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

Little Things You Don't Like About Led Zeppelin?

Recommended Posts

Walter   
11 minutes ago, NealR2000 said:

You have to remember that there was a huge wave of androgyny among top music acts, particularly the Brit ones, and society as a whole during the 70s.  Jagger, Bowie, Stewart, Elton John, Queen, etc.  Mascara was universally worn.

Absolutely.  That was my point.  Everything was being pushed, especially sexuality.  Zep (Plant/Page) helped push that, but after '73 weren't even close to being cavalier in that aspect.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/7/2016 at 9:57 PM, IpMan said:

Funny you mention that, I remember seeing TSRTS at a midnight movie in 83' when during SIBLY there is that part where old Robert moans three times in a somewhat lazy manner while standing on his tiptoes and gesturing with his left hand in a circular pattern. One of the gals I was with said, "Jesus Christ, he looks like Harry Reams is giving it to him in the ass." 

Some of Plants live moves circa 73' in particular, were pretty damn feminine compared to both earlier and later tours. Plus that horrid blouse he wore in TSRTS coupled with some of his more effeminate movements...you could have placed that into some gay porn and not known the difference.

I agree. Something weird must have happened to Robert in 1973 ! I mean... In TSRTS he moves like a fairy and is dressed like a Barbie girl!!!

 

 

Edited by Valerie Sunshine
mistake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IpMan   
54 minutes ago, Valerie Sunshine said:

I agree. Something weird must have happened to Robert in 1973 ! I mean... In TSRTS he moves like a fairy and is dressed like a Barbie girl!!!

 

 

Yes, and for some reason, it was only that one particular blouse he wore, on that leg of the tour, worn at MSG and was caught on tape. I had never seen Plant wear such a silly top before or after that run of shows...thank god. Then again, he only had the one weird fashion faux pas during Zeppelin, whereas I cannot count how many I have had over the years. The 80's was a tricky decade for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of this is hard to process. Yes the 70's was the glam era, but I find it hard to believe that Robert looked around

and was trying to consciously follow the "glam" trend. And Jimmy, the "over sensitive" more feminine than the rest of the

group members ?? To me from 75' ( EC) black dragon suit thru 77' white dragon suit, these outfits with Page's stage

presence, seem pretty macho as a whole. Flowers, yes, but also many symbols of implied occult power. I would be amazed if somebody saw Page live in 77'  and didn't plainly see with or without the suits that Jimmy is definetly

projecting a lot of masculine energy. I mean even in the Firm, when Page wore plain white pants and a striped red

golf shirt, when he felt energetic, he was stalking the stage with undeniable male force. I have to say that if you asked

Jimmy or Robert if they followed 70's glam trends, I doubt they said they did. However if you asked them if they ever

dressed unconventionally intentionally overall, absolutely. But that's not the same as "sticking" with a glam look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I prefer the 1969/1970 hippie style they had. Then their costumes started to become more mmmh... Girly like?:D Anyway it does not bother me at all, I mention this just because the topic is about little things you don't like.

Oh yeah and another "little thing" that "bothers" me is the crotch issue. Why was Robert so obsessed with making it notorious?????? ?

Edited by Valerie Sunshine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
grasbo   

Musically they should have left  The Crunge off THOTH.It just disrupted the flow of the album.On the latest re master it's a lot better.I know it was meant as a bit of a laugh but it should have been a b side or left till Coda.There was still plenty of material about at the time which ended up on PG.Fashion wise Page looked like a back up musician for the Bee Gees at Knebworth with his club disco garb.The band as a whole just didn't look rock n roll,for want of a better word.

Share this post


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

Musically they should have left  The Crunge off THOTH.It just disrupted the flow of the album.On the latest re master it's a lot better.I know it was meant as a bit of a laugh but it should have been a b side or left till Coda.There was still plenty of material about at the time which ended up on PG.Fashion wise Page looked like a back up musician for the Bee Gees at Knebworth with his club disco garb.The band as a whole just didn't look rock n roll,for want of a better word.

I don't agree at all, The Crunge is a fantastic show of some brilliant musicianship , it's a really complex piece of music, it's place is well deserved on HOTH as is D'Yer Maker, just don't get the 'hate' thrown at those two numbers....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

White Summer's not LOng enough!!!   :drinks:

Seriously, the two Willie Dixon covers on the first album are everything the critics said they were.  I can enjoy "I Can't Quit You" live but cringe through "You Shook Me."  There. I said it.  

