truth and beauty
-
Posts
514 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by truth and beauty
-
-
Just to add: kiwi led zep fan/porgie66/valeriesunshine ... without meaning to sound lewd I do not have a problem with "push push push"
and the great virtue of that and all other such moaning allusions was that YES, IT WAS SUPER-EMBARRASSING FOR YOUR PARENTS TO HEAR WITH YOU !
I guess I didn't have the problem ( or the pleasure ) of a parent who wanted at all to listen to Led Zeppelin . I lost out on bonding .. but all of that helps you carve out a bit of teenage territory.
-
OH ! I have only just come across this thread and am almost speechless . But sorry guys, actually not speechless.
So from this thread, on balance, the Led Zeppelin fandom is expressing the view that the problem with the band is TOO MUCH SEX ?!?! WTF ?? The sex IS Led Zeppelin and when you talk about the musicality, certainly of early Led Zeppelin, you are talking about the use of (technically brilliant) music as an expression of sex.
It is lemonsqueezingcrotchgrippinghandwavinggirlsblousewearingposturingmoaninggroaningscreamingoh.my.god.allaboutsex.
Kellygirl is thoughtful and forgiving enough to think that LZ's sexuality is just a female thing. But that can't be right : how does that expression of red-blooded raw male sexuality - matched totally to their music - NOT work for their male audience ?
Apart from Kellygirl I am relieved to read the posts of Mithril46, Walter and Blindwillie .. thank you, so I'm not going mad.
But I'm still reeling a little from some of these comments. I'm actually really questioning my appreciation of that music... of course some of their songs are not overtly sexual, but I can't imagine not seeing their music through that prism . Yes, it's quality music. But if I COULD see it in a more neutered form, I don't think I could love it so much.
As Philip Larkin said " Sexual Intercourse began in 1963 .. between the end of the Chatterley ban and the Beatles' first LP" . What happened next ? Did it END again after thirty years or so ?
Some of these comments make me wonder ...
-
Leader column from The Guardian .
They're careful to refer to British courts and not to second-guess US ones. Let's hope that caution is unnecessary.
-
Great that he's won! It strikes a blow against all the unthinking redevelopment which is happening in London at the moment . And is utterly to Jimmy's credit as far as the Tower House is concerned.
However this victory is due to the plans being withdrawn : had the council been allowed to judge in Jimmy's favour, it might have set a stronger precedent.
What will Robbie do next ? Give up and sell up ? Or was this a strategic withdrawal: will he be back with new proposals ?
I have a feeling this one will run and run ...
-
Jimmy fights on.
The public link below is the latest submission. Evidently Jimmy has sought expert advice and has built a compelling case.
Good luck to him.
-
More news on the Stairway lawsuit. Only, not much news : they're still debating where the hearing should take place ...
-
Great post, Scylla! Never knew about Bishop's Avenue and kind of glad I didn't!
-
Jimmy with author Matthew Williams at the Tower House, who wrote a book on the work of William Burgess. Besides the Tower House, Burges was also involved in renovations at Cardiff Castle in Wales. The roof of the arab room is shown in the second photo.
Hi yellowrose, I believe the photo was taken at Cardiff Castle itself, though annoyingly I can't find where I read it. I also visited Cardiff Castle many years ago and the photo you posted looks like that.
But I did find this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/3730777.stm
Good luck to Jimmy, and huge credit to him for taking on the great mantle of responsibility involved in caring for the Tower House.
-
I have heard atlNtic is going to start printing labels for 4 that have Randy California's name.. This from a Atlantic person to distributor for a chain so maybe it is not looking good
I'm not doubting your sources at all but that seems very premature: it appears at the moment they can't even agree where to hold the hearing ....
Unless they simply want to avoid it and would rather settle out of court ( now IV has been re released? )
-
Indi, thanks for all the detail in that post.
Looking at the floor plans, I'd love to know what Jimmy keeps in the Armoury ... presumably all his guitars???
-
Just would like to point out, it was the late and great JEFF BUCKLEY who said that at a concert in Australia, as Jimmy Page and Robert Plant sat in the audience and Jimmy told that tale later in an interview.
Thanks Zepcollect. That is SUCH a Jeff Buckley statement. Not hard to imagine Jimmy picking up on it, but better to know that it came from Jeff, just seems right.
