Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
gibsonfan159

Why Zep Were Never Truly Recreated

Recommended Posts

Hardly any other band even came remotely close to having albums that spanned as many genres or had the "light and shade" aspect Zep had. They got away with something most bands don't dare dabble with in the first place- switching genres, playing techniques, and instruments within the same album. One could understand considering the annoyance and inconsistencies this would create for live shows. The Beatles and Stones might have came close, but certainly not with the audacity and confidence that Zep did. Fleetwood Mac maybe, but their sound was much more two dimensional. I think one could accredit Jimmy's session days for his ability to craft a tune within whatever genre he decided. And it's not just about "genres". How many bands could sound like a completely different band from song to song, little own album to album? It's almost like they were studio musicians writing songs for different bands, but then putting them on their own albums instead.

It's kind of mind-boggling to think that neither their complete sound or their songwriting techniques were ever truly copied, even though they were arguably one of the most influential and imitated rock bands. You hear about "Zep clones" constantly, but what about them makes them a clone? Having high, gutsy vocals like Robert? That could be one of hundreds of vocalists. The hair metal scene was overrun with Plant clones. Even if you combine those vocals with blues rock guitar playing, you then have a hefty debate about who really sounded like Jimmy Page. Kind of hard to pinpoint Page's sound or technique when both seemed to change from one song to the next. Most guitarists keep their general sound for their entire career. You ever hear Malcolm Young switch sounds or styles? Van Halen? Slash? Did Keith Richards ever launch into a progressive rock piece, then do rockabilly followed by heavy metal? You ever see Neal Schon sit down and play an acoustic set then jump into something with an arabic scale? Did Joe Perry ever pick up a mandolin or banjo live? How many folk/bluegrass stomps did Joe Walsh do? Page had a plethora of tone, style, and playing ability he used with expert craftsmanship. He switched sounds and playing techniques constantly and created an intertwining, layered sound that I've heard very few ever truly imitate (unless they were just purposely trying to imitate him for novelty sake). His musical creativity was the very definition of light and shade and made it so the band really couldn't be defined or labeled. So before one names a "Zep clone", they'd better consider all the different aspects of the band that would need to be met, not just one song in particular.

Which brings us back to the original question: With all the success and influence that Zep had, why did no other band seemingly try to recreate their songwriting technique or the variation of styles and instrumentation they used? Two major reasons I can think of: The scene changed and the record labels changed. The late 60s and early 70s were a golden period for rock musicians. There was a wide open void of untread musical territory waiting to be explored with a new wave of technology at one's disposal. Hendrix undoubtedly led the charge at opening people's eyes to the possibilities of rock songwriting combined with new technology. Their was a folk resurgence taking place at the height of the hippy culture and acoustic instruments were the new cool. Bands like Black Sabbath showed that rock music could be pumped full of steroids and dark lyrics to create a style that would connect directly with every frustrated, disassociated teenager's mindset. Led Zeppelin seemed to find the middle ground between all those styles. The first album alone was a brave move by the band. Opening with a rock track that was ahead of it's time, followed by a slow folk ballad turned heavy rock, an authentic sounding traditional blues tune, then arguably the heaviest, most energetic song released at the time- Dazed And Confused. Then in an act of musical bi-polar disorder, they lighten things up with a soft, heartfelt track like Your Time Is Gonna Come and take part in the hippy culture with Black Mountain side. Then it's another smack in the face with aggression and angst with the last three songs. This theme seemed to work for them and was a mainstay for their other albums (minus Presence of course). Other rock bands at the time had this method as well, although not to the extent Zep did. The Who were very diverse on Tommy, jumping from hard rock to delicate acoustic tracks. No metal or folk, though. No long organ intros. No screaming blues songs with showcase guitar soloing. Same with any band at the time. Musical diversity was there, but not at the level that Page and the boys were doing it. Then somewhere in the late 70s this attitude by bands was lost. It was no longer ok for rock bands to expand and show off their musical diversity. Bands started transforming from folksy/psychadelic to a more cookie cutter industry standard.

