Jump to content

Ed A

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Ed A

  1. 21 hours ago, Darth Hoek said:

    So, I pre-ordered one of the Jimmy Page Dragon production run Telecasters for $1,399.99 from Musicians Friend to be delivered in July...I thought it was weird that the white production one was $2,400 while the what I will assume will be better selling dragon telecaster is $1,000 less.  The dragon has non-guitarist man cave wall-hanger written all over it and they should sell a bunch of these.  It was also odd that they were not calling it an American Telecaster in the descriptions I could find, in fact no articles I can find mention anything about where the production guitars will be made. Usually when a Fender is made in the US they put it right out there usually. 

    I wanted to know exactly what I was purchasing and where it was from, so I reached out to Musician's Friend to ask where it will be made.  They got back to me and said the Dragon tele will be made in Mexico...I already have an American Standard Telecaster from the 90's and do not need something new but inferior.  

    So, I called in to cancel my order and I picked up an open-box Epiphone double neck for 1/2 the price! 

    I am surprised that the production dragon is made in Mexico, not that that is the hugest deal, but the quality, fit, and finish is lower in my experience with the Mexican vs. US Fender products.  This seems like a big enough money maker that they could have charged $1,800 or so for the Dragon and made it in the US.  Honestly, you can buy a sweet Telecaster made in Mexico for under $500.00 at the shop, and for half that a bit used...why the extra $900 for a dragon and JP signature sticker?

    Now I am wondering, will the production run jimmy page white mirrored guitar be made in the US, and that is why it will be more expensive?  Anyone? 4 or 5 little mirrors and some whitewash don't add up to $1,000!  

    Yes the production mirrored  tele is USA and the dragon is MIM, which accounts for the price  difference... I personally dont mind that the dragon is MIM, I have and  have had a couple MIM roadworns that are silly good quality in terms of the lightweight wood and harder and thinner nitro that is not always seen on many USA models... but after hearing that the dragon is a sticker and  not screen printed has me thinking of cancelling my pre order as well...

  2. One of my all-time favorites Zeppelin tracks. The guitar tones the interplay between Bonham and Jones the riffing between Page and Plant is fantastic. Zeppelin often played their studio songs slower than live.  In my opinion I much prefer this slower ballsier feel. Same goes with how many more times the original album version is slow and majestic and huge sounding. Zeppelin sped it up so much live it sounded more like an R&B romp. Anyway a couple of interesting things about the studio lemon song. It was recorded live but with a second guitar overdub. Interestingly enough the opening guitar that is doing the riff is the overdub. That rhythm guitar track in the left channel may have been done through the Vox 4120 that you see in the pictures at Olympic studios. With a distortion in front of it.  Or a Vox super beetle which he claims he used on zeppelin II that has a built in MRB distortion circuit. That’s where that nasty awesome main riff tone comes from.  Same amp as used for the studio Whole Lotta love riff. During the lead breaks in the right channel you hear the Les Paul through most likely the Marshall. Both of these amps you can see set up in the pictures from Olympic studio.  What Page did is track the song originally with the right channel guitar, the Les Paul through the Marshall. He overdubs the left channel guitar which is the main rhythm track and removed the riff from the right channel leaving only the lead breaks on the right channel. You can hear the faders being pulled in and out when this happens. I know this is  geeky stuff but I love hearing how he created that great interplay between the guitars in the left and the right channels.  Someone mentioned panning the balance left and right. Well try having it all to the left and listening to just that nasty overdubbed rhythm track it’s killer! 

  3. 10 hours ago, Googlywoogly1 said:

    Actually in a 2014 interview Page stated that the You Shook Me solo was recorded on a Gibson Flying V guitar.  Per Page:

    It’s hard for people to believe, but I just used my Fender Telecaster for the entire album, except for one track. Somebody was trying to sell me a Gibson Flying V at the time. I don’t what made them think I could afford it, because I clearly couldn’t, but I asked them if I could just try it out. I brought it into Olympic and used it on “You Shook Me.” With those big humbuckers, it was so powerful you can hear it breaking up the amp in the middle of the song. I could’ve tidied it up, but I really liked hearing the amp really struggle to get the sound out. It’s really fighting through the electronics to get out of that speaker. I’m not sure what happened to the guitar. It might’ve found its way to Keith Richards or something, but I really don’t know.





