Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
Jahfin

Why Led Zeppelin Kicks The Everloving Shit Out Of Every Other Rock Band, Ever

Recommended Posts

...I keep pining for the next generation of "golden gods" and guitar gods! Where or where have they gone?

Apparently the guitar god concept has changed this century. The supposed "guitar gods" are dudes that can play melancholic sh*t on an acoustic guitar.

As to what Jahfin said: I'm sorry but I prefer living in the past with good music than living now in wich what counts is what makes more money or more views on youtube.

I'm an old school guy and I like being that way. I use my vinyl player every day and I have to say that the magnetic quality is waaaaaaaay better than digital.

It really is a shame what people listen to nowadays.Has anyone seen MTV? Yep, rock n roll is dead and reviving it will take a long time. I believe that it will make a come back someday...

Edited by magerogue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to what Jahfin said: I'm sorry but I prefer living in the past with good music than living now in wich what counts is what makes more money or more views on youtube.

There's far more out there than what gets the most hits on YouTube. If that's as far as you're looking for new music then you're not looking hard enough. There's more options for discovering new music now than there's ever been. Fortunately, I live in an area that supports live local music via local radio stations and clubs. In addition, many of the local clubs and venues also book national, regional and international touring artists. I could go broke trying to keep up with all the new music that's currently being released as well as attending all of the concerts I would like to. In order to find new music it helps to actually make an effort to seek it out and that requires looking further than whatever the latest song is that's getting the most views on YouTube. There's satellite radio, internet radio, Spotify, music blogs, etc. The amount of sources for seeking out new music are nearly endless. There are a few of us on this site that seem to have no problem finding new music that we're excited about while the majority of others apparently aren't willing to even make the effort. Seek and ye shall find...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...I keep pining for the next generation of "golden gods" and guitar gods! Where or where have they gone?

Shoot, I'd settle for people who can write halfway decent songs. The party appears to be long over though.

That article was OK if you're into the juvenile thing; the Doors section was actually the most enjoyable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shoot, I'd settle for people who can write halfway decent songs. The party appears to be long over though.

Far from it. They're nearly everywhere you turn, you just need to know where to look.

That article was OK if you're into the juvenile thing; the Doors section was actually the most enjoyable.

I didn't find it "juvenile" at all. What I found it was fucking hilarious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the guitar god concept has changed this century. The supposed "guitar gods" are dudes that can play melancholic sh*t on an acoustic guitar.

As to what Jahfin said: I'm sorry but I prefer living in the past with good music than living now in wich what counts is what makes more money or more views on youtube.

I'm an old school guy and I like being that way. I use my vinyl player every day and I have to say that the magnetic quality is waaaaaaaay better than digital.

It really is a shame what people listen to nowadays.Has anyone seen MTV? Yep, rock n roll is dead and reviving it will take a long time. I believe that it will make a come back someday...

With all due respect, you really should pull your head out of the sand. MTV? Nobody watches MTV anymore...at least not for music. If you're still watching MTV for new music, no wonder you feel the way you do.

So get away from the idiot box and read a little more and open your ears to satellite radio and music blogs. Rock ain't dead, I tell ya!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect, you really should pull your head out of the sand. MTV? Nobody watches MTV anymore...at least not for music. If you're still watching MTV for new music, no wonder you feel the way you do.

So get away from the idiot box and read a little more and open your ears to satellite radio and music blogs. Rock ain't dead, I tell ya!

To their credit, MTV did recently air a concert by Alabama Shakes but otherwise, I agree. It's definitely not where I would direct someone to discover new music. I haven't watched it in years but from my understanding they (along with VH1) rarely even feature music programming anymore. The resources out there for discovering new music are seemingly infinite. Some folks just don't like to be challenged by anything new or different that takes them out of their comfort zones. At least that's my guess. I guess it should really come as no surprise, particularly at this board but there was a time when there were more people here that actually embraced new music rather than ones that shun it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...The resources out there for discovering new music are seemingly infinite. Some folks just don't like to be challenged by anything new or different that takes them out of their comfort zones. At least that's my guess. I guess it should really come as no surprise, particularly at this board but there was a time when there were more people here that actually embraced new music rather than ones that shun it.

Which I find ironic, as it was the way Led Zeppelin challenged me and took me out of my comfort zone that made me a fan to begin with. They sounded so brazen and jarring next to the likes of The Band and Creedence Clearwater Revival and even the Stones and the Who in 1969.

Which is why Led Zeppelin still kicks ass...to bring the thread back on topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which I find ironic, as it was the way Led Zeppelin challenged me and took me out of my comfort zone that made me a fan to begin with. They sounded so brazen and jarring next to the likes of The Band and Creedence Clearwater Revival and even the Stones and the Who in 1969.