Which leads us to the other reason- Corporate control tightened. The opportunity to simply be a band like Zep started to disappear. Rock and Roll was becoming more industrialized. Creative control seemed to be fading. The labels just weren't willing to take a chance on a band "doing whatever it felt like". It had to be one style that appealed to one fan base. Everyone became AC/DC, so to speak. Or maybe just the desire for musicians to dabble with different textures was fading. Either way, if you heard one song by a band by the late 70s/early 80s, there was a good chance the rest of the songs on the album were gonna sound really similar. Judas Priest, Van Halen, Journey, Aerosmith, Foreigner, these bands played their own one style in particular, and it was usually the same on every album. Same throughout the 80s. The 90s alternative/grunge scene seemed to conjure up a few bands that were as diverse as Zep, but they certainly weren't about to jump into a delta blues tune or a thirty minute prog rock track. In the 2000s we have bands that we want to label "Zep clones" because they're playing blues rock with high pitch vocals, but they're certainly not about to record something like White Summer/Black Mountain Side, Achilles Last Stand, or Hot Dog (Thankfully? lol).

 

Edited by gibsonfan159
Extra info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that band really seemed to have it all!  They took all the promise of the Sixties; the creativity, studio wizardry, and sheer genius-level musical scope of the Beatles, the raunchy Blues base of the 'Stones, the delicacy matched with explosive power of the Who, the classical/progressive arrangements of the Moody Blues, the technical expertise of Cream,the every-show-is-a-unique-experience, jazz improv ethic of the Grateful Dead and the voodoo soul of Jimi Hendrix and created THE sound of rock in the Seventies.  Sadly, they had no successor...

As far as why, I think you hit it on the head, 1. No other band had full staff of such creative, virtuoso level members, they just couldn't do it! and 2. Corporations went back to TELLING people what they wanted, in the Sixties studio heads knew they had no idea what "the kids today" wanted so they were much more willing to take a risk on untried styles and unknown acts. 

I think there is a third reason,  The Sixties generation grew up with a very narrow range of experiences, they watched the same few TV shows, saw the same few movies, heard the same few radio stations, etc., so they had a shared group culture, they even called themselves the "counterculture" and looked to "their" music as a cultural touchstone.  Now we are so much more fragmented into smaller groups and there is such a wide range of other entertainment; the internet, video games, movies-on-demand and so many more small niche markets that we will never see such a demand for any one kind of any product, even good quality music like Led Zeppelin. People just do not listen to music as much anymore...

Edited by chef free

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all the points made, and how unique the greatest band ever is (as gibsonfan159 describes so well above), there may come a time when something similar to Led Zeppelin can emerge. Something that will not necessarily sound exactly like Zeppelin, but with whom really interesting comparisons will be made.

What goes around comes around, everything comes full circle, history repeats itself..... These sayings have traction for those moments in time where there are profound similarities of current events/situations/whatever to what has happened in the past.

It is possible an amazingly gifted musician with broader experience in production/engineering will find 3 or 4 young upcoming musicians with immense untapped skill, and get together and immediately gel on such a level it leaves them astounded, partner with a Manager that has his own ideas about how quality artists need to be managed properly and given space to be who they want themselves to be at just the right time when the world culture is pivoting, and create a decade of music that for that generation, and all to follow, they are cemented into history as the best of their time and considered by many best ever.

Why not? Stranger coincidences have happened!

 

That is the only thing close to recreating Led Zeppelin. Anyone setting out with that as their intention is doomed to fail. You can't imitate that without just being a tribute band / imitators. But if it was organic, and turns out to draw comparisons that are many and deep, who knows?

Edited by rm2551

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2018 at 10:32 PM, chef free said:

Yeah, that band really seemed to have it all!  They took all the promise of the Sixties; the creativity, studio wizardry, and sheer genius-level musical scope of the Beatles, the raunchy Blues base of the 'Stones, the delicacy matched with explosive power of the Who, the classical/progressive arrangements of the Moody Blues, the technical expertise of Cream,the every-show-is-a-unique-experience, jazz improv ethic of the Grateful Dead and the voodoo soul of Jimi Hendrix and created THE sound of rock in the Seventies.  Sadly, they had no successor...

As far as why, I think you hit it on the head, 1. No other band had full staff of such creative, virtuoso level members, they just couldn't do it! and 2. Corporations went back to TELLING people what they wanted, in the Sixties studio heads knew they had no idea what "the kids today" wanted so they were much more willing to take a risk on untried styles and unknown acts. 

I think there is a third reason,  The Sixties generation grew up with a very narrow range of experiences, they watched the same few TV shows, saw the same few movies, heard the same few radio stations, etc., so they had a shared group culture, they even called themselves the "counterculture" and looked to "their" music as a cultural touchstone.  Now we are so much more fragmented into smaller groups and there is such a wide range of other entertainment; the internet, video games, movies-on-demand and so many more small niche markets that we will never see such a demand for any one kind of any product, even good quality music like Led Zeppelin. People just do not listen to music as much anymore...

