Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About nemophilist

  • Rank
    Zep Head

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,097 profile views
  1. You're welcome. Exactly, there are so many nuisances. They really fill in the song, it truly is an epic performance. It's one that the casual listener wouldn't pick up. Bonzo and Jones really make the song what it is.
  2. nemophilist

    What Are You Listening To At This Moment?

    My most recent performance. It's an acoustic set of my material which is very much influenced by celtic, english and arabic folk; as well as players like Bert Jansch, John Renbourn, among others including Jimmy Page.
  3. Thanks a lot man. I'm really glad you enjoyed it! John Fahey is great.
  4. You do an unbelievable job on all of these tracks. You have a great ear and have everything down to the last detail. I think Bring it on Home is one of Bonham's most under appreciated drum tracks. It's one of my favorites though.
  5. Thank you. I'm happy to hear that you did!
  6. Thanks a lot, I appreciate you taking the time to watch!
  7. nemophilist

    Post A Picture Of Yourself!

    HAha, You know it could be an old vest of Gilbert's. The thing is from the late 60's/early 70's haha. Thanks a lot though for the kind words. I'm happy to hear that you enjoyed it!
  8. nemophilist

    Post A Picture Of Yourself!

    Hey everyone, not a picture of myself but instead a video. Maybe some of you will like it? It's a video of a recent performance of mine. I think some of you who like the acoustic side of led zeppelin, along with artists such as Roy Harper, Bert Jansch and John Renbourn might like my material.
  9. I Played a show a week ago which was filmed and recorded live. I thought some of you would be into the material. It's a performance of some of my acoustic instrumental songs. I have many influences and tons of material, some is acoustic, some is electric, and some is a mix. These songs are more similar to artists such as John Renbourn, Bert Jansch, Roy Harper as well as Zeppelin's acoustic side. But It's not exactly like any of those, it's very much my own thing. It's not a perfect performance, a few minor mistakes but it was pretty solid overall. Let me know if any of you are into the material. I've posted the first song (which has an extended intro, sort of a medley of other material of mine) on here in the past.
  10. nemophilist

    Tower House

    I love to see how Jimmy has kept the house so true to its creation. Most people would modernize with a bunch of sterile looking crap all over the place. I hate seeing people take amazing architectural marvels, and older houses with so much character and just remove all of the timelessness from it; basically making it a facade.
  11. nemophilist

    Interview with Jimmy Page - GQ Magazine

    I thought that was one of the better interviews I've read. A couple of things I appreciate the most about the members of LZ is how much they value their privacy (don't have to feed their egos by putting their personal lives on display) and the fact that they don't constantly glorify their drug use or the amount of women they've slept with in order to maintain or build some phony badass, false persona; basically the media image of the "rock star" or person in a band. Like Steven Tyler for instance, he talks about it almost every single interview i've seen him in. It gets really old and people that do that seem to care more about their persona than their music, it's all about making sure you grab headlines. Plus does your family really want to hear about the random girls or women you sleep with or have slept with all the time? Probably not. I think Page just doesn't want to say something that people will take out of context or the wrong way, then it'll come up continuously in the media, in interviews and probably in some personal interactions. I think he could be a tiny bit looser at times, but I understand why he's not. What's the use of it really? The reason anyone even knows of him is music, thus it should be about the music for the most part.
  12. nemophilist

    Greta Van Fleet

    I agree. I'm not saying it to knock them as no one else is truly anything like Led Zeppelin, but they are nowhere near the comprehensive style of Led Zeppelin. I truly hear more ACDC and other 70's bands than Led Zeppelin in their music. The feel, the styles and the approaches are all quite different from Led Zeppelin for the most part. Greta is pretty much a straight forward rock band with very little influence from any styles outside of the blues. I obviously don't think it's Greta. They didn't market themselves as the next LZ. I think it's more so the media and everyone else who hears a guy sound like Robert Plant in a song or two, sees them dressing like their from the 60's and then brands a band with headlines such as "Are ________ the next led zeppelin?" How many times has that happened? Wolfmother comes to mind after their first album. Good album, actually I love the album but still nothing like Led Zeppelin. I actually think that musically their first album was more like Zeppelin than anything I've heard from Greta outside of one of their covers of a zeppelin song. Although I think that technically speaking the guitarist for Greta is a better player than Andrew from Wolfmother. Didn't Robert Plant recently say something along the lines that he doesn't think most of their fans actually understand Led Zeppelin's music? I definitely agree with that when everyone talks about how much a band like GVF sounds just like Led Zeppelin.
  13. nemophilist