-
The news coverage is drawn from this link ( if it works ) which is publicly available on the council's website.
-
Here is the Mail Online's version complete with architect's drawings !
I predict a lot of coverage in UK print newspapers tomorrow : most of them love a planning row between neighbours and the fact that these two protagonists are so well known will only add fuel to the argument.
It's a pretty interesting story in terms of London's architectural heritage: in the east, the City of London and much of the Thames has seen major and controversial development, there's an ongoing row about how development is destroying Soho's character with the closure of old bars, music venues and a threat also to the musician's haven of Denmark Street ... and in Kensington, not far from Jimmy's Tower House, the unique Commonwealth building has been knocked down in favour of a huge tower block which is pretty inconsistent with the area.
I'm no expert in planning laws but in spite of the fate of the Commonwealth building, I'd have thought that Kensington and Chelsea council is more conservative and more sympathetic to issues of heritage than some other areas. Plus the immediate area of the Tower House is valued for its Arts and Crafts connections, and includes other architectural gems. The heritage status of those roads is an issue which may well have crossed their path before now.. Obviously no one is threatening to demolish the Tower House, far from it, but they may be inclined to sympathise with Mr Page's complaint ...
-
Hi Scarlet,
Plenty of versions on Youtube: try this one
Jimmy is certainly aware of the comparison and made it himself ( no doubt deliberately!) during several of his recent promotional interviews i.e. this one
And if anyone doubts his familiarity with Bach's Bourree back in the day, he's heard to play a couple of phrases from it during the Heartbreaker solo on How the West Was Won. Perhaps on other occasions too, if anyone's heard it ..?
-
What a fabulous photo edit Scylla ... can't help but think of the painstaking time Jimmy took to work on his book .. and you've pulled this lot together in no time !
I know the circumstances are different but you have a great eye for a genius photo .
-
Report here from Bloomberg to say that lawyers for the band are trying to get the case moved to California...
-
Rock stars certainly did...I mean, Jimmy was giving Paul McCartney a run for his money in the bad-hair stakes. You'd think people with their resources could at least go to Daniel Galvin or something. I have this awful image of them stocking up on the Just For Men and slathering it on themselves in their bathrooms, because like most men they couldn't admit to their own vanity and get it done properly. Then I start wondering if their wives had to help them... or if, perhaps, their wives had to just...pretend they didn't notice.
And it such a shame, because the little bit of grey really suited him all along.
Scylla I'm in awe - partly because of your amazing facility to post SO many images .. but also this comment is spot on and very funny!
JP's decision to go silver was absolutely inspired - but for so many years in between there was frankly a crashingly artificial dark head of hair. It did look as if your Just for Men theory was going on ... but it's odd if so because I don't think Jimmy has issues about not appearing vain..
As for your preceding photos : thanks for the cheerful sequence, lovely to see ..
And as to the others, God bless the bodyguards, whoever they were.. they obviously had their work cut out and to see them action is to feel pretty grateful..
-
And I should add my total agreement about the hair dye and the Karl Lagerfeld looks !
-
Wow Scylla .. Thanks for all that you post, and it seems you have a command of the less wonderful images as well as the lovelier ones, and I can't think where you find them all ..
I do think you've almost posted too many photos to prove your point ( some aren't really bad, they're just taken at an untimely moment ! ) But of the bad ones, there is an obvious one which is so painful to see, and I wonder if it would be better not to post?
I also find it so hard to recognise Jimmy in the penultimate one: the jacket seems identical to the one worn in the final photo you posted , and the grey-TShirt guys are also similar in the last two photos. But he looks SO different : what do you know about the dates/circumstances ?
-
Quote ..( from a rather obscure source) :
"Into the dream you came
And across the soft carpet of my reverie you walked
With Hobnail Boots. "
Not much to add. Totally execrable. Beyond bad.
Also really shocking that with so much money and creative talent to back up MC, no one could come up with something less brutal and less of a total abuse of what went before..
Nothing more appropriate than the title of this thread. We are indeed in unrelated places.
-
If everyone has read the bloomberg link posted by Reggie29, then you must all have followed up and done their quiz :
On the "hard" setting, it's perfect if, like me, you know Stairway very well but struggle to sight read ...
What I haven't worked out is whether the four inaccurate bars are anything to do with Taurus ...
