zeppy668
-
Posts
112 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by zeppy668
-
-
Generally I think you had a shift in the band's focus live in the latter years away from long extended tracks and towards a greater variety of material. In previous years the acoustic set would have offered more of a shift if pace but in the late 70's it wouldn't exactly have been fashionable.
As for the track itself I can't say D'yer Mak'er is one of my favourites but still I think its not nearly as bad as a heavy rock group playing reggae could have been. The Crunge has always been the more disappointing track for me because it had potential to be so much more had it retained its live rawness.
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.
-
Sorry bud, that dog don't hunt. No one is better than anyone else, maybe more talented, more driven, but that does not excuse bad behavior. I have played in several bands and I tell you this, what John Lennon said was 100% spot on when asked the Ringo Star vs. Pete Best question. If Neal Peart wanted to join my band and he turned out to be an asshole I would can his ass in a second for a second rate drummer the band can get along with. Just like Ginger Baker, no matter how talented someone is, at the end of the day the other musicians will only take so much shit before they either walk, fire him, or beat the shit out of him.
No one earns the right to bad behavior!
Regarding Clapton, I don't find him very versatile at all, in fact his playing is downright boring and he never attempted the multiple styles Page did. Now Gilmore, who plays in a very similar style to Clapton is a versatile player and an exciting player, why, because unlike Clapton he pushed himself and took chances. Clapton is a one-trick pony if there ever was one.
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.
Do we really want and expect everyone to have kind words for their contemporaries? maybe the aforementioned Baker, Townshend, Stewart, Clapton (add Jack Bruce to the list) and Richards just don't like Zep and are giving their honest opinion, maybe it's jealousy on some of the individuals parts (Townshend has said as much) surely it's just one interpretation, doesn't mean it's correct.
Zeppelin are just one of those bands that it's ok to "diss" for some reason. You very rarely hear any negative words spoken about The Bealtes or Bob Dylan. However, you can't tell me every other rock musician likes their stuff? they are just "sacred cows" Cliff Richards and Tom Jones are the only musicians I've heard speak negatively about The Beatles. (presumably due to jealously
)To be honest, I kind of like the rivalries, gives things an edge instead of everyone pretending to like everyone like they mostly do these days (as advised by their PR machines)
In the 90's the Gallagher brothers from Oasis were outspoken and dismissive of many bands, and that gets a lot of people's backs up, but I prefer that to people stabbing you in the back behind closed doors - at least you know where you stand with outspoken individuals.
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
onethree 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 second that. Is Clapton great? Yes, of course. More versatile than Page? Hell no. Unless by "versatile" you mean "able to play a Freddie King inspired blues solo over any song."
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.
-
Was the song a radio favorite in the 70s as it seems to be now*? If so, it does seem odd they never played it live.
When I was younger, I used to think that if you went to see a band, the songs were just chosen in the moment by the band, and the following stop on the tour might have a completely different song list. I still kinda wish live music worked that way.
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).
-
It’s so pathetic that the only bands, who could have perhaps given Led Zeppelin a run for their money, are the ones who attack them in the press on a regular basis. The jealousy from some of these hypocritical provincial rednecks is ridiculous – The Jeff Beck Group’s Rod Stewart likes to pretend that Jimmy owes everything to the mod, Peter the perv from the Who, Rolling Stones with their always strung out Richards loved trashing Zeppelin, the boring Clapton was always jealous, and now Ginger Baker, the bitter angry old Ginger Baker lost in the confusion and thoughts of his own mind…Maybe if they spent more time doing stuff besides disco music, slow sounding blues covers, less time in police jails, and dinners of LSD they might have given Zeppelin a run for their money…But Zeppelin always pulled it together when in the studio and conquered in the stadiums – 02 anyone?
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 don't believe Bonzo had words like this for any of his contemporaries did he? Such a shame that Baker lacks a brain, but I suppose not all musicians are nice people.
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.
-
Not quite -- Cream's debut single and album were released in December 1966; The Jimi Hendrix Experience had already been formed at that point, and recorded their debut single ("Hey Joe"/"Stone Free") in October.
The other musicians would have gone places irrespective of the influence of Cream on their development, which I find negligible at best.