I'm with you on fragmentation... There are so many more music styles and the music business has changed so much... With technology came that DIY spirit where artist can record and release without a physical product... Talk to 10 people on the street and each one could name bands/artists they love that the other 9 never heard of... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice take on Led Zeppelin's uniqueness, gibsonfan159. I like the way you think.

My problem with so many articles and books on Led Zeppelin is the narrow preconceived prejudices that the author brings to their work. The whole "Led Zeppelin father of heavy metal-hard rock and forebear of the 1970s wave of bands Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Aerosmith, Van Halen and destroyer of groupies and hotel rooms"  is tiresome and shortsighted.

Led Zeppelin's influence on the 1970s is only one facet and at this point, the least interesting and relevant to today's generation. What is more fascinating is Led Zeppelin's influence in the 1990s and 2000s. And I am not talking about clone bands like Rival Sons and Greta Van Fleet. Maybe those bands will escape the fate of Kingdom Come and survive the Zeppelin comparisons? I hope so.

No. The more interesting Zeppelin aspects were and are seen in bands like Jane's Addiction, Sonic Youth, Soundgarden, Tool, Cocteau Twins, Living Colour, Diamanda Galas, Sleater-Kinney, Radiohead, Sigur Ros, Grizzly Bear, rap, hip-hop and the entire techno-drum n bass-trance-edm scene.

I remember a discussion I had ten years ago when rumours were swirling that Coachella Festival was trying to get Led Zeppelin for the Fest in the wake of their triumphant Ahmet Ertegun Tribute gig. Some of my friends were skeptical that Led Zeppelin was suitable for the Coachella demographic. Too old. Too dinosaur rock. I countered that they were wrong and in some ways, of all the so-called "classic rock" era bands, Led Zeppelin was the band best suited for Coachella.

If you stand at the nexus point of Coachella, equidistant from all the stages and tents, you hear a mishmash of disparate sounds. A rock band on one stage, acoustic freak-folk on another stage, a DJ spinning deep techno beats from the Sahara Tent. Well, the hallmark of a Led Zeppelin concert was how the band could go from a blitzkrieg storm of rock one minute (Immigrant Song, Communication Breakdown, Celebration Day) to slow-burn blues (SIBLY) to pastoral folk (That's the Way, Going to California) to funk rock (Trampled Under Foot, Black Dog, The Ocean) to prog-art rock (Rain Song, Stairway, Achilles, Ten Years Gone) to Indian raga-rock (White Summer) to Middle-Eastern mystic rock (Kashmir, Four Sticks) to avant-garde noise (Jimmy's violin bow solos and noise solos) to proto-Funkadelic and EDM-style freak-outs (the Crunge-funk-theremin jams during Whole Lotta Love) to old-school celebrations of 1950s rock and roll and blues (the medleys during Whole Lotta Love and How Many More Times).

You got in one band in Led Zeppelin what it would take an entire day of visiting the five different stages of Coachella to hear.

Edited by Strider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strider, Jimmy as much as described that exactly in that talk at Cambridge (I think). The whole design idea for Zeppelin was to mimic changing the dial on a radio back in 68. From one style to the next but with a cohesive exploration of a genre. Spot on.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kinda forgot about Jethro Tull. They certainly nailed down the folk/rock genre and created some off the wall music, but how diverse were they? Not much at all. They had that one formula that they stuck to forever. And they lacked a certain maturity to their sound that Zep had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2018 at 9:18 PM, BUK said:

Strider, Jimmy as much as described that exactly in that talk at Cambridge (I think). The whole design idea for Zeppelin was to mimic changing the dial on a radio back in 68. From one style to the next but with a cohesive exploration of a genre. Spot on.

 

Thank you for reminding me that I need to listen to that Cambridge talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2018 at 8:36 PM, Strider said:

You got in one band in Led Zeppelin what it would take an entire day of visiting the five different stages of Coachella to hear.

I think this is the one thing that comparisons miss.... Zep was not 'one' thing, much like the Beatles weren't just "HELP!" or "Rubber Soul" or "Abbey Road".

All the 'clone' bands seem to focus on the singing, yet screaming versus wailing, yelling versus howling.  Then add in some heavy drums, and maybe a light sprinkling of imitation Middle Eastern flavor.  But they mostly come off as imitations. Like they use Zep as their main influence.

