Jump to content

Led Zeppelin and "Drugs"


lzzoso

Recommended Posts

  • 8 months later...

Hello! I started this topic about 9 months ago. And it has seemed to get its share of Positive and Negative feedback. I have just read every reply from the beginning to the last one back in August of 2009. I want to say that I was somewhat correct to say that this topic would and could be considered "Controversial".

Most of us who know and Love the Music of Led Zeppelin have to realize that some (if not most) of their Music was written and recorded and played under some sort of Drug or Alcohol(ic) state. I may be wrong, but if this is true, I do not consider this to be a Bad thing as some of You may consider it to be.

Let me say this: I am an average American, hard-working, tax-paying citizen. I have "experimented" with certain "substances" in "the days of my youth". If I can say and admit this, I have no "illusions" that the Greatest and Most Influential Musicians of All-Time, Jimmy Page and Led Zeppelin, have not done the same as I have, only on a Much Greater Scale than I could possibly imagine comprehend.

If some of You out there are truly "offended" because You want to believe that Led Zeppelin never did (hard) DRUGS, than that is OK with me. But really ask Yourself this, if You are that big of a fan of Led Zeppelin, do you think that They were that "Innocent".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If some of You out there are truly "offended" because You want to believe that Led Zeppelin never did (hard) DRUGS, than that is OK with me. But really ask Yourself this, if You are that big of a fan of Led Zeppelin, do you think that They were that "Innocent".

There surely cannot be anyone out there who thinks that LZ's coveted position at the very top of the Hard Rock League wasn't mirrored (fnarr fnarr) by their position at or very near the top of the Hard Drugs Abuse League.

Does anyone care? Well, not me - good for them, I hope they enjoyed it. However, coke & smack are not generally conducive to high quality output, whatever business you're in, and I'd say it's fairly easy to track the downward abuse trajectory of one particular member simply by comparing Presence to ITTOD.

IMHO, they really ought to put little pictures of those two albums in all anti-drugs literature - 'Before & After' shots, as it were. A truly shocking decline, unprecedented in the entire history of rock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say it's fairly easy to track the downward abuse trajectory of one particular member simply by comparing Presence to ITTOD. IMHO, they really ought to put little pictures of those two albums in all anti-drugs literature - 'Before & After' shots, as it were. A truly shocking decline, unprecedented in the entire history of rock.

The decline of Brian Jones and Syd Barrett, among others, is much more shocking. Even so, Page's decline on stage and in studio is obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There surely cannot be anyone out there who thinks that LZ's coveted position at the very top of the Hard Rock League wasn't mirrored (fnarr fnarr) by their position at or very near the top of the Hard Drugs Abuse League.

Does anyone care? Well, not me - good for them, I hope they enjoyed it. However, coke & smack are not generally conducive to high quality output, whatever business you're in, and I'd say it's fairly easy to track the downward abuse trajectory of one particular member simply by comparing Presence to ITTOD.

IMHO, they really ought to put little pictures of those two albums in all anti-drugs literature - 'Before & After' shots, as it were. A truly shocking decline, unprecedented in the entire history of rock.

IITOD was a quality album in my opinion. Just because JPJ was the main musical writer is no reason to slam the output by the band. Sure Jimmy had gone downhill, this is still a reason to remember that this was a four piece band with various contributions from all four. In through the out door is a quality album that proves Zeppelin wasn't all hard rock. They were evolving with the times and the tastes of the individual members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:P I'l take the good with the bad,with all the ups and downs in life, I love all thier music, it makes it interesting to say the least! Those were the sign of the times. It is what it is!! B)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

tongue.gif I'l take the good with the bad,with all the ups and downs in life, I love all thier music, it makes it interesting to say the least! Those were the sign of the times. It is what it is!! cool.gif

I agree with you gina62, it is what it is - or was, as the case may be.

My horse isn't high enough to pass judgment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears that the majority of rock bands do or did drugs, it's part of the lifestyle. The difference with Zeppelin is that unlike other bands drugs never affected their performance. The only dodgy performance I can think of is the '88 performance in which Jimmy supposedly drank too much before going on stage.

Have to listen to Jimmy during certain shows in '77 and most of '80? The Jimmy of '73 and below destroys the player he became later on. I leave '75 out because that hand injury affected a lot of shows from that tour. What sucks is that JPJ and Bonzo kept getting better. If Jimmy had followed suit, the results would have been truly mind-blowing. Don't get me wrong, there were TONS of magical moments in the later tours but there something missing later on. Damn shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have to listen to Jimmy during certain shows in '77 and most of '80? The Jimmy of '73 and below destroys the player he became later on. I leave '75 out because that hand injury affected a lot of shows from that tour. What sucks is that JPJ and Bonzo kept getting better. If Jimmy had followed suit, the results would have been truly mind-blowing. Don't get me wrong, there were TONS of magical moments in the later tours but there something missing later on. Damn shame.