    Well that is absolutely the first time I’ve ever heard that and that actually blows me away! But if I had to guess that is the flying V tracking throughout the entire song all of the slide parts and the rhythm Riffing and chording. Sounds very much like a neck humbucker. I still believe the solo is the telecaster overdubbed with the tonebender pedal. But very cool info!

  4. Yes I get it and I should clarify. When I said the Les Paul is a muddy mess I meant if you try to use it through the same tonebender petal. The toneBender is actually more suited to work with the telecaster. But as far as you not liking the tone as much that’s all good everybody has their own opinions about what we like and don’t like. As I said I love  and play les pauls because that is the sound I dig the most. 

  5. Well let’s agree to make this a discussion and not an argument. Although I’m not sure either one of us will see things the same way!  First let me say that I am a Les Paul and humbucker lover. Been playing them since I first saw Zeppelin at the Nassau Coliseum in 1972. And although I own a telecaster Les Pauls are my weapon of choice. And the sound of the Les Paul through a vintage Marshall with no fuzz at all as Heartbreaker was done on Zeppelin II is my favorite tone of all time. But that being said I can’t agree less about single coil pickups not accepting fuzz boxes well. If you’ve ever tried a Les Paul through a vintage tonebender as I have you will never get what Jimmy got on Dazed and you shook me and how many more times  on Zep I. It is the humbuckers that are too thick and muddy and the whole thing ends up like a muddy mess. But because single coils are thinner and brighter the telecaster was the perfect guitar to use with that pedal. And I’m not the only one that is of that opinion. Single coils are cleaner thinner and brighter than a humbucker. Now if you personally didn’t like the combination that’s fine. But  in my opinion and many others that combination was fantastic although Jimmy only used it for the one album and up until March 69 live. Dazed and confused solo is the bridge pickup through the tonebender and I don’t think you can get a much more menacing tone than that! Sure playing that song like he did a couple years later live with the Les Paul and Marshall is a whole different thing and a wonderful trip, but the original stands alone. And how many more times solo that is the next pickup on the telecaster and an equally incredible tone.  And you shook me solo is one of the most incredible recorded solos I’ve ever heard! That is the telecaster with both pickups on which is out of phase which normally would be quite thin and nasal as heard on early bootlegs when you don’t have the fuzz on. But click on the fuzz and you get what is on Zeppelin I. But I can’t make you like the tone and that’s OK! One last thing. When you say single coils don’t work with overdrive. Tell that to David Gilmour! Some of the best guitar tones ever recorded. Single Tone Strat played through Hiwatt amps set clean with heavy drive pedals in front. Just saying! 

  6. On 11/12/2018 at 9:46 PM, gibsonfan159 said:

    I know that guitar played a huge role in the development of the band, but I was never a big fan of the tone. Fender pickups always get too fuzzy through heavy overdrive and that sound was way too limited to the psychedelic 60s. Maybe that's why he switched over. 

    Huh? Hey no problem if you are not a big fan of the tone but your comment about fender pickups getting too fuzzy through heavy overdrive? Fender pickups are the perfect match for the tonebender fuzz used on Zeppelin I simply because they are much cleaner than Gibson humbuckers.  They are anything but too fuzzy. And as much as I love the combination of the Les Paul and the Marshall that came later, Jimmy Page’s tone on that first album whether it was without the fuzz on Communication Breakdown or with the fuzz on Dazed was absolutely glorious! In my humble opinion of course. 😛

  7. Well as far as the Merv rewound the original pickup thing goes, lets just say that stories can be bent through the years. The simple fact is way back in the 70s Jimmy said that the pickup failed while on tour in Australia and he had it replaced with a newer Gibson pickup.  A newer Gibson pickup at the time would have been a T top. The pickup we see in the guitar after Australia has a chrome cover not a nickel one which was what Gibson was using by the late 60s. Now you could say maybe they just put a chrome cover on his original pickup except for when Jimmy took the cover off in the 80s Pictures in the original Tony bacon book and GW poster clearly show the T marking on the double black pickup.

