^ Carouselambra might suffer from a bad mix (too much synthesizer and the inability to understand what Plant is singing) but the middle part with the descending guitar riff (4:06) is some of the best stuff they ever did precisely because it sounds nothing like Led Zeppelin. As for D'yer Mak'er, Bonham hated playing reggae and I'm sure his sentiments detracted the others from suggesting they do it live. And mind you, that's suggesting the others even wanted to play it themselves.

If Led Zeppelin were the type of group to spontaneously change their set list from time to time, I can see them doing DM. But they generally weren't that type of band. They preferred sticking with an established set list and going in different directions with those particular songs.

I've played in several groups too and while you're right, Cream didn't implode because of Ginger Baker, it imploded largely because Jack Bruce and Eric Clapton couldn't get along anymore. It's obvious, beyond their own words, because Ginger played separately with Bruce and Clapton after Cream. So, despite whatever personality shortcomings he had, Ginger Baker found himself in several groups because THEY wanted him. "No one earns the right to bad behavior!" How about John Bonham? As much as I love the man, he wasn't a saint on the road. Do we give him a pass? Eric Clapton and David Gilmour are miles apart in styles, phrasing, tone and versatility. If that's your opinion, I suggest you listen to both artists more carefully. I've heard plenty of people diss both the Beatles and Bob Dylan over the years. In last week's Rolling Stone issue, Donald Fagen disses Dylan's live act pretty heavily. The Gallagher brothers don't really have clout to be dismissive towards anyone. They were one three hit wonders, who were hyped as the next Beatles and imploded because they had shit personalities. They're now equally famous for their attitude as they are for Wonderwall. I think Page is in another galaxy from Clapton but I can't deny Clapton's versatility. And by that I mean the fact that he's gone from The Yardbirds to John Mayall's Blues Breakers to Cream to playing on "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" and various other George Harrison pieces to Blind Faith to Derek & the Dominoes to an extremely successful solo career and beyond. The other side to the versatility part is Page has largely played nothing but Zeppelin material post 1980 (minus the Firm). Clapton has so much work to chose from he can play different sets all the time and yes, play blues standards too. I wish Page would do more of that (when and if he tours again). The bottom line is it's apples and oranges. I would pay top money to see Jimmy and I wouldn't pay more than 50 bucks to see Clapton. Clapton's music hasn't changed my life the way Page's guitar playing has. But Eric Clapton has carved a career and reputation that demands respect wherever he goes. To ignore that is a great disservice to his genius.

A lot of bands switch playlists every show. Pearl Jam makes a regular habit of doing this as does Dave Matthews and Bruce Springsteen. It is a shame Led Zeppelin fell under the spell of repetition every night. I do believe had they been more willing to switch up their set, at least every other night, they wouldn't have sounded as bored at times (especially in the later years).

I like your passion and I do think there is some friendly and clearly some unfriendly rivalry involved here but I can't say Clapton is jealous of Led Zeppelin. He's proven himself to be far more versatile an artist than Jimmy Page, which at the end of the day, is probably all he really cares about (if he does to begin with). For Pete, I think the fact the Who were once the big underground British band with him as the 'great songwriter,' and then Zeppelin's eclipse of all that left him envious. The same could be said about The Stones but at the end of the day, the Stones were before and after Led Zeppelin with hundreds of songs compared to Zeppelin's fifty or so. That's not to say I think they're better than the boys (the Stones were very spotty live, even during the Mick Taylor years). I think Keith feels he's earned the right, given his success, to say what he wants. And to his credit, he's pretty candid compared to most. And I can't really argue with him. Or any of these guys really. They've all etched their own path into the rock and roll history books. They all represent a tremendous gift Great Britain brought to the world during the 1960s by channeling black American music. If they want to bitch like cranky ol' Englishmen, I think they've earned that right.

I can't say for certain that he never dissed another drummer or musician (aside from the Alvin Lee 'OJ' incident) but I know he generally respected everyone who either influenced him or who was in the business while Led Zeppelin began their run to the top. He certainly had a way of taking out his humor on drummers who he felt were inferior to him. But he also had a great ear for talent. I recall Deborah Bonham discussing the time she and John were backstage at a Police concert in 1978 and her big crush, Sting, acted like a snob to them. She was upset but Bonzo justified it by essentially saying, "Don't pay attention to it. We behaved the same way when we started. These guys are gonna be huge." He was a huge fan of Stewart Copeland.