Why put two Dixon covers on the first album?  One can only speculate, and no one (journalists, etc) has ever asked why?  Was there a business arrangement between Grant/Page and Chess records, where Dixon worked as studio manager?   Did the Yardbirds owe Chess money? THere had to be a reason, unless Page simply wanted to showcase Plant's over-the-top wailing in two different keys.  I don't understand, probably better off not knowing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sk8rat   
2 hours ago, Mercurious said:

White Summer's not LOng enough!!!   :drinks:

Seriously, the two Willie Dixon covers on the first album are everything the critics said they were.  I can enjoy "I Can't Quit You" live but cringe through "You Shook Me."  There. I said it.  

Why put two Dixon covers on the first album?  One can only speculate, and no one (journalists, etc) has ever asked why?  Was there a business arrangement between Grant/Page and Chess records, where Dixon worked as studio manager?   Did the Yardbirds owe Chess money? THere had to be a reason, unless Page simply wanted to showcase Plant's over-the-top wailing in two different keys.  I don't understand, probably better off not knowing.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
grasbo   
11 hours ago, JTM said:

I don't agree at all, The Crunge is a fantastic show of some brilliant musicianship , it's a really complex piece of music, it's place is well deserved on HOTH as is D'Yer Maker, just don't get the 'hate' thrown at those two numbers....

I agree with the musicianship and complexity and I am musician and its hard one to nail down,but I don't like the way it was recorded particularly Plants vocals,and where it is on the album.I have no problem with Dy'er Maker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jabe   
On ‎7‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 1:03 AM, Mithril46 said:

The thing with Plant wearing feminine garb along with Page sometimes, I can't see how it's so bothersome. I mean a

large part of Zep's music was so aggressive and macho, some actually thought the clothes are a reason to question

their manhood ?? Maybe the blouses etc. may irk some, but Plant almost had girlfriends in every other town, and he 

and Page of course had their individual sexual escapades. You're not talking Bowie or whatever. I actually thought

some of the feminine stuff made the band appear even more macho, because it seemed like a statement saying there's

no way you're gonna take the man out of me, and I'm gonna wear whatever I want, F..ck what society thinks. And White

Summer, many later versions are almost unprofessional, embarrassing in fact. Page really almost slid into a mild 

delusional state with those habits. In fact I'm irritated that Page never really went into the addiction and it's terrible

effects on him. But his condition did get so bad that many falling so far and hard don't want to speak.

I agree with your post.
Couple Plant's vocals (helium induced as one member once put it) on the  studio version of TSRTS and his wardrobe from '73. Wow!  While I was in Junior High urban legend was that Plant was taking female hormones.
This shit never bother me. In '77, Plant's stage wardrobe reminded me of Hugh Hefner leaving his smoking jacket and pipe ( and women) at the mansion while he (Plant) had to indulge in public business in a somewhat less casual *around the house* style  . Cool as hell.
Led Zeppelin made their own talking points and we're all the better for it during this blip era.

My main beef would be the same as others: Lack of massive live footage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, JTM said:

I don't agree at all, The Crunge is a fantastic show of some brilliant musicianship , it's a really complex piece of music, it's place is well deserved on HOTH as is D'Yer Maker, just don't get the 'hate' thrown at those two numbers....

 

2 hours ago, Valerie Sunshine said:

I do not understand why many zep fans do not like dy'er maker. I've always loved it ?

:goodpost:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
grasbo   

I love Dy'er Maker and i like the latest re master of the Crunge but I still think it could have wound up on Coda and thrown in Walters Walk instead.Houses is lovely album, sought of laid back in a way,a good summer album,but it lacks a rocker like WW.Anyway, would love to have heard Tea For One live,and just hear what Page 's solo would be like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Little things I don't like about Led Zeppelin?

Hmm. Well, regarding this forum, first up to call out are the numerous derogatory terms on this thread to describe Plant's wardrobe and hair like "fairy" and "girly" as if such things are somehow "bad" and not macho enough for some. As RuPaul might've said, fuck that shit and check your misogyny.

Another thing I don't like about Led Zeppelin is, to paraphrase Robert Plant in the 1990 MTV rockumentary, is often how wrong they got it in concert (as referred to above regarding set lists). I get why folk like their early stuff, but let's face it, even Plant has acknowledged that his first few years with Zep were full of vocally heliumesque histronics that are embarrassing to hear and kill listeners' enjoyment.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
juxtiphi   
1 hour ago, FavouriteTipple said:

Little things I don't like about Led Zeppelin?