I'm listening to Greta Van Fleet right now, and all I hear, halfway through an October 2017 show is the sound of Clone.  It's my first listen to a full concert, so I cannot form a full opinion on GVF.  But, Rival Sons, in my opinion, is NOT a clone.  They also are NOT the 'next Zeppelin'.  

Rival Sons seem to be getting their influence from the whole genre of classic rock, not just Zeppelin.  I can hear Yardbirds and plenty of 60's psychedelia, and then next song I can hear more of a Bad Company sound, or Grand Funk, and then some Black Crowes, and even some heavier sounds of 70's and 90's.   They seem to pull from the roots of the sounds, not a 'Zep interpretation' of the roots.

Black Crowes had a great hard rock blues sound, which made them a great band to play with Page, but the Crowes never had much Middle Eastern or Celtic mystic charm, nor folk. They embraced that old blues rock roots very well, and I don't remember them being called the 'next Zep'.

There will not be another Zeppelin, nor another Beatles. They were a product of their times, masterfully bringing different genres to the rock arena to be imitated by those that followed. When we try to compare other bands to Zep, unfortunately we end up focusing on the obvious surface sound, and ignore the great depth of the roots of the zep experience.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Magic comes from all sources and the very specific alchemy of the chemistry of a band.

Let us remember that even if Jason joined for an imaginary misnamed 'reunion', it cannot ever be the same. Jason is not his father, does not have the same influences nor experience, nor the same magic bond that gelled the original band.  And if prior members of Zep cannot be the 'next zeppelin', how can anyone even hint that some new group can.

Look for what moves you now, not what reminds you of the past. Rival Sons moves me now, not because of some similar zep-sound, but because of the full classic rock style of the whole genre that they seem to capture without sounding like a tribute to the 70's like Lenny Kravitz.

Next time you are in a discussion with someone that says so-and-so are the new 'zep', ask them for specifics. Is it the voice? The drums? The riffs? The solos?   Where is the folk/funk/soul/blues/mysticism/arabian/punk/classical/hard-soft-light-dark-metal-petal influence that they must be hearing to make such a comparison?

I'm just finishing up listening to my first full GVF concert, and all I hear is Kingdom Come, or even Tesla, with a bit more blues depth.  I heard no real funk, nor folk, nor middle-eastern, nor psychedelic roots.  Even their Howlin' Wolf cover was more like a cover of a 70's cover.   (I'll give another listen with a different show and see if anything changes, but I doubt it. It just seems it is Hype over Howls.)

Share this post


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

Magic comes from all sources and the very specific alchemy of the chemistry of a band.

Let us remember that even if Jason joined for an imaginary misnamed 'reunion', it cannot ever be the same. Jason is not his father, does not have the same influences nor experience, nor the same magic bond that gelled the original band.  And if prior members of Zep cannot be the 'next zeppelin', how can anyone even hint that some new group can.

Look for what moves you now, not what reminds you of the past. Rival Sons moves me now, not because of some similar zep-sound, but because of the full classic rock style of the whole genre that they seem to capture without sounding like a tribute to the 70's like Lenny Kravitz.

Next time you are in a discussion with someone that says so-and-so are the new 'zep', ask them for specifics. Is it the voice? The drums? The riffs? The solos?   Where is the folk/funk/soul/blues/mysticism/arabian/punk/classical/hard-soft-light-dark-metal-petal influence that they must be hearing to make such a comparison?

I'm just finishing up listening to my first full GVF concert, and all I hear is Kingdom Come, or even Tesla, with a bit more blues depth.  I heard no real funk, nor folk, nor middle-eastern, nor psychedelic roots.  Even their Howlin' Wolf cover was more like a cover of a 70's cover.   (I'll give another listen with a different show and see if anything changes, but I doubt it. It just seems it is Hype over Howls.)

Both of your statements nail it. I keep trying to give Greta a chance as well but I really don't like them. They're just a straight forward rock band with less depth than an 80s band and that is really saying something because those bands were very gimmicky. Musically Greta sounds nothing like Led Zeppelin but they do ATTEMPT to sound like them but fail at doing so because it's like they have no idea what Led Zeppelin was really all about, they have no clue how to appply the influence. I think people don't understand how much their folk side influenced even their heavier or more outwardly bluesy songs as well. But as I was saying, Greta just comes off as very manufactured and forced to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because no one can/could conjure up the Sex-Majick like JP, the Producer of Led Zeppelin.

