sk8rat
-
Posts
225 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by sk8rat
-
-
I saw this in yesterdays paper. seattle times. mention of jimmy starting in the middle paragraph.
-
13 hours ago, Valerie Sunshine said:
You're welcome
he looks so different with his hair like that.
-
while I cant say I dislike it because it never happened, I would have loved for them to have reintroduced baby im gonna leave you when they started doing acoustic songs.
-
3 hours ago, Stairway is NOT stolen said:
I think i read they took out Thank you and SIBLY because Jonesy's organ and keyboard didn't record properly
yeah, I was told the organ wasn't hooked up to the soundboard so it didn't get recorded.
-
14 hours ago, Stairway is NOT stolen said:
Not to mention at the end of WIAWSNB, Jimmy clearly tunes his low E down to a D for Moby Dick, but they edited it to go straight into HMMT (which is in standard tuning)
im sure they had their reasons. they probably just felt that the track listing was better that way. they also put bring it on home at the very end but they played it before the other two during the encore. they also took out heartbeaker, sibly, thank you and long tall sally.
-
14 hours ago, juxtiphi said:
They got the editing wrong on Moby Dick at RAH, they totally mess with what you can see while John is doing is best moves by switching the camera angles back and forth so fast that you can't really get "watch" it. As if switching the angle made it better
just talking about the angles, not the editing. when they filmed from the stage and the crowd the band looked like it had a much bigger presence. there is magic in the camerawork as well as the editing. film them from down low and up close and they look powerful and in charge, while when filmed from far away they just look like a group of guys mucking around on stage.
-
21 hours ago, The Rover said:
For posterity, at least one gig from EACH tour should have been filmed. Not the 8 camera variety. Just a single camera in the balcony, above the fray, with a wide shot encompassing the entire stage. The video screen footage presentation is *not* optimal. (I'm talking Earl's Court here)...
The logic being, when someone, anyone watches the film of the concert, they could direct their eyes to the part of the stage, and look at what they want to, when they want to.
You know... like when you're in the audience watching a concert.
All that, vs. the "MTV style" 2 second shots all the way through.
And for a multi camera shot, I would expect nothing less than the above, PLUS an isolated camera on each member whilst they are onstage.
That's all I ask. As a Fan.
too much money involved to just film them for posterity. 16mm and 35mm film were/are expensive. plus they have to have someone man the camera since they would have to constantly be swapping out the rolls of film. that means to get a perfectly synced show they would have to have at least two cameras otherwise there would be cuts between swapping out the film.
as for the angles. I would much rather have a concert filmed like royal albert hall than australia 72. looks a lot better imo. I could go on....
-
blueberry hill - when they are about to get into that's the way someone says "straight from the deli."
-
3 hours ago, Walter said:
You've hit the proverbial nail on the head. Peter Grant's fault on that one, for sure.
I wouldn't totally blame peter grant. there just wasn't really a point to film a bunch of concerts back then. there wasn't sites like youtube (obviously
) to upload the footage so unless they were planning on releasing movies or it was to be broadcast on tv, filming show on a regular basis just wasn't logical. most of the footage from bands of the 60's - 70's we have now is either from tv specials, documentaries or from music festivals. as for bootleg footage, I doubt there would be much more even if peter grant didn't have his reputation, as the footage situation is basically the same for most bands of that era, a few clips from people in the crowd but not much and not that great of quality. I know jimmy didn't like the cameras much either so im sure it was just as much his decision to only film the shows when it felt right.
led zeppelin at royal abert hall and tsrts, black sabbath at california jam and live in paris 1970, pink floyd live at pompeii, woodstock, ect.... all these performances were filmed with a purpose not just because they wanted to have the footage for future reference.
-
royal albert hall 1970 - whole lotta love, when someone in the audience yells "woman!" and robert plant points and goes "ahh"
blueberry hill - when robert says they are going to play sibly someone says "oh my god" and someone else says "beautiful". beautiful it was.
-
8 hours ago, FavouriteTipple said:
Little things I don't like about Led Zeppelin?
Hmm. Well, regarding this forum, first up to call out are the numerous derogatory terms on this thread to describe Plant's wardrobe and hair like "fairy" and "girly" as if such things are somehow "bad" and not macho enough for some. As RuPaul might've said, fuck that shit and check your misogyny.
Another thing I don't like about Led Zeppelin is, to paraphrase Robert Plant in the 1990 MTV rockumentary, is often how wrong they got it in concert (as referred to above regarding set lists). I get why folk like their early stuff, but let's face it, even Plant has acknowledged that his first few years with Zep were full of vocally heliumesque histronics that are embarrassing to hear and kill listeners' enjoyment.
he may have said that but they tend to go back on their word based on mood. I watched a fairly recent interview (I think 2011) with him where he talked about his vocals in the early years and he said that yes, he still had some work to do on his vocals in the early years but it was coming around. also in one of the lz books (iirc) he said that 1970 was his favorite year live and that the rain song was his favorite vocal performance. yes, in the very early days his voice could sometimes go out of control, doing that weird