Hmm. Well, regarding this forum, first up to call out are the numerous derogatory terms on this thread to describe Plant's wardrobe and hair like "fairy" and "girly" as if such things are somehow "bad" and not macho enough for some. As RuPaul might've said, fuck that shit and check your misogyny.

Another thing I don't like about Led Zeppelin is, to paraphrase Robert Plant in the 1990 MTV rockumentary, is often how wrong they got it in concert (as referred to above regarding set lists). I get why folk like their early stuff, but let's face it, even Plant has acknowledged that his first few years with Zep were full of vocally heliumesque histronics that are embarrassing to hear and kill listeners' enjoyment.

 

 

 

 
 

 

Edited by juxtiphi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only mentioned slightly is how certain Zep songs sounded completely different live and not close to the studio versions.

Some of this was unavoidable, some not. When I first heard WLL on the TSRTS soundtrack, the song to me didn't have

even close to the studio version's intensity. Page's solo after the theramin hijinks had none of the intensity of the studio 

version. It was good, but like later in the Elvis jams, much more rockabilly than rock. I got used to that, and now I love

those versions. I also agree about You Shook Me, actually I like the song sometines but Plant in particular gets too

abrasive. Also early on many live versions of BIGLY because Page is sloppy on the fingerpicking and Plant is way

over the top have little subtlety. Actually as powerfull as Zep was early on, at times they could sound very caveman like

because some of the jams got shaky timing wise. However some of this would be expected as everyone is improvising

at once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sk8rat   
8 hours ago, FavouriteTipple said:

Little things I don't like about Led Zeppelin?

Hmm. Well, regarding this forum, first up to call out are the numerous derogatory terms on this thread to describe Plant's wardrobe and hair like "fairy" and "girly" as if such things are somehow "bad" and not macho enough for some. As RuPaul might've said, fuck that shit and check your misogyny.

Another thing I don't like about Led Zeppelin is, to paraphrase Robert Plant in the 1990 MTV rockumentary, is often how wrong they got it in concert (as referred to above regarding set lists). I get why folk like their early stuff, but let's face it, even Plant has acknowledged that his first few years with Zep were full of vocally heliumesque histronics that are embarrassing to hear and kill listeners' enjoyment.

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.

Edited by sk8rat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, FavouriteTipple said:

Little things I don't like about Led Zeppelin?

Hmm. Well, regarding this forum, first up to call out are the numerous derogatory terms on this thread to describe Plant's wardrobe and hair like "fairy" and "girly" as if such things are somehow "bad" and not macho enough for some.

 

 

 

No shit! I guess people don't understand rock n roll. Androgyny and flamboyance has been a mainstay of rock n roll ever since the very beginning...Little Richard.   It really is a bit shocking to see how prude folks still are in this day and age. The greatest thing about rock n roll was that if you did it right, you could be and look any way you wanted and do anything you wanted, and get away with all of it. Those were the days...must have been a blast. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if I offended someone by saying that robert plant looked girly in tsrts. I just meant that I've never seen him perform that way before 1973. Even later, he didn't act that way onstage. Just my point of view. :D:peace:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely. Rock'n' Roll at it's heart is at best about total freedom, whether it be about clothes, music, behavior or

whatever. For those who weren't around in the 70's, Rock was almost a religion then, a tremendous force, a reason

to live. Now Rock is just a fraction of other diversions like video games, cyberspace, etc.. But back to the clothes,

I respect some fans not liking some of the wardrobe choices. However I find it almost comical that anyone who saw

Zep in the 70's live could possibly think any of the members were too effeminate or "girly". Metallica could come out

in some feminine garb, and after 5 to 10 minutes of sonic homicide like Zep, the clothes would just be a joke. But

apparently these feminine clothes choices really stick to some.  It's just that Plant and Page, yes there were some 

feminine stage moves, faces, but overall you're talking about a lion and tiger onstage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Mithril46 said:

Absolutely. Rock'n' Roll at it's heart is at best about total freedom, whether it be about clothes, music, behavior or whatever.

I would agree, and in light of that I find it somewhat ironic that someone would come to a rock & roll forum and start castigating people for using politically-incorrect speech.

Personally, I find Plant's "androgyny" rather fascinating, the way in which he could exude both feminine qualities, such as the outfit and the mannerisms, and masculine qualities, such as the bare chest, the swagger, and of course...the bulge. An entire decade of mostly lame hair bands tried to emulate that same persona and most failed in a rather spectacular and laughable manner. I'm looking at you Cinderella.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate those little tiny dangling balls on John Paul Jones' puffy pirate shirt in TSRTS.

I also hate his helmet hair that constantly changes during the movie.

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


×