I concur. There is no doubting that Jimmy's playing suffered due to heavy substance abuse. It sucks because a lot of the time during '77 ('80 he had almost totally lost it imo, bar a couple of shows. SIBLY is just horrendous.) you could hear what he was trying to do but he was simply too out of it to play with the dexterity of previous years. The Houston show is a prime example of this IMO, he almost succeeds in pulling all these fast runs off but he doesn't quite make it so as a result it sounds like his fingers are entangled in the guitar strings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I just read all 143 replies to this topic that I started. SilverVishnu started a similiar topic titled, "Drugs and alcohol in the Zepp camp", in the Led Zeppelin trivia section (?). I read all the replies that were posted for his topic.

Somewhere along the lines (get it, "lines") my topic created some obvious controversy. As it should. Even some negative feedback directed at me personally. I have no problem(s) with that. However, it, for a while, turned into a a total trashing of the book "Hammer of the Gods". Of course it is anyones right to say and express how they feel (or don't feel) about such topics and particulars.

I have said it before and will say it again: I personally enjoy reading "Hammer of the Gods". I have read it so many times over the years since I was 13 years old that I can open it up to any page and know exactly what was said before and what is going to be said in the very next paragraph. Of course I have bought and read many, many more books about Led Zeppelin since then, however, I have to give much credit for "Hammer of the Gods" because if I never had read this book as a 13 year old kid who's favorite bands at that time were Rush, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden... I may not have become the Great Led Zeppelin fan that I consider myself to be. With that said, I will go even one farther and say that reading "Hammer of the Gods" probably changed my life. As stupid as that may sound to people out there I think that might be an accurate statement on my part.

By the way, Rush is (probably) my second favorite group and Judas Priest and Iron Maiden are definately in my top 10.

Now, I am ready for the negativity and criticisms (and Praise, if there is any) to come my way for my above statements. Let me end by saying this: whatever you may say in terms of negativity and criticisms that is fine with me. Say what you will (if anything), I will probably never meet anyone from this forum so word from strangers do not affect me at all.

As for the original topic I started, Led Zeppelin DID all kinds of Drugs throughout their 12 year reign and I am grateful for Everything they did that was created by or because of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of bands indulged in drugs after the concerts were over.

Some kids think drugs fueled creativity and music ability. I think some of the drugs influenced some of the lyric writing, but the music ability was there from the beginning. They all came to that band ready to go.

The access to all those vices came with the territory, and it was an "anything goes" time where no one really knew better, even though there were plenty of casualties.

I think the movie "Ray" captured how someone can get into that habit clearly. It starts off subtle, then proceeds to take over your entire life. When people are depending on you to make them money, they'll give you anything you want as long as you keep going. That's why you'd hear about all these piles of pills and Scarface levels of powder at parties and in the VIP sections. Nothing much has changed, except it can be on the internet in minutes. There's no way LZ would be able to do things in private today.

And same with coke, which made a lot of people paranoid and having delusions of grandeur. But if it's commonplace and as available as aspirin, it doesn't seem so bad.

Add to that going town to town, hotel room to hotel room, and it becomes... a glorified prison.

Led Zep was always able to be crazy on the road, but when they got home, unplugged. But we've all read that Bonham had let that all creep into his home life in the late 70s.

There's enough evidence in the bootlegs that whether it was drug use or lack of sleep, or a little of both, it DID affect their performance.

I think Zappa was brilliant and he hated drugs. But most bands you'll talk to or read about said they saved the partying for after the show.

The ones who tripped balls before a show said they'd never do it again because they played so badly.

No rock star wants the responsibility of a fan dying from a drug OD because they inspired it in some way. They also don't like being role models. Far from it. They take care of themselves and their families, they know who their friends are, and appreciate their fans from a safe distance, but if someone says they made a difference in their life, of course they appreciate comments like that as well.

If you're a musician, save the drug use until you're THAT damn good at your instrument and can afford to maintain a habit. Usually it's unhappiness and looking to fill a void. Clapton's a great case in what I'm talking about. He couldn't have what he wanted, and turned on himself for a few years.

All the greats who had drug habits were THAT damn good without crap in their system, and if anything, almost all of them lost something significant from it. Some of them never recover, or the older they get, the more pathetic they become from not stopping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF LOVE, or more particularly, Lecherous activity, is, a Drug, then Zeppelin certainly are guilty, of over-dosing, to the detriment of their musical performance, on some occasions, imo.

There are a couple of documented shows, that, are not what they could have been, because, imo, Jimmy & Robert are (sexually) hung-over from too much carousing the night(s)/day(s) before the show.

Specifically, The 1977 Seattle Kingdome show, and the 1975 Earl's Court show (as seen on the video screen images shot for those shows.)

It is, my personal judgment, that that is what I am seeing, so don't argue with me, as it's a personal observation, and that's all.

I don't object to use of these "drugs"... but when it affects the musical performance, then, and only then, I do object.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...