  8. 5 hours ago, sk8rat said:

    edit: I thought you said how. the original p.a.f. pickup was replaced in 1972 with a t-top after the orginal crapped out after their tour in australia. the t-top was replaced with a custom wound seymour duncan in the 90's.

    they are more sought after because of the folklore than anything. look at all the useless stuff people collect and pay way more for simply because its old and has some sort of historical attachment.  from guns to instruments and a lot of the time they either dont work or are rarely used. everyone wants to be like famous rock stars and what is a better way than to buy the same exact guitar their heros used?

    sure these instruments were well built but just because it was built over 50 years ago doesn't mean that something cant be built just as good if not better. some '59 les pauls are duds but people are still willing to pay a ton of money for them regardless of how good they play and sound.

    a lot of these people who praise ''59 les pauls are just parakeets who mimic what they have always been told. two of jimmy page's main guitars were a danelectro and a norlin era les paul, guitars most guitar snobs would laugh at someone for owning. a guitar can only get you so far, you have to know how to use it too.

    what gibson does in the custom shop is more on par with how they were built back in those days, hence why adjusted for inflation the prices are about the same. the normal runs guitars are mass produced so obviously there are going to be some quality control issues with them from time to time.

    I agree with some of this and disagree with some of this.... Yes, some of the folklore about original vintage Les Pauls is based on snobbery and collectibility..... For years I played nothing but custom shop '59 reissues and convinced myself that they sounded just as good as originals... Until I had opportunities to compare, and not just a couple of guitars, but MANY comparisons and it was undeniable that there was a difference in tone.... So what did I do?... I dont have the money to get the same 200k '59 burst as famous rock stars.... I bought a '53 goldtop with a repaired headstock for around the same money as a high end custom shop '59, converted it to accurate humbucker specs and have never looked back. Ive had three of them.... That's not snobbery, thats me searching for the best tool and staying within a reasonable budget. I still have my '05 Jimmy Page R9 which is a really nice guitar but it just doesnt sound like the old wood.... NOW some may prefer the tone of new reissues, they tend to be thicker and more aggressive. Gibson has come a long way with the reissue, using hide glue, removing the truss rod condom and continuing to refine their pickups. We are very lucky that the Les Pauls they produce today blow away the LPs from 25 years ago. But they are too big of company to source whats left of the real old-growth mahogany, flame maple and brazilian rosewood used on the originals...

  9. Hey sixpence, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.  And let me be clear I am not saying that current Gibson 59 reissues are bad guitars. They are not they are excellent guitars. But how much comparing have you really done?  I have owned at least 50 1959 reissues from 1994 to the present. And I have had a half a dozen vintage Les Pauls including my current 1953 goldtop which has been converted to 57 specs with all original parts including PAF's.  Every guitar and every piece of wood is different. Yes there are some older guitars that are dogs just like there are some newer guitars that are dogs. But the best old Les Paul will always beat the best new Les Paul when it comes to tone. And that's all I care about is tone. It is not because the wood got older since the 50s. It is because the wood they started with when the guitar was brand new was already very old and grown more slowly and harvested from an area in Honduras where these trees no longer exist. I am not going to explain it here you can research it. But there is a difference in the tone of the wood used on the original guitars. Is it twice as good sounding as a new guitar? No. But is there a difference?  Absolutely. And yes there are great PAF replicas being made now. I have tried just about all of them and my name is on some of the manufacturers models. But none of them sound exactly like an original PAF either. My issue  is with your statement of the reissue he played being a  better guitar than his original. To make that statement without physically playing the two guitar side-by-side is ridiculous. Especially when it's commonly known that the originals generally will outperform reissues.  Recently I have had a Les Paul replica built with all old-growth woods, the correct glues, lacquers and construction and it sounds exactly like my 53 goldtop. Whereas no reissue I've had sounds like my 53 goldtop. Again more proof that the materials used has everything to do with tone produced.  And by the way when Jimmys bridge pickup crapped out in 1972 he did NOT replace it with the Seymour Duncan. He replaced it with a Gibson T top.  The T top has a lower output than the PAF and a quackier tone. A great sounding pickup  in its own right and had everything to do with the change in his tone from that point onward. It was not until much later after Zeppelin that he put in the Duncan and the push-pull pot ruining the tone of the guitar in my opinion. 

