont really pay attention to that. robert plants voice started burning out and that is really the worst thing that happened to them musically imo. early on their style was way better as well. they went from being casual, yet well dressed young men, to being characters
  16. awesome pics. I guess robert plant wasn't lying when he said, "I am a traveler of both time and space". look at jonesy talking on a cellphone .
  17. cant really get much more to the root of it all than that. I cant stand when there is a bunch of misinformation in documentaries. it should be good.
  18. no you are mistaken. "very old stock" and "new old stock" could be what you are thinking about. vos doesn't mean that they are using the same old wood and hardware they used back in the 50's. all it means is that the specifications are the same i.e. same neck profiles, long tenon, 100% nitro finish, light aging ect...all they are doing is making a historically accurate replica. if they were building guitars from a stock of supplies from the 50's the would be asking a hell of a lot more money for them.
  19. no way, if jimmys black beauty wasnt stolen that thing would have gone for around that much at auction(who knows how much it was being sold for as it was floating around the black market) but not the number one. if jimmys number one were to ever be sold I would have no doubt in my mind that it would probably become the most expensive guitar ever to be sold (along with pearl gates and claptons guitar if it ever surfaces). I wouldn't be surprised if it went for a few million.
  20. ah, I looked on reverb but couldnt find the specific guitar. O.P. look at the price guide below. it shows what people paid for the guitars, what condition they were in and when https://reverb.com/price-guide/guide/3031
  21. go to the forum below, they will get you some info. you can post in either of these sections. make sure to title the thread with the guitar details like "vos black beauty price help" or something like that. since they are vos you would probably have a better shot in the historic section but be prepared to get a few snarky replies. it happens from time to time. also they wont give you anything unless you give them pictures, year and some specs. because they aren't just run of the mill stock guitars it might be hard to get a solid estimate. http://www.mylespaul.com/forums/gibson-les-pauls/ http://www.mylespaul.com/forums/historics-reissues/
  22. that may be but as I said im going off of the info we have from people who knew him. they basically say he lived at home his whole life and didn't get out of the house much other than to do his job, as a janitor at a highschool and to record concerts.
×
×
  • Create New...