Jump to content

zeppy668

Members
  • Posts

    112
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. ^ It certainly has the most energy out of the LA shows from 77. Badgeholders is pretty good but I've never really understood the hype for this show (aside from the Plantations and Mr. Moon).
  2. It's easier to blame the guy who wasn't a member of the original band than it is to blame two poor performances of the singer and guitar player. I've never bought the whole "guitar was out of tune" routine. If someone as professional and legacy-minded as Page is can't be bothered to check if he's in tune before going into a song, I don't know what to tell you. Bottom line: the video doesn't lie. Collins may not have been on cue in spots, but Robert's voice was shot and Jimmy sounds awful.
  3. ^ I will have to concur with 6/21/77. Page may not nail every note but he damn well makes you believe in every note he plays.
  4. It will be interesting to see if and when Jon Snow's true identity is finally revealed. I think it's fairly obvious who he really is. Personally, I think Tyrion and Arya are the two best written characters in the books and the two best characters portrayed by fantastic acting on the show.
  5. ^ 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.
  6. 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.
  7. I respect your personal feelings on the matter but you answer your own question there. Indeed, the Japanese population were prepared to die for their Emperor. But they would have also surrendered for their Emperor. The Japanese military considered assassinating him in hopes of rallying the population against ALL enemy combatants, foreign and domestic, because they did not want to end the war. The Americans, indeed, had tremendous wariness when it came to invading Japan. Remember, the Japanese were portrayed about as equal as to African-Americans had been throughout American history. By contrast, the German Army were portrayed as an equal fighting force to the Allies while the Japanese were a fierce, savage and inhumane people. I recall reading there were Japanese who did take their own lives out of an oath to honor (in their view) but also, the absolute shock of devastation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki completely brought the entire island of Japan to its knees. It definitely saved the lives of our planned invading forces. And everyone from that generation justifies our decision to use the bomb. I can't argue their perspective. But I also can't overlook our own decision to use the bomb when Japan showed they were willing to surrender before we used them.
  8. No, I think curiosity is the key to our evolution. Curiosity spurred the need to innovate and innovation has been the driving force behind every single thing that makes up the human condition. That being said, I've experienced some close encounters with objects in the sky I certainly can't explain (and that's from someone who has lived next to an Air Force base for 30 years). I do believe there is something else out there. I would just caution allowing our curiosity to write fact before anything has been proven to exist.
  9. I believe it's likely alien life forms exist in some capacity but I'm not convinced an intelligent species is visiting us and if one does exist at all, I think it's fairly self-centered of us (surprise!) to assume they would pay so much interest in the human race. I think 95% of UFO mythology is based on self-gratification.
  10. ^ I think Oswald took all three shots, including the one that canoed Kennedy that had been previously suspected as the one from the Grassy Knoll. It's been proven that Oswald was not only qualified enough to make those shots (based on his military scoring) but that modern day snipers have since made the shots themselves. However, Oswald's motives are still questionable and I think there is a legitimate debate about the Mafia and Castro's involvement. I used to believe LBJ's hands had blood on them too but the more I've read as I've gotten older suggest there was nothing more than political differences between Kennedy and Johnson. Oswald was the trigger man and Jack Ruby silenced any confessional chance of learning the truth. The Warren Commission did a brilliant job in fudging it all up, only adding to the conspiracy theories.
  11. Actually, that's not true. Japan and the United States did hold secret peace talks prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The problem was the Japanese wanted their emperor to remain in power, not as a sign of continuing the Japanese war effort but because the Emperor was viewed as a living God among the Japanese people. It would preserve the honor of the people and any military surrender would be better tolerated. The United States refused and demanded all state/military power cease in it's capacity. The Japanese refused. MacArthur wrote about this some years later and he said that had the United States agreed to the initial Japanese agreement, the atomic bombs would likely never have been used. Of course, the argument can be made we used them to show our muscle against Stalin. The evidence is there to support that theory.
  12. 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.
  13. 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).
  14. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...