Share this post


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

Both of your statements nail it. I keep trying to give Greta a chance as well but I really don't like them. They're just a straight forward rock band with less depth than an 80s band and that is really saying something because those bands were very gimmicky. Musically Greta sounds nothing like Led Zeppelin but they do ATTEMPT to sound like them but fail at doing so because it's like they have no idea what Led Zeppelin was really all about, they have no clue how to appply the influence. I think people don't understand how much their folk side influenced even their heavier or more outwardly bluesy songs as well. But as I was saying, Greta just comes off as very manufactured and forced to me.

Great point. Knowing Zep they could have easly tweaked SIBLY with an acoustic, or whatever and boom it becomes more of an old folk song, like Babe, I'm Gonna Leave You. 

It's actually a really cool thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/03/2018 at 9:21 PM, nemophilist said:

Both of your statements nail it. I keep trying to give Greta a chance as well but I really don't like them. They're just a straight forward rock band with less depth than an 80s band and that is really saying something because those bands were very gimmicky. Musically Greta sounds nothing like Led Zeppelin but they do ATTEMPT to sound like them but fail at doing so because it's like they have no idea what Led Zeppelin was really all about, they have no clue how to appply the influence. I think people don't understand how much their folk side influenced even their heavier or more outwardly bluesy songs as well. But as I was saying, Greta just comes off as very manufactured and forced to me.

GVF have noticed something they like from the “old days” . Who hasn’t?

i doubt I’ll be queuing up on record store day in 50 years to buy an alternate mix of whatever from GVF and not just because I’ll be 104 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are using The Beatles and Led Zeppelin as our default position then influences are as follows;

The Beatles : Skiffle, folk, R&B, Girl vocal groups, country, rock n roll, then later psychedelia, Indian folk, Baroque, modern classical, blues, pop.

LZ: Folk, Blues R&B, Rock n Roll, Funk, dance psychedeila, Indian and Arabic rhythms, classical.

Both had labels that for the most part let them experiment, good production were interested in art and movies.

In both cases this openness to new ideas and music fed into their talent and they grew as writers and performers.

I can only image how much more restriction artists have now with the money men wanting to replicate previous successes.

In both cases they became successful by being different. Now you have to fit in somewhere.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember a time when not everyone I met listened to music in fact I remember people actually stating with pride that music was not for them or was of no consequence and half of of those that claimed to listen couldn’t actually hear anything for trying. Where have all the non listeners gone? It seams to me that everyone is a “music” fan now, after all, everyone has virtually all the music ever on there phones! Next thing all this lot are fast becoming music creators! It’s like The markets got bigger but the talent pool has got smaller? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, JAP said:

I remember a time when not everyone I met listened to music in fact I remember people actually stating with pride that music was not for them or was of no consequence and half of of those that claimed to listen couldn’t actually hear anything for trying. Where have all the non listeners gone? It seams to me that everyone is a “music” fan now, after all, everyone has virtually all the music ever on there phones! Next thing all this lot are fast becoming music creators! It’s like The markets got bigger but the talent pool has got smaller? 

Well, if you're referring to rock music it arguably began as a counter-culture phenomenon which has long since become just another mainstream commodity to market to the masses. Pop music, on the other hand, has always appealed to the lowest common denominator. Technology has enabled nearly anyone who wants to create music to be able to do on their own or with others. I don't think the talent pool has gotten larger, it has gotten wider. However, the old industry model of primary labels using establishment radio and tv to push new releases and promote new artists has changed considerably. It's a very fragmented landscape now. Personally, I think IU from South Korea is the greatest female vocalist of the past 25 years, yet she is relatively unheard of outside of her own country. So the platform is there to access this music, but the platform is not necessarily there anymore to cultivate these newer artists into megastars. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The magic and success of Zeppelin has as much to do with being in the right place at the right time as it does with raw talent and an uncanny ability to write amazing music. Case in point... Pre-Steve Perry Journey were an amazing band which also stretched out into several genres such as jazz, blues, folk, psychedelica, rock, etc. However, their weak point was lack of a a good singer and coming about five years too late. Once Steve came into the fold they decided to move slowly into a commercial direction and once Jon Cain joined the band and Greg Rolie (the soul of the band) left, they went for the money grab. Camel was another great band and similar to Zep in their approach but again, too late. Unlike Journey they refused to compromise and simply imploded. Another very important factor which cannot be ignored is Peter Grant and the Page-Grant mystique machine. All of this played an equal part to the whole of which no band before, nor after could capture. 