  10. 11 hours ago, sixpense said:

    But the new model he used during For Your Life on stage in 2007 is a better built guitar.

    Oh really? Curious how you have come to this conclusion.   There  is more precision available today due to computer aided machinery but make no mistake today's Gibsons still cannot compare to the originals. Jimmys 1960 black beauty custom will smoke any new Gibson in many ways. First and foremost, the wood. It no longer exists, gone, finito. Gibson can say they are using Honduran mahogany but it is not the same wood used back then.  That was old growth, very dry,  resonant and light weight mahogany that Gibson can not offer today . Not to mention all of the original glues, construction methods and hard nitro lacquer that was used as well. They all make for a better sounding instrument in 1960.  Then you have the electronics. No matter how hard Gibson tries they cannot replicate and have not replicated the sound of the original PAF pickups. And the original centralab pots and bumblebee capacitors do not choke the tone like modern parts. I have had dozens of recent model custom shop Les Pauls. They are great guitars but they are not the same as original vintage Les Pauls  which I have and have had as well....  Also, Jimmy not only used the guitar on sessions he was using it a lot with Zeppelin at the end just before it was stolen. Especially after he modded the wiring  and added the extra switches. He loved that guitar. Glad to hear he has it back. 

  11. Yup - he was/is a super sloppy player.

    He often made mistakes and fluffed notes - the more so towards the end of Zep. It seems there were times that his picking hand, his fretting hand and his brain were all in different places at the same time.


    He gets away with it (generally), because for him the guitar is more about feel than technical ability. There are times you can hear he's playing beyond the limits of his technical ability, and sometimes it's awful and other times it strays into absolute genius.

    From the beginning of Zeppelin up until the end of 1973 his playing did nothing but improve - the constant touring and constant playing did absolute wonders for fluidity and lyricism in his technique. After that the long lay-offs and the drugs & booze, and most importantly lack of practice didn't really do him any favours at all. He seems to have spent most of the latter years of Zeppelin relying on muscle memory and the many years of touring beforehand to carry his playing, and, yes he continued to have moments of genius, but the lack of proper practice translated into sloppines and lots more fluffs and mistakes and some out-and-out dreadful playing.

    Technical ability isn't everything, but if you don't practice and don't play enough you get rusty. Complacency - the 'I know that so I don't have to practise it' attitude is death to progress as a musician.

    You can see a similar curve in his playing throughout the Page/Plant project - at the beginning he was playing decently, but by 1998, after extensive touring his playing was finally almost back to his 1972/73 level. He's a great player, but as far as I can see he doesn't practice (enough) and this has held him back.

    There's no doubt he was a great player - but I think he could've been so much better.

    I have not read through this whole thread but this post above says it all and I totally agree. Plus you further spoke about his loose wrist versus scrubbing from the elbow later on which is a very telltale sign. But a sign of what I am not sure? Did his technique degrade because of lack of practice or did the drug and booze abuse actually affect his motor skills? I know I'm being technical here and only speaking of playing ability. But he did absolutely peak in 1973 and went downhill from there as far as ability and technique is concerned. That's not to say that he still didn't have creative moments of genius in later years.