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.
-
its not me Zeppy, its history
Imagine living under the heel of an oppressive foreign power. These foreigners tell you they know what's best for you and they enforce their will through the use of the massive army they have occupying your homeland.
This is the situation the forefathers faced in the mid-to-late 1700s. British authorities, far removed from the American colonies, placed military garrisons throughout the territory and passed their own laws as to what was best for the colonies without any representation from the colonists themselves. In retaliation, the colonists started to boycott British goods. When this didn't get the attention of British lawmakers, the colonists destroyed and stole British goods and property. The lawmakers simply made more Draconian rules and put more soldiers on the ground to try and keep order. Again the colonists reacted. This time they dragged British officials and Loyalists out of their homes and beat them or killed them in the streets. By this time, their path was clear. The British would not listen, so the colonists stole British munitions and began a violent uprising. England had the most powerful army and navy in the world, and confident in their own omnipotence, they attempted to pacify the colonies with the iron fist of military might. Responding to fire with fire, the colonists killed British officials and Loyalists, engaging the British military in a devastating guerilla war. Standing armies of British soldiers and mercenaries fought against an elusive rebel army made up of American nationalists armed with weapons that were either stolen from the British or donated by the French. Britain's once-mighty army was stretched thin and the insurgents gained the support of the French army, which finally helped them expel the British from the colonies after years of bloody conflict
anyway, my point wasnt to have a go at the US people, more the government and governments worldwide
if i didn't like it so much, i wouldn't be moving to LA in a years time nor be married to an American!! see you on the strip
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!
-
the founding fathers were terrorists in a sense so what are you celebrating? you are basically saying be thankful for a political system you have no interaction with other than a vote and ignore what the Whitehouse/downing st get up to?? when you protest, you are condemned
we see the police state America is turning into, you're not far behind the UK, the land of incompetence, paranoia and cctv up your arsehole
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.
-
Words I would use to describe Rush: tight, worthy, precise, sexless, devoid of groove or raunch, mechanical drumming.
but personally, I will never understand their appeal.
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.
-
I'm glad they finally got in the HOF. I thought it was a travesty they had to wait as long as they did considering how much they've done for popular music and their enduring influence and the allegiance of their fan base.
That being said, I still can't stand them.
-
It really is a shame that it seems Mick Taylor is only playing the one song, and the same song at that. Guess they don't want him to upstage Keith and Ronnie...
If I'm not mistaken his participation in this tour - to include what he performs - is governed strictly by contract.
It really is a shame both Mick Taylor and Bill Wyman aren't playing full time for this tour, considering:
1. It's the 50th Anniversary Tour and they belong there.
2. There are only a handful of dates so it's not like this is asking for a year's commitment.
3. This is likely the last time the Rolling Stones will perform in a touring capacity.
Like you said Steve, it comes down to contracts. I know Wyman wasn't happy he couldn't negotiate a better deal to be involved. I don't know if I can argue in his favor considering he has not had any input with the band since 1994 and Daryl Jones has assumed a respected position in the touring troupe. Mick Taylor's role is even more puzzling to me. Keith has said he loves having the three guitar sound because it adds more backbone to the songs and is more in step with how they were recorded for the albums. Unfortunately, I think it still comes down to ego with these guys. And I know, at the end of the day, Mick Jagger calls all the shots when it comes to the business side of things so it's hard to sympathize with any party here.
Bottom line: They've overcharged their fans once too many times and now it's making them look like absolute baffoons. They often cite their immense stage setup and traveling circus as the reason for high ticket prices. Well, the solution then is to play smaller venues which would arguably be better suited for old and new fans alike anyhow.
-
At the very least, look at old reader's polls during the 1970s for best drummer. Didn't Karen Carpenter win best drummer one year and Bonzo threw his hands up in the air after reading it?
-
I've asked him several questions and I've always received underwhelming answers. And no, my questions haven't been of poor taste or anything invoking something scandalous. I suppose my hopes were he would actually take the time to respond thoroughly to good questions considering how often the questionnaire is advertised.
)
Why didn't they play D'yer Mak'er Live?
in Led Zeppelin Live
Posted · Edited by zeppy668
^ 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.