If Zep came about one or two years earlier, they would not have made a mark. If they came out in 71' instead of 68' -69' I doubt they would have been as big either. The fact that timing is everything cannot be understated, combined with the Grant-Page approach which gave Zeppelin the golden ticket so to speak. Once the early 70's were gone, that was it baby. A good example is Punk. Punk was around (and much better IMO) in the late 60's & early 70's with the MC5, the Stooges, and  The NY Dolls but no one took notice until The Ramones and later The Sex Pistols broke in the mid-70's. Timing is everything. You can have all the talent in the world and write amazing tunes but if the world is not ready...sorry mate, no sale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many excellent points here. But in the last 5-10 years it's come out that JPJ actually came up with many

significant ideas and parts uncredited. I noticed that some posts made Jimmy to be the genius driving force. Jimmy

is my favorite guitarist, but he needed the other three Zeps(actually Peter Grant as well) to get brilliant. Before Zep

and after Zep Jimmy was an excellent guitarist but not really brilliant. Forget about another Zep, but IMHO from time

to time a genius artist/band will appear, but in another genre than rock. To me there are still good  bands around, but

the golden age of rock has gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The above few points all point to the conclusion it was the immense magic generated by the combination of the four incredible musicians along with the greatest manager ever - with that all important ingredient of luck (right place, right time).

Jimmy had a vision, and a multi faceted talent that he drove to the limit - for better or worse. He truly left nothing in the sheds so to speak. Thing is, Zep would have been nothing like what it turned out to be without his muses. Without Bonham, he would not have rocked so hard. Without Jones, nowhere near the depth of ideas, riffs, and turning great things into next level songs. Without Plant, no playing off a singer that is so connected and in tune with all musicians.

No ego's that destroyed the mix. All ideas entertained and expanded upon. And Grant. Without which equally would have rendered the band nowhere near what they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

Well, if you're referring to rock music it arguably began as a counter-culture phenomenon which has long since become just another mainstream commodity to market to the masses. Pop music, on the other hand, has always appealed to the lowest common denominator. Technology has enabled nearly anyone who wants to create music to be able to do on their own or with others. I don't think the talent pool has gotten larger, it has gotten wider. However, the old industry model of primary labels using establishment radio and tv to push new releases and promote new artists has changed considerably. It's a very fragmented landscape now. Personally, I think IU from South Korea is the greatest female vocalist of the past 25 years, yet she is relatively unheard of outside of her own country. So the platform is there to access this music, but the platform is not necessarily there anymore to cultivate these newer artists into megastars. 

Totally agree. 

Generating a commodity , volume over value

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another point in regards to music was how odd the infrastructure was surrounding them.

The Beatles. - Manager is a failed actor who ran the NEMS family store. No music management background. Band rejected by Decca end up on an offshoot label belonging to EMI. Producer (works in comedy and classical) seemed to need persuading to work with them. Their work redefined the music industry.

Led Zeppelin - Manager a former wrestler. Two members had worked in other facets of the industry. Two others had struggled in various bands. First LP recorded at the expense of a band member. Signed to label who specialised in Jazz, R&B and Soul. Their work redefined the music industry.

On paper neither would get a chance today.

I would add that Bowie, The Beach Boys and many others would struggle today to get their careers going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mithril46 said:

There are many excellent points here. But in the last 5-10 years it's come out that JPJ actually came up with many

significant ideas and parts uncredited. I noticed that some posts made Jimmy to be the genius driving force. Jimmy

is my favorite guitarist, but he needed the other three Zeps(actually Peter Grant as well) to get brilliant. Before Zep

and after Zep Jimmy was an excellent guitarist but not really brilliant. Forget about another Zep, but IMHO from time

to time a genius artist/band will appear, but in another genre than rock. To me there are still good  bands around, but

the golden age of rock has gone.

Totally agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, one seemingly obscure point is actually VERY important in trying to recreate Zeppelin. Live the band was only 

metronomic if they had to be. Instead the band would have each member at least be kind of playing across another,

so even a standard opener like R'n'R could  sound a bit different from night to night. This is one reason Zep's boots

are so popular. Although from 77' on in particular the band sometimes sounded disjointed or disorganized. So IMHO

I have never heard any Zep tribute band get the controlled chaos right. So in most instances Zep was putting out

a living, breathing, artistic statement live. So you can't put this stuff in a can, or bottle it up.

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

×