  12. Personally, this has always been my least favorite Zeppelin album. Something about the sound I didn't like. I loved a lot of the songs but it's been the live versions of these that were played so much better than the studio counterparts! Pretty much any live version on this album is better than the studio! Just the way I feel about this album. Perhaps, it was the original production and that I found the sound to be a mid stale and muddy (not sure how to describe it otherwise). I think WLL is the only one that sounds great in its' studio form!

    I couldn't disagree more but hey I totally respect that everyone will have different opinions. Maybe part of it has to do with where you came into Zeppelin and first fell in love with the band for me it was after seeing them live in 72 and buying Zeppelin II as my first album. I was 14 years old and played it to death. Sure the fidelity of the album is not great it is muddy but the sound of the instruments and the performances is perfection to me from the beginning to the end and yeah that includes living loving made too! I started collecting bootlegs in 73 and have pretty much every live recording possible. And I saw them in 72, 73, 75, and 77. That being said believe it or not there was not one live performance that I like better than the original studio versions of Zep II. Of course there were many great live performances of those songs but to me there was no better sound than the original heartbreaker. Same goes for me with the lemon song, bring it on home, right down the line. Of course the band would go on to become more creative, but the raw sound and performances captured on that album to me are second to none. Although the fourth album is a very close second followed by the first and then the third and then Houses!
  13. So am I the only here who finds this alternate take to be the gem of all gems!!!.... Sure, love Pod and Keep On Raining, but man my head is still spinning over this alternate take of Bring it on Home.... Im biased because Zep II is my fave album, always will be and as a guitarist, I have alway thought that Jimmys aggressive playing and tone on those two note chords under the vocals is some of the best shit Ive EVER heard recorded. So to hear that awesome sound one more time in a different take blows me away.... And Jimmy never got that sound live which makes this even more special to me..... PLUS I love how we are hearing what I believe is the band pretty much learning the song in the studio... my guess is that by later that day they had the track down... this earlier version is all over the place, the arrangement has not been figured out yet.... according to the notes this was recorded July 24, '69 at Alantic during a three day break before heading out to the west coast.... As I said my guess is they got the backing track down by the end of the session and finished overdubs afterwards... If I remember correctly I believe Plant put down his final vocals a few days later in Vancouver.... LOVE to hear how quickly this song developed from this alternate take to the final take...

    And that opening line: 'All you pretty women, staying out all night long!'.... c'mon you young whippersnappers, THIS is why Zeppelin ruled!

  14. The media is starting to run with this announcement of the new alternate version of stairway to heaven. They are making it sound like this is a completely different take like the alternate of since I've been loving. Yet the official announcement seems to just mention an alternate sunset sound mix. So what's going on here are we getting the same song just a different mix or will we actually be hearing a different performance? Anybody have a clue?

  15. The media is starting to run with this announcement of the new alternate version of stairway to heaven. They are making it sound like this is a completely different take like the alternate of since I've been loving. Yet the official announcement seems to just mention an alternate sunset sound mix. So what's going on here are we getting the same song just a different mix or will we actually be hearing a different performance? Anybody have a clue?

  16. the guy playing the guitar said so, the guy running FOH monitors said so.

    I should just give up, but alas I cant.... At about the 10:00 mark of Dazed (below), Jimmy clicks on the wah...


    Even BEFORE he clicks on the wah you can hear he's got quite a bit of gain going on... so then he clicks it on. That feedback that he struggles with for the remainder of the song has NOTHING to do with monitors or FOH!.. If you have ever cranked a Les Paul through a Marshall, or an Orange, or whatever amp he had going, with that kind of gain and kicked on a wah, that is the potential problem you can have... And I dont know if you love that ending solo but I personally do not find it close to the level of brilliance that he used to pull off... When you get into trouble like that on stage, you correct it.... turn the damn wah off!... or turn the gain pedal off... you do something!.... Again, Jimmy Page is my all time favorite, always will be, but to suggest he was brilliant from beginning to end at the O2 show seems like fan worship... He was great at times, and definitely not so great at times....