-
Thanks Scylla .. and it just makes you wonder how many snaps the photographer took to end up with so many great smiley images?
Probably a lot, but even if there were rejects, that's still such a catalogue of beautiful and happy pics ...
-
I came across this image where it was described as a bootleg produced in the USSR . However I've also read that when the fourth album was released, the Soviet authorities replaced the image of the old man in tune with nature, in order to present a more modern proletarian image ... i.e. this version is actually how the fourth album appeared when released in the Soviet Union.
Any idea where the truth lies ..?
-
One of the big problems with mixing business and the arts (and music is obviously one of the arts) is that throughout human history making copies of a work has been not only accepted, but encouraged. It's only been in the last hundred years or so (as opposed to thousands of years of humans creating works of art) that this has been a problem.
Today's copyright laws have failed to even acknowledge that there are two completely different, and apparently opposing, viewpoints to art: the creative act that generates the work of art versus making money off of the work through copies. The law can say what it wants but artists still work from the same inner space, which is influenced by and yes, even takes from other artists' work. It wasn't all that long ago that incorporating direct inspiration in a work of art was an act of tribute, not theft. It isn't even illegal to create exact copies of works of art -- if it is sold it simply has to be sold as a copy, generally as a licensed copy (otherwise you couldn't buy Led Zeppelin posters and photos, could you?)
This new business/legal development doesn't change the nature of the basic human need to create art. This creative drive is part of human nature - a basic need like the need to socialize and communicate - it is not an optional artifice of modern civilization. As long as copyright law ignores this point, there will be needless legal problems, particularly when there are opportunistic bloodsucker attorneys out there who want to take advantage of the situation.
Spot on - well said lif.
Terrible that the very narrow prism of copyright law should be brought to bear in this instance, as with many other cases. There are two countervailing things going on: one is business/ownership and the other is the way that so much art develops in an organic way.
It's about the word derivative, which is seen as a negative quality, but is only negative if something is borrowed to no artistic end. Aside from such cases, lots of great art in all genres is derivative. And as you say, the grasping attempt to appropriate and monetise "product" can be a huge brake on artistic development.
I don't think the legal system is capable of bringing much nuance or altered perspective to the simple prism of what the law says.
Judges and juries are pedantically expected to measure a case on the points of law. There are no provisions for questioning the basis and the value of the laws themselves, though the best lawyers can plant a seed of doubt, or introduce an altered perspective, which may not be legally admissible but might just allow a different shaft of light , or common sense, to prevail.
What's interesting on the topic of creative borrowings is the openness in the way which recent music - rap and other genres - have sampled other tracks.
Haven't got a clue what credits ensue from that: presumably it's all such an obvious borrowing that it's uncontestable.
It makes me wonder about the P Diddy/J Page collaboration on Kashmir. He didn't need to take such a public part in the project. But he chose to, perhaps for image reasons or perhaps to reassert his ownership of that song: maybe he just couldn't authorise it, he had to own it.
Ditto, for that matter, Beijing and Whole Lotta Love.
I think the judicial authorities would say I've moved off topic at this point, and move to have the previous point dismissed from the court records.
and the great virtue of that and all other such moaning allusions was that YES, IT WAS SUPER-EMBARRASSING FOR YOUR PARENTS TO HEAR WITH YOU !
Little Things You Don't Like About Led Zeppelin?
in Led Zeppelin Newbies
Posted
Oh sorry.... you wanted something I DON'T like ? JPJ's jacket in TSRTS, looking like Christmastree baubles hanging off it .. And the hair is a serious problem at that point.
Trivial objections, huh?
More seriously I agree with the point about the very limited filming of Led Zep. Limiting interviews ( to foster mystique) was a strategy which can be easily understood . Limiting controlled filming seems tragically wrong. Documentaries have emerged featuring the Stones ( Gimme Shelter, lots of backstage footage) and David Bowie. In each case, controls were clearly put in place over the material at the time, and hence there are tight rules over their use. But they exist. Someone at the time had the vision to see what access might enable .. and also to retain control over it. I think that is Led Zeppelin's failing. I wouldn't entirely blame Peter Grant : I rather think Jimmy was the one who felt cameras would steal his soul ( indeed perhaps he still does ) .
What a huge reflection of their legacy has been missed as a result. As years go by that feels like more of an omission.