Jump to content

Balthazor

Members
  • Posts

    307
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Balthazor

  1. That's not really the point. One would think that the 50th anniversary would be a bigger deal than just a book and a few new t-shirt designs. If he's got all these super secret projects planned, maybe he could have planned on having one or two of them ready for the 50th. I know he owes us nothing, and if we never got another release of anything, so be it. It's more about his apparent lack of interest in the whole thing. A lot of bands do big things for a major anniversary. We get a book. Rather underwhelming, to say the least. It's hard not to wonder whether Jimmy gives a rip about his fans.
  2. I seem to remember Jimmy saying something a while back about how there would be all kind of surprises in store for the 50th anniversary. Well here it is approaching the end of the year, and the big surprise is that we're getting diddly squat. Aside from a picture book. Surprise!!!
  3. I just saw this article pop up in a few places: https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/general_music_news/opeths_akerfeldt_led_zeppelin_would_disappear_against_deep_purple_on_top_form_black_sabbath_wouldnt_stand_a_chance_either.html "When Deep Purple are on top form, there is no other band that can rival that. You couldn't put Led Zeppelin against Deep Purple on top form... they would disappear. And especially Black Sabbath, they wouldn't stand a chance! It's high energy at the top of its game" I've never been a big fan of Deep Purple, they frankly bore me. I actually prefer the early Rainbow stuff to Purple, but that's all just a matter of taste. And I can't say much about comparing the talent level of these bands, I just don't know enough to have a worthwhile opinion. However, I do find fault with Akerfeldt's "no band could touch Deep Purple" statement given that, to my recollection, Purple has nothing that even approaches songs like No Quarter, Stairway to Heaven, Kashmir, Achilles Last Stand, When the Levee Breaks...I mean seriously. Child In Time is a great song, my favorite Deep Purple song in fact, but it's not in the same league as these masterpieces. Ironically, it seems like these days Deep Purple is best known for Smoke on the Water, a great rock song, yet one so simple it's literally the first song many aspiring rock guitarists learn to play. Akerfeldt has been a Deep Purple fanboy forever, and admittedly I'm probably just as big a Led Zeppelin fanboy, but really I think he's being a bit delusional here. Even if you wanted to argue that Purple's musicians leave Zeppelin in the dust, which may be a fair argument, the fact that their catalog seems to pale in comparison to Zeppelin's, well I think that's got to ne taken into consideration. The Beatles weren't exactly a band of Steve Vais and Neil Pearts, yet their catalog is unmatched in all of rock history. So this whole "Led Zeppelin disappears next to Deep Purple" seems a bit of a stretch to me. Not sure why this was moved from the news forum, since it is involving a news story, but ok. One final point I wanted to make is that Akerfeldt says if Led Zeppelin was put up against Deep Purple in their prime, Led Zeppelin would disappear. That seems silly to me because, as it happens, Led Zeppelin WAS put up against Deep Purple at their prime. Both bands were hitting their peaks at roughly the same time. Only, Zeppelin didn't disappear. Instead, they sold more albums, sold more tickets, wrote more memorable songs...in every way possible, Led Zeppelin did the exact opposite of disappear against Deep Purple.
  4. Here's a picture of me and my girlfriend at a company dinner I had last week.
  5. The candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long, and Plant burned very, very bright. What would we rather have: a good Plant for a decade, or a brilliant Plant for half that time? I'd rather have five years of Plant than a decade of a pale imitation. Speaking of David Coverdale...
  6. I found this article today about the Model T http://www.antimusic.com/news/17/June/12Piece_Of_Led_Zeppelin_History_Being_Sold_Online.shtml
  7. I think the Beatles "boy band" thing is all about the notion that their early fan base seemed to be squealing teenage girls who were almost undoubtedly more interested in the Beatles as personalities than in the music they created. I wouldn't try to make a direct comparison between the Beatles and, say, the Backstreet Boys, for any number of a million obvious reasons, some of which have already been mentioned. But there's no denying that the Beatles appeal to throngs of squealing teenage girls was no different than the appeal of the Backstreet Boys to their throngs of squealing teenage girls. The fact that the Beatles were talented musicians and songwriters was almost irrelevant to that equation, but was certainly relevant to the ability of the Beatles to outgrow and outlive their "boy band" phase and become recognized for their musical talents and accomplishments, something which can't be said for the Backstreet Boys or any of the other cookie-cutter boy bands that keep infecting the pop music scene.