  17. When I say 'end', Im referring to these three guys and Jason and the possibility of anything ever happening again, as we all know, the chances of that are getting slimmer by the day, month, year...

    I think I have a great idea (as if anybody cares what I think!)....

    I cant imagine them ever touring again, they made their point with the O2, it was an excellent performance, and for these guys (5 years later) to try to do that on an almost nightly basis, I cant see it happening. Robert has no desire and I do believe the seperate management, seperate hotel rooms, waning interest and infighting will lead to it being a big regret.

    And I cant imagine them getting together to do an entire new album. Those things take months these days and a lot of effort. And I can see in no time them doing it from different corners of the world, sending their parts in electronically, who needs that...

    So here is the idea for the END OF ZEPPELIN. While there seems to be some good feelings in the wake of the Kennedy Center Honors and before these guys go on their own way for probably forever, how about the four of them take a couple weeks, go to some inspiring location or fun city. Have some food and drinks, go into the local studio and bust you balls to write and record ONE LAST original Led Zeppelin song. All of them together in the studio, a common purpose and you can even call it SWAN SONG..... Put it on Itunes as a gift to fans and themselves... Make it clear, NO TOUR, NO ALBUM, just one final song!

    My silly thought of the day.

  18. Page got the tone he wanted so I will defer to him as to what sounds good.

    Insofar as overprocessed, to what processing do you refer?

    Regarding feedback, you are in correct.

    Im incorrect about the feedback? Where are you getting this from? I dont wanna get too deep into 'Im a guitar player so I know what Im talking about', but its the truth.... Ive been playing for a zillion years with Les Pauls and Marshalls in stage situations and just like Jimmy does, I rely on my volume controls on the guitar to go from clean to mean... If you think that the distorted mud tone of the intros and stairway from the O2 sound good, well then your entitled... But Jimmy NEVER played those songs that way in the past. If he rolled down his guitar vols just a bit more he would of cleaned it up. I cant imagine that he wanted it to sound like mud, what I CAN imagine is that his focus isnt what it used to be... Ive already explained where the feedback is coming from in certain songs and I cant help you if you dont understand how that works...

    Bottom line, yes I am fully aware that had they toured it is likely that Jimmy would have gotten more in a groove and had better nights... But these guys rehearsed this stuff A LOT beginning in the summer.... I think the ENERGY of the band and Jimmys playing was awesome!... And I am very thankful they did this... But I am not feeling the chills from head to toe from his soloing... A couple notes here and there (like that held note in Since), but for me too few and far inbetween...

    I dont want to speak for LedZebedee, but by overprocessed, I believe he is referring to Jimmys use of drive/gain pedals in some situations that he didnt do in Zep especially from '72-'80... Best example, Dazed. The guitar is very heavy on the riff. I actually totally dig that, I have gotten it from the horses mouth that there was a conscious attempt in some cases to capture the feel of studio recordings, something they didnt care that much about in their prime... So I for one LIKE that Jimmy was trying to simulate the monstrous tone of the tele through the tonebender pedal on the first album.... BUT, if you are going to do that then you have to realize that when you click on the wah all hell is gonna break loose and not necessarily the best way... Again, it comes down to focus and control and something was off there...

    Finally, I want to say that because I bring up negatives (thats what the poster was asking for) that does NOT mean that there werent positives... One can exist WITH the other!.... I was at the O2 show and it still stands as one of the best shows Ive seen...

  19. I have not read nor heard that the night at the O2 was planned and set out for Jimmy Page to have his greatest night.

    For me it is a slippery slope to single out one band member and scrutinize his contribution after the fact. While Page's tone or approach on this particular night may not strike someone's preferences, it is beyond scrutiny that Page hit the mark for which he was striving for the band.

    Insofar as his contribution as the guitarist, he clearly played with intention- leads and fills concise and not indulgent. Beautifully prepared and his craftsmanship superb.