Right to clarify on the dates but regardless, Cream influenced everyone during that time period, including The Experience. Both trios pushed each other into directions that saw different takes on the emerging psychedelic scene. Speaking of drummers here, Mitch Mitchell is still my all time favorite. The guy had incredible technique: loose, energetic, jazzy and eruptive. He's definitely in the Big 4 with Bonzo, Moon and Ginger.

Led Zeppelin didn't play DM live because Bonham hated playing reggae and Jones found it repetitive and boring. It also was probably left out of sets because they believed there was better music to play. For HD, I consider it a different scenario altogether: 1. It catered to their rockabilly roots. Even if it's almost a self parody in some ways, it was a new song. 2. Jones could play keys on it. 3. Robert likely favored singing a song ala Elvis and considering this was 1979-80, his enthusiasm for it trumped all. So we can probably conclude that Led Zeppelin played Hot Dog because they wanted to play it and didn't play D'yer Mak'er because they didn't want to play it. Got it kids?

"People hadn't really taken much notice of drums before Krupa. And Ginger Baker was responsible for the same thing in rock. Rock music had been around for a few years before Baker, but he was the first to come out with this 'new' attitude-that a drummer could be a forward musician in a rock band, and not something that was stuck in the background and forgotten about. I don't think anyone can ever put Ginger Baker down. Of course, everyone has their own idea of when Baker was at this peak. I thought he fantastic when he played with the Graham Bond Organization. It's a pity American audiences didn't see that band, because it really was a fantastic group-Ginger Bajer, Jack Bruce and Graham Bond. I think Baker was really more into jazz than rock. He does play with a jazz influence. He's always doing things in 5/4 and 3/4 tempos. Unfortunately he's always been a very weird sort of bloke. You can't really get to know him...he just won't allow it. Ginger's thing as a drummer is that he was always himself." - John Bonham

He's been the same person for 40 years now: extremely deranged and manic while being an extremely gifted percussionist. I agree with Clapton's description of Baker's playing, even if I disagree with his opinion of Bonham and Moon. And in all fairness, without Cream and their tremendous influence, we likely wouldn't have had the Jimi Hendrix Experience, Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin.

Thanks for the lesson. You failed to answer my question. I was waiting for you to mention how only 1/3 of colonists actually favored independence while 1/3 remained Loyalists and 1/3 remained neutral and did not get involved at all. Or the fact that independence wasn't favored by any faction of the population until the late spring of 1776. The biggest misconception history has had on the events leading to the Declaration of Independence is that it was inevitable. The only people who actually showed signs they wanted 'complete' independence from the Crown before the mid 1770s were Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty, but even that didn't take place until after the Boston 'Massacre' of 1770. And for the record, the Declaration of Independence as we know it actually had nothing to do with the colony's voting on separation from Great Britain. That happened on June 7, 1776 when Richard Henry Lee, on behalf of the Virginia delegation, submitted three resolutions which stated, "these United colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be totally dissolved." This was voted on July 2, 1776 and passed. The document we know as the Declaration of Independence serves the purpose of proclaiming America's legitimacy to the world, not the actual separation from Great Britain. It's amazing what you can discover in books, not on the intrawebs. Happy belated 4th to everyone!

Explain how the Founding Fathers were terrorists? And please, go slow. I'm an unintelligent American who knows nothing about my country's history and cannot comprehend large words and phrases of great in depth analysis. I want to understand you thoroughly.

My liver and I haven't spoken to one another in over a decade. I'll let you know how things are in another ten.

I knew it was Bonzo from the second he smiled. I assumed it was that obvious, especially because Bonzo and Ringo were friends and had a good relationship.

I find them to be musically boring. All three may be very talented musicians but that doesn't guarantee the three will make timeless music. I gave them ample listen time during my high school years and I always found myself bored. On top of that, I laugh every time I find myself trying to take Geddy Lee's singing seriously. I've come to respect Neil Peart over the years for his devotion to swing drumming but I personally find his approach in Rush as hollow and lacking swing. Talented beyond doubt but as stated, mechanical and lacking any groove (which could be a Lee/Peart thing). I couldn't imagine him trying to play James Brown or Parliament, effectively. I understand their appeal but I just haven't been bitten by the bug and doubt I ever will. To each their own.