  8. I agree. It reminds me of a quote from the booklet of a Yardbirds compilation I have: "Depending on your perspective, the Yardbirds were either a footnote in the history of Led Zeppelin and the careers of three superstar guitarists, or one of the most important bands of the 1960's, second only to the Beatles and the Rolling Stones."
  9. In no particular order... Guitarists: Jimmy Page Dave Mustaine Devin Townsend Mikael Akerfeldt/Peter Lindgren - maybe it's cheating to sneak two in, but I don't know offhand who plays what solo, I just know I love their work together. Jack White Drummers: John Bonham Keith Moon Dave Lombardo Martin Lopez Bill Ward Edit: I suppose these are more my favorites than who I consider the greatest.
  10. I want to go back and listen to "Hard Blues Song." It's too bad the show was cut short, so they didn't get to perform "Hard Rock Song" or "Mellow Acoustic Song." Those are real show-stoppers.
  11. One more thing I'd like to add: in order to really answer the question of how Led Zeppelin changed music, I guess we would need to define the terms of what "changing music" even means. Everyone seems to agree that the Beatles "changed music," and yet their early material wasn't much different stylistically from the 50's rockabilly that prompted them to pick up guitars and start playing rock and roll in the first place. It wasn't worlds apart from what the Beach Boys were doing in that same time frame, or any number of other artists. To my thinking, it really wasn't the Beatles music that changed music, it was their massive popularity. The Beatles didn't change music as much as Beatlemania changed music. That popularity revived rock and roll both as an art form and as a business. I mean, rock and roll as a business was just beginning there in the 60's and the Beatles were a huge part of that. Additionally, the massive American success of a British band playing American music, something which the British considered impossible, prompted all the other British bands to take their shot, kicking off the British invasion. But none of that had diddly squat to do with their music, it had everything to do with their popularity. Granted, if their music had sucked, they likely wouldn't have enjoyed that level of success, but at the same time their success was as much due to the marketability of the band's members as it was with the quality of their music. I really don't think all those teenage girls were screaming like mad because they just sooo dug that riff in "I Wanna Hold Your Hand." At any rate, the level of popularity they achieved is what changed everything, like a black hole powerful enough to bend space. Not their music, which was not entirely different, and arguably less interesting and innovative, than what a whole lot of other bands were playing at that time. Now if you accept my premise, then consider that Led Zeppelin achieved, at least in some respects, such a level of success that it surprised even Elvis. Nobody had sold as many tickets as Zeppelin was. Nobody had sold as many albums as Zeppelin was. And most importantly, nobody had made the kind of MONEY that Zeppelin was. The one area that comes to mind where Zeppelin fell short of the Beatles in terms of success and popularity was, I think, in regards to their presence within the popular culture. What I mean is, everyone knew the Beatles. Everyone knew them by name. Everyone had a favorite Beatle. Even people who didn't listen to their music knew who they were. They unquestionably had the biggest footprint in the popular culture since Elvis. Whereas Zeppelin, by not doing television and not doing public appearances and largely taking the focus off themselves, didn't have nearly as big of a footprint in the general popular culture. Which, I think, both helped and hurt them, but that's another topic altogether. I think Zeppelin's level of success effectively took the fledgling rock music business, which had been created in large part due to the popularity of the Beatles, and honed it into a finished product. The analogy I like to use is that of Atari vs. Nintendo. Atari created an entire industry out of nothing, and was successful to the extent that practically every US television had an Atari connected to it. But Atari had no clue what to do with this new industry they created, and ultimately crashed and burned. Then along comes Nintendo, having learned from Atari's mistakes, and rebuilds the video game industry into what it is today. Which is not to say that the Beatles crashed and burned, although Shea Stadium might count there, but rather, I think Zeppelin effectively took the fledgling rock industry of the 60's and in many respects transformed it into the massively successful business that it became in the 70's and beyond.
  12. I would add that the Beatles also exposed these innovations to a larger audience than the original innovators would have been able to. I've read that the Beatles may have been heavily influenced by what Pink Floyd was doing in the studio in the late 60's, but at that time there was absolutely no mainstream audience for whatever Pink Floyd was doing. Certainly not here in the US anyhow. But by exposing these innovations to a mainstream audience, I think it opened the door for those smaller acts to begin to have some mainstream appeal. In other words, if someone liked the weird psychedelic stuff that the Beatles were doing, they may start seeking out other psychedelic bands that they may not otherwise have had any interest in. Frankly, I think Zeppelin and other blues rock bands (and to an extent, rock and roll in general) did the same thing with regards to the blues. For all the whining about rock and roll bands stealing from the blues, I think these bands did more to expose people to the blues than the blues ever could have itself. Would anyone even remember Robert Johnson or Willie Dixon if bands like Zeppelin weren't swiping their stuff?
