Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location
    Victoria, British Columbia

Recent Profile Visitors

790 profile views
  1. I don't know... think about it, how many times have you listened to a cringeworthy opening number (Rock and Roll in particular), but then by the time he gets to e.g. the Rain Song or Kashmir he's nailing it. It's rare that he misses that epic note at the end of the bridge in Kashmir, and I always find myself saying "where was that an hour ago?"
  2. Yes, I think a more appropriate view for this thread would be: "I love live versions of Moby Dick and skip right to them" lol.
  3. Yeah I mean that the loss of his high range begins noticeably on the second Japanese tour, so I suppose to say June is more accurate.
  4. Apologies if such a thread already exists, but I did search. I love Zep, I have pretty much every show as far as I can tell. But here are a couple of things that make me a little crazy after all these years. Maybe these are the rough parts of the diamond, I don't know. I'll just air them in the hopes of finding kindred spirits rather than judgement. 1. Whole Lotta Love, live, didn't always suck. But it often sucked, at least compared to the rest of the show. Jimmy and JPJ found it hard to recreate the depth, power and tone of the opening riff live in a way which had the same punch as the studio version. It was often played in a hurried or frantic way. The six-bar solo break was usually a dog's breakfast marked by poor timing, including by Bonzo who used to mess around with the drum part to ill effect. The best bits live ended up being the medley numbers like Boogie Chillen (which was usually awesome). Maybe they were tired by the time they got there, but it's rarely a highlight. Honourable exception(s) to one or two of the versions on BBC sessions. 2. The way Robert handled his voice post Sept 72 . Why not do a warm up? After a few months, it becomes obvious that with some rare exceptions he couldn't hit even moderately high notes at the start of a show. But in many gigs, by the middle of the show he's in great form and can hit, if not his old peaks, at least somewhere close to that. So why not spend half an hour warming up his voice before the gig? Ok, got those off my chest.
  5. For me it's a real toss-up. TSRTS has better sound overall. Robert's voice is post-Japan and he struggles as usual to get it into gear through Rock And Roll, which is just a disappointing way to start a show. There are however some killer versions on that album that stand up not just against HTWWW but well known and well loved boots. I love the DAC version, which has maybe the best "San Francisco" break. NQ as others have said is epic, and in my opinion just the right length. TSTRTS and TRS are fantastic. And the recently added tracks in the reissue are boss. But WLL sucks, as -- I will say -- it usually did live. HTWWW for its part has Robert's voice as it was on the original studio recordings for the most part. Jimmy I think is right to say that the band, musically and technically, were at their peak in 1972. There is little to complain about in terms of performance. It just doesn't quite have the relaxed feel of the MSG gig(s).
  6. And I think it's also true that, due in part to conscious choices made by Zeppelin themselves, the Stones had more of a place in public consciousness at the time. They were the ones on the radio and topping singles charts and on Saturday Night Live. Zep were massive in the hearts and minds and basements of teenagers like me. I think that's migrated since and the mythical aspects of LZ have taken a greater hold in the public imagination and as a musical influence in recent years. But that's difficult to prove and I get the pique about the attendance "revisionism."
  7. Having been all even handed in the previous post, I will say one inflammatory thing. At their peak, there was no one better that Zeppelin at being Zeppelin. But there was a band better at what made the Stones great at their peak than the Stones themselves: Faces.
  8. If we're slagging either the Stones or Zeppelin -- and I'm not sure there's much point to that, but if we are -- can I just say that even being someone who loves the Stones, their post-Tattoo You output gets almost no play through my speakers, because at best it's just OK. Have to agree with the earlier poster who said they weren't relevant after 81 (and even THAT album was largely 70s outtakes). To claim otherwise is frankly trying too hard to make a weak point. The Zeppelin equivalent is the crowd that sees ITTOD as somehow similar in quality to the 69-75 output. Full marks for effort, and I like the album, it was the first I ever bought... but no. Stones were an important band for 17 years. They were also more prolific during that period, per year, than Zeppelin were in their twelve years. Against that, I'd say that for the Stones there was quite a lot of throwaway/knockoff crap they put out along with all the classics from 1964-81, whereas there is IMHO far less deadwood and far more conscious and effective boundary-pushing on Zeppelin albums. So I declare a draw in any meaningful sense. Personally I like Zeppelin better because they were heavier and because Jimmy (while he was on his game) was single-minded about creating a sound and an impression. The Stones were always a little bit more of a pop group and a singles machine, though I don't mean those comments as slights. That's based on studio output. Live performance (re performance per se, and not attendance numbers)? Not even close, I love GYYYO and lots of Stones boots, but Zeppelin hands down.
  • Create New...