    The O2 has a history of being a bit** to mix great sound. The feedback had zero to do with Page's rig volume or settings- the front of house monitor guy couldn't hear so he pushed the levels. The sound check was done with an empty venue, a house full of bodies absorbs huge sums of sound waves. FOH guy was doing his job, he just missed it. It got really touchy when Page clicked in the wah and opened it up- the upper frequencies boost made the FOH squeal. The softer Page played the more the guy faded up the level and dammit.

    With all due respect (and I really do not intend to be rude here) there are some things I dont agree with... The original poster asked for our impressions good and bad... So why is it a slippery slope to scrutinize after the fact?... This has nothing to do with preparation or whether Jimmy 'planned' to have a good night, it simply has to do with my opinion of the show itself and the celebration day release, so my opinion on Jimmy's playing that night remains....

    But a couple things here you are just not correct about. I was not referring to front of house problems. God knows there were enough of those. But there is a big difference between feedback occuring due to front of house and monitor mix and a tough venue and those coming from your own rig.... Believe me the feedback you are hearing at the end of Dazed and at other times especially when Jimmy clicked on the wah is ALL his rig and nothing to do with FOH... He was letting his rig get away from him. He was not able to control the feedback caused from excessive gain eminating from his amps and/or pedals depending on the song.... What you do in a case like that is first and foremost, turn off the damn wah!!!.... Its not working for you so turn it off!... Roll down your guitar volume a touch... go over to the damn amp between songs and back off on the volume, etc... I get worked up about this because it is not that hard to do and its more of an indication that he is just not on top of it anymore.... If you thought he was fabulous from beginning to end, then fine, I have no problem with that.... But to me, everyone seemed to be most worried before the show about how Robert was going to pull it off, when in fact in my opinion Jimmy was the least consistent.

  20. First the negatives. Is there anybody else out there willing to admit that this was not the greatest night for Jimmy page? Sure he had his moments of brilliance he always does. But I felt that Many of his solos did not flow and were disconnected. Stairway, quarter, song remains, since, and nobody's fault all had some nice phrases but as a whole the solos did not move me. The way he used to build his solos was phenomenal. These just didn't seem to go anywhere. His tone at times was really not very good, thick and muddy on stairway and the song remains and ramble on, thin and bright on Since. Yes I know tuning was dropped on some songs but those are things he can adjust with a twist of a knob. I feel he does not have the control over the equipment the way he did when he was younger. I know from gigging on many stages that when you have trouble with feedback, and I'm talking your own personal feedback from your amp, there are things you can do to minimize it. He struggled with the bow and in other places (the end of dazed for example feedback all over the place) which in my opinion affected his ability to play from the heart. There is no excuse for that go and turn your amp volume down or roll your guitar volume down a bit and get on with!.... Next negative: the mix in the arena and the mix on the release. Overall exciting and fun to crank up but as usual a modern-day mix on the bass. None of these guys get it it's all big subwoofer sound and no detail or clarity. That's why you are not hearing Jones The way you should be hearing him. Bring back these guys from the 70s that knew what the hell they would doing!..... On the positive side: thank God these guys especially Jimmy page are still alive to even have done this. Don't get me wrong I am truly appreciative that it happened and I truly love the Jimmy page is still walking this earth. And he did have some excellent moments. The solo in for your life I thought it was interesting and excellent. His solos in black dog and rock 'n roll were good too. I thought his dazed solo was great it's unfortunate that he blew the part coming out of the solo, that was his fault not Jason. And Robert was absolutely great and was the biggest surprise for me. After listening to a decade of him whispering his way through solo albums I was shocked at the intensity of his singing. Sure he can't hit the notes anymore he hasn't since 1972. But his energy and is phrasing was great. And Jason while not being his father did an awesome job and gave it the energy it needed..... And I thought there were great moments of drama and touching moments as well. Kashmir was excellent and the end of the night with rock 'n roll could not have been better!

  • Create New...