  13. Just to toss my two cents in, I agree with Steve to the extent that they, maybe unlike any rock band before them, took a little bit of everything that was going on in pop music before them; blues, psychedelia, hard rock, folk, rockabilly, and merged it all into one amazingly coherent style. I can think of few bands, either before or since, that could pull that off as effectively as they did. But I do think their impact goes beyond that. For starters, Zeppelin were at least as influential to 70's rock as the Beatles were to 60's rock. It's hard to look at 70's rock and not see some Zeppelin influence. Heck, even the Osmand Brothers were influenced by Zeppelin. One can see Zeppelin's influence all over the place in the 80's rock, and even in the 90's grunge thing. It's hard to argue that Zeppelin weren't a major influence on everything that came after. Furthermore, each of the individual members basically became the template for every rock band to follow. Perhaps not so much these days, given that rock itself has so little presence left in mainstream pop culture. But certainly throughout the 70's and 80's and into the 90's, Jimmy Page was the quintessential rock guitarist, Bonham the quintessential rock drummer, Plant the quintessential rock singer. And one could argue that Jones defined the anonymity of the rock and roll bass player, although I'm mostly just joking on that one. Last but not least, I think Zeppelin and Peter Grant created a model in which rock and roll as an art form could be profitable, and helped usher in an era of rock creativity and artistry. Which is not to say that rock bands weren't doing creative and artistic things before that, but largely, unless you were the Beatles, your only real hope of making any money was in recording top 40 radio hits. And even the Beatles, during their most creative and experimental period, still chugged out more than their fair share of top 40 radio hits. That was the market back then, you put out top 40 hits or you languished in obscurity and relative poverty. Led Zeppelin changed that paradigm, by totally eschewing the singles market and focusing on albums, by figuring out a way to actually make money touring, and along with groups like Alice Cooper, Pink Floyd and The Who, changed the very perception of the rock concert into an event onto itself rather than just a way for a band to promote it's records. I don't think bands like Pink Floyd or Jethro Tull could have ever really had the kind of popular and commercial success that they had in the singles-driven market of the 60's. But like others have said, timing plays a huge roll in all of this. Zeppelin were just the right group of musicians with just the right manager and just the right sound appearing at just the right time. The same could be said of the Beatles. If the Beatles hadn't come along when they did, maybe it would have been the Stones, or some other British invasion band. Or, maybe it had to be the Beatles. Maybe it had to be just that perfect combination personalities, sound, image, etc. for a band to reach that peak of popularity, success and influence that the Beatles enjoyed; and maybe the same is true of Zeppelin. In any event, I think it's indisputable that Zeppelin had at least as much impact on defining the sound of 70's rock as the Beatles had in defining the sound of 60's rock; and I think it's also indisputable that any list of the most important and influential rock bands of all time would have Zeppelin on it, and probably close to the top.
  14. While there have been lots of interesting thoughts posted throughout this thread, and while the topic may be fun discussion fodder, to me questioning whether or not Jimmy Page was a sloppy guitarist is like questioning whether Picasso was a sloppy painter. I think this quote from Steve Vai pretty much says it all: "In the physical universe there are objects that include suns, planets, all life in matter, in all dimensions; and then there is the space that all these things exist. That space is the vital element. For virtually every kid since 1968, who picked up a guitar to find his voice on the instrument, Jimmy Page has been that space that enables all our notes to be played."
  15. Great post! You're completely right about Randy's sisters, acting as though the evil rich Zeppelin were taking food from the mouths of poor children. Francis Malofiy is a slimy opportunist, but at least in a comical, laughable way. Those sisters are just slimy opportunists.
  16. I guess we shouldn't be surprised by this. Skidmore maybe needs to find a hobby. Or a job. I like how the filing says that the lower court only being able to go by the Taurus sheet music was a "mistake." Nevermind that in 1968 the sheet music was all that could be filed for copyright. Too bad Skidmore couldn't go back in time and retroactively change the law. Normally I would expect a court to toss out such a lame appeal, but given that this is the Ninth Circus court, lord only knows what they'll do.