    It's hard to have "better leaders" when there are those who threaten or coerce them into selling their people out. That's why people believe in libertarianism, because power corrupts so it's better to decentralize and have it closer to the individual. Our leaders are quite smart, they do things that seem stupid because it's not for the benefit of their constituents. It's for the benefits of special interests. Essentially when government has power, or any individual, then those with the resources to purchase that power will do so for the own agenda time and time again. It always happens and it always will. The reality is that there is no utopian system. But things should be voluntary. I believe communism can only work when it is voluntary, as it does quite often in communal living scenarios where everyone is working towards a common goal on a small scale. Libertarian political philosophy is a moral system because it isn't predicated on force or violence through the state. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a state, as that takes a population of very high consciousness and morality; but I'm saying people shouldn't be forced into a communist system as it is predicated on violence through the state. It should be voluntary and it would keep society from collapsing like every single totalitarian communist system does. In my opinion from my research it's a phony political philosophy that was made more prominent through the funding of wealthy interests (like the league of just men) who funded people like Marx. It's a parasitical system that is sold to people under the guise of helping the downtrodden. The state (which they call "the people") just parasites the population until they're all poor and thus "equal." Then the wealthy political class who funded the politicians no longer have any competition and then we have a virtual monarchy again. Not rule secession outside of election, but I just mean power is put into the hands of the very few who are extremely wealthy while the rest of the country are a bunch of peasants (essentially). But I do truly believe that communism can work on a voluntary level with those who believe in it, on a very small scale. Not forced on an entire nation, or an entire state or community. And to lpman: I do pretty much agree with what you're saying. I wouldn't say it's a joke though, and I always question what goes behind the scenes even as a far back as that though. But on the surface I do agree with you. I very much agree with you on your first paragraph as well, we've never been truly free market even right after the Revolution. And as I actually said above there would need to be a very moral and extremely aware populace to actually have a truly libertarian system.
  14. nemophilist


    Lol Okay, I guess you're all knowing. What's that supposed to scare me away from my beliefs? I think I'm right based off of my research and If you think I'm wrong then good for you. First of all you would probably never even be taught anything like that in community college or any educational establishment. All they do is preach democracy (which I know is a superior system to most) without even considering what I stated. You have no clue how much time I've dedicated to reading numerous kinds of history books. I form my thoughts from my own research not what some programmed teacher regurgitates out of a corporate text book full of revisionist details. I learned the same info, repeated every year for like 12 years. It's programming. Essentially refuting my point kind of proved my point especially by attacking me instead of actually making a counter argument. If you don't think elections are charades where people are lied into accepting a candidate, and that the ensuing presidency is more of the same then well I'd say you're being manipulated because you're not looking at the actions of those individuals when they step away from the podium. Nor do you see the policies of their bureaucratic agencies which aren't often given too much time on air and you'd have to take your time finding and reading the policies themselves, or find an article on them. Democracy is by nature collectivist as it is majority rule through voting (the illusion of choice), the collective. Without proper restraints put on government (like the Constitution and Bill Of Rights in the US; although those documents are of a republic, not a democracy. They do have some democratic principles which are I do think are beneficial as I said) it will incrementally march towards a totalitarian system or one which doesn't respect or honor the liberty of the individual. Essentially The 51% can vote away the "rights" of the other 49% in a democracy. We see it happening in the US every time someone votes for a candidate that promises to make us "more safe" by eroding some vital liberty while just giving the masses the illusion of security by creating a surveillance state.
  15. nemophilist


    Totally true. I think that's the entire point of "democracy" though. It's pretty collectivist in its base principles (it really becomes majority rule, yet as we see the majority is continuously manipulated) and thus ends up doing little to protect the individual without putting constraints on government. It's really just a gateway to totalitarianism. It really just pushed the monarchy to behind the scenes (where they still rule through corporations, silicon valley and mega-banks; although in England the Queen is still head of state on numerous issues) and gives the people the illusion of choice. Democratic principles or features are obviously great though. But I totally agree with you, especially on how organized religion suppresses true spirituality. Then you have academia and mainstream science pushing this illusory debate of organized religion vs. Darwinism (which If im remembering correctly was pushed by the Royal Society and other very nefarious royal elites who went on to basically build the world we see today) while trying to suppress a whole century of studies which show in various ways that we are just spirits or waveform energy having a physical or human experience. That we can only see a small frequency spectrum which is dubbed visible light. Which is known as quantum physics and just becomes more credible by the year. But yeah media outlets have always been corrupt or bias even going back to the 18th century but when you have something so central that the masses focus their attention such as TV and social media it makes the control and consolidation of media both much more prevalent and much more important for wealthy elites who have the resources to continuously engineer society towards their own desires and needs. This is why all the media we outside of the internet is owned by just six corporations.