Which is exactly what I find so startling about some Led Zeppelin fans (at least as represented on this website). For a band that incorporated such a wide variety of musical styles (something they've also done in their respective solo careers), a good majority of the fanbase doesn't seem to be very open to anything outside of Zeppelin or their contemporaries from the 60's or 70's. I put this conundrum to a friend of mine and they asked if I was really surprised given this board is devoted to a band that ceased to exist as a recording and touring entity as of 1980. I understand that but some of us (including the band members themselves) haven't stopped exploring new musical territory. It's not my intention to slight others, I'm just interested in understanding why some people have no interest in hearing anything made past 1980 while some of us continue to crave new music on a daily basis and haven't stopped looking for music that excites us. People can tell me they believe rock n' roll is dead until they're blue in the face but the area of the country I live in is a living, breathing example that that isn't true at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't complete disagree with the idea of the Beatles being over-rated. Granted they did write "some" really great songs because at least two of which were fine musicians. But the Beatles evolved into a studio band. It just got so big, session musicians, orchestras, mixing. I mean, the Beatles would still be remembered as "I wanna hold your hand" today if it weren't for George Martin's work (and all the trips). And due to that they released FIVE ALBUMS without live performance. And lets be real, you're only as good as your live performance is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jahfin, loved the post about a wide variety of music. I for one love to discover new music. Granted I will always listen to more of the music I grew up on.

Anjin-san -Loved the comment about Keith Moon playing like a six armed alien, and since I saw them live and love the band...all I can say is John Bonham is on an entirely different level IMHO.

I don't think it matters where you live, you either have the want to discover new music of not. I love a lot of the new stuff, but I have to admit IMHO, that the best BANDS did come out of the the late 60's & 70's (if your looking at amount of truly great bands)..this is just my opinion of course.

For the bands that played live, to this day LZ has not been topped for me. Again, I thought this guy was funny (as he meant to be)..it was nice to see LZ not be the ones getting blasted also:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me, they still had their chops as a live band.

http://youtu.be/oWzs3YbtehI

I read somewhere (it might have been linked to this board) that the average Beatles' concert only lasted 30 minutes. Is that accurate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read somewhere (it might have been linked to this board) that the average Beatles' concert only lasted 30 minutes. Is that accurate?

Probably so. That was far before my time as I was just a toddler during most of those days so it's not like I can speak from experience but I recently read about an appearance from the Rolling Stones in Raleigh, NC from back in the late 60's/early 70's where they were on stage (as the headliners) for something like 15 minutes. Those were very different times and it was way before rock n' roll concerts became what we know today. From what I remember reading from Bill Graham Presents, Graham was instrumental in turning rock n' roll tours into more of what we are familiar with today from the size of the venues to the length of the concerts themselves. One of the first groups he did that with was the Rolling Stones.

Edited by Jahfin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That really sucks. Could you imagine going to a concert and the main band only plays about four songs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That really sucks. Could you imagine going to a concert and the main band only plays about four songs?

Back then no one really knew any different. It wasn't until the early major tours of the Stones and others came along that things really started to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent read, the guy is funny and I love his responses to the challengers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That really sucks. Could you imagine going to a concert and the main band only plays about four songs?

Actually, the Beatles would play anywhere from 10 to 12 songs on average on their tours from 1964-1966. And in their Hamburg days, they would have to play 4 sets a night for a total of over 4 hours. It was a brutal schedule back then.

I can see a little background is in order...

1955-1964:

When rock and roll burst on the scene in the mid-50s, there was no Madison Square Garden, no Fabulous Forum, no Whisky a Go Go, no Fillmore.

The esteemed concert venues of the time were Carnegie Hall, the Cocoanut Grove and the Grand Ole Opry...none of which was conducive or welcoming to rock and roll.

Most early rock and roll shows were performed at fairs, vaudeville halls, sock hops, rodeo arenas, and school gymnasiums. It was usually a 4 or 5 band package deal, with local radio disc jockeys or comics interspersed between the bands.

Each band would typically play no more than a 20-30-minute set, but in a time when the average song was between 2 to 3 minutes, you still got 6 to 10 songs from each performer.

Travel was brutal, the P.A.s were unreliable...there was no such thing as a band touring with its own sound system. You showed up and were lucky if the venue had a small p.a. for the vocals. The band itself would have to rely on its own amps to be heard, and the drums often wouldn't be miced at all...or maybe there would be one overhead mic to pick up the instruments.

Then there were the shady managers and unscrupulous promoters bands had to deal with back then. To play an hour or more set, you have to WANT to play that long. Given the primitive and often inhuman(let's not forget the racism and outright hostility they had to face, especially in the South) conditions bands had to tour in, it's no wonder they wanted to get off the stage and out of there as quickly as possible.

Read any good history of Jerry Lee Lewis, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Elvis Presley, Buddy Holly, etc. and you'll see the insane itineraries these guys were on.

The arrival of the Beatles and the British Invasion changed things a little, but it was mostly on the surface and it frequently only applied to the Beatles. The Beatles 1965 Shea Stadium opened everybody to the idea that a rock band could fill a stadium but the sound was still laughable and the Beatles were still packaged with 4 or 5 other acts, King Curtis being one of them.

But don't be fooled...there was no way the Rolling Stones were filling a baseball stadium back then. In fact, on the first few US tours, the Rolling Stones frequently played to non-sellout crowds.

The idea of a coordinated national tour with proper promotion was still in the development stages. It took some time, especially for English bands, to figure out how to tour a country the size of the U.S. effectively and efficiently...which venues worked the best and how large a sound system was needed.

Mid-60s to 1969:

The Beatles tour of America in 1966 was the final straw. Fed up with the shrieking and the poor sound, and met with outrage in the South over John's "Jesus" statement, the Beatles unfortunately decided to pull the plug on touring. They effectively ceased to be a live band and retreated to the relative sanctuary of the studio.

I say unfortunately because it was at this time that three developments were happening that would lead to a marked improvement to the rock concert experience:

1. Bob Dylan

2. Drugs

3. Bill Graham

Bob Dylan is one of the earliest pop figures that started playing longer than the usual 45-60 minute headliner set. His shows would run 90-100 minutes, and his songs would often break the three-minute threshold that radio forced on pop artists. Bob Dylan was a liberating force in the pop culture for many reasons, which is why he is regarded as a living legend by his peers. Being one of the first to show promoters that audiences had the endurance and focus to sit through long concerts was just one of them.

2. Drugs had the effect of turning rock concert audiences from shrieking teeny-boppers into people who were there to actually listen to the music. Drugs had the effect on musicians of making them want to play like John Coltrane and Ornette Coleman, expanding their minds and their songs through long jams and solos.

3. Bill Graham. Of course, if you are going to start playing long jams into the midnight hour, you are going to need a venue and a sympathetic promotor who understands your needs. Enter Bill Graham...enter the words Fillmore into the rock and roll lexicon...along with the light show and show posters and decent sound and just about everything else connected with what people now expect from a rock show.

Of course, this was mostly done on a regional, theatre-sized level. The next jump up was ahead.

1969 and beyond:

Two seismic events happened in 1969 that irrevocably changed rock and roll and set the course for the modern arena rock tour.

The arrival of Led Zeppelin(with Peter Grant) and the Rolling Stones 1969 U.S. tour.

It is uncontestable...there is a clear before-and-after effect that these two bands had on the scene in 1969.

Yes, I know Led Zeppelin first started playing in 1968, but for all intents and purposes, they really announced their presence with the first album's release and the first U.S. tour...both in January 1969.

It was Peter Grant who paved the way for bands to finally start making money on the road by making sure they were paid and by changing the split to favour the band and not the promotor.

Led Zeppelin was also the band that later helped pioneer the concept of doing away with opening acts and giving fans an entire evening with the band they paid to see. Instead of sitting through two or three opening acts and maybe getting an hour of the headliner, Zeppelin gave their fans a solid 2 to 2 and 1/2 hour show as early as the 1970 tour. And unlike the Grateful Dead and Pink Floyd, they played without an intermission.

As for the Stones '69 tour, enough has been written about it that any halfway educated rock and roll buff should already know its importance. And no, I'm not talking about Altamont. That was an anomaly...before Altamont, the 1969 tour was a triumph and a revolution in how to stage an arena-sized national rock tour.

The blueprint had been set. By 1972, it had been fine-tuned to the point that rock tours now took on the aspects and precise planning of a military operation. Beginning with the Stones 1972 US tour, the Stones and Led Zeppelin would play "can you top this?" the rest of the decade regarding their tours.

It all culninated in 1981 when the Rolling Stones became the first band to have a sponsor underwrite their tour...Jovan, I believe was the sponsor.

Other significant developments by 1969 and onwards was the idea for bands to put together and travel with their own high-quality P.A. system. This was mostly an idea started by bands such as the Grateful Dead and Pink Floyd.

The music fan of the day was getting into high fidelity...mono was out and ever-increasingly sophisticated stereo systems were all the rage. Fans bwgan to ask why concerts had to sound so bad...why couldn't a concert system sound as good as a person's home stereo.

All of a sudden, you had companies like JBL, Altec Lansing and others developing and contributing their ideas to the creation of a loud yet clear concert sound system. The better a concert sounded, the better the crowd's response and desire for the band to play longer.

There's more I could write about how rock concerts evolved from the beginning, but these are the main developments you need to know about.

Edited by Strider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article and pretty funny. Though I can't agree with the authors statements on The Who at all, Tommy is a masterpiece as is Quadrophenia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article and pretty funny. Though I can't agree with the authors statements on The Who at all, Tommy is a masterpiece as is Quadrophenia.

Agree, and Who's Next ranks right up there with Zoso for most time in my CD player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Jahfin. I haven't laughed so hard in a long time.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×