  17. Metal!! Here's a couple of absolutely not-to-be-missed performances:
  18. I suppose when it comes to interpretation, there's really no right or wrong answers. Lyrics can mean different things to different people, and often can take on meanings not even intended by the writer. However, some of the analysis I've read, such as the rather lengthy one posted above (no offense Bob Wallace) just seem like a stretch. Keep in mind that Plant was a 23 year old stoner hippie, not the type one would expect to see writing lyrics referencing obscure Biblical passages and stuff like that. It would be a bit like Seth Rogan writing The Odyssey. Although I know Plant enjoyed reading things like Lord of the Rings and Celtic folklore, whereas I'm not entirely convinced Seth Rogan even can read. But you get the point.
  19. That's awesome! I've never heard that before. I used to be a huge Billy Joel fan back in the early 80's, and I still like his stuff from the 70's, pretty much everything up to Nylon Curtain. To briefly steer back into the Rush discussion, they're a great band, one of my favorites. However, some of their fans can be real annoying and therefore real fun to pick on.
  20. I would say yes, they were. When you consider that the Yardbirds were one of the quintessential 60's psychedelic bands, and when Page took over he moved their performances into an even more experimental direction than Beck had, then Zeppelin was launched playing in much the same style as the Page-era Yardbirds, it would be hard to say that they weren't a psychedelic band. I think the difference is that by the time Zeppelin came around, people had started to refer to their style of psychedelia (as well as that of Cream, Hendrix, etc.) by terms like acid rock or heavy rock more than psychedelic rock. But if Zeppelin's albums had started coming out in the mid 60's they most certainly would have been regarded as psychedelic rock.
  21. That's hilarious! I don't know about best, but one of my favorite female vocalists has long been Anneke van Giersbergen. That she sings so often with Devin Townsend these days is just a joy for me.
  22. I did, however, find this page from the New York Times in 1974 that references Gerald Ford's son Steven listening to Led Zeppelin.
  23. I've been a massive Star Wars fan since 77, so much so that I even loved the prequels and would happily defend them TO THE DEATH!!!!* I mean, I have an autographed Darth Maul photo hanging proudly on my wall. But these new movies, for some reason I just have absolutely no interest in seeing them. None whatsoever. Some of that I'm sure comes from the fact that I loathe Disney, and I guess I'd rather not partake in their inevitable running the franchise into the ground. But more than that, I think I'm just done with the franchise. From 77 to 83 Star Wars was an absurdly important part of my life, and after Return of the Jedi I was both sad but also relieved that the franchise was done. I could move on from my obsession and start taking an active interest in other things, like girls, and reality. Then some years later the prequels were announced, and my first reaction was "oh good lord, now I'm going to have to plunge back into my Star Wars obsession again." And so for the next six years I that's what I did, filling my apartment with little Darth Maul action figures and spending countless hours on Star Wars forums and standing in lines for those opening day tickets. Then those movies ended, and once again I breathed a little sigh of relief that I could go back to living a Star Wars-free life. Aaaand now there's yet more movies. Fuck that. I feel like an alcoholic who, after years of sobriety, is offered a drink. I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade here, I just happened to notice a Star Wars thread and figured I'd toss in my two cents. * hyperbole added for effect. While I do indeed love the prequels, so much so that I consider The Phantom Menace to be my favorite of all the Star Wars movies, even I can't stand Jar Jar Binks. But I'd still take Jar Jar over those fucking stupid Ewoks any day, hands down.
  24. Nothing too important. I can't honestly remember what made me think of it, but I thought I'd see if I could track down a clip of the Cavett show where this exchange allegedly took place. Searching the internet only turned up a brief discussion about it that took place here in 2012, and revealed that Cavett didn't even have a show in 1976. Like I said, I found that Cavett talked to the Ford family in 1974, which could have been the source, but I couldn't find any clips of that episode anywhere. So finally I thought someone here might know, which brings us to now. I realize that by now I've invested a substantial amount of time and effort in the pursuit of something that's entirely irrelevant, but after all, isn't that the primary function of the internet in the first place?
  25. That I don't know, I don't currently own a copy of Hammer of the Gods. I haven't spent a whole lot of time researching the Susan Ford thing, but what digging I did do always seemed to come back to the quote from Hammer, which of course makes me question whether or not there's any truth to it at all.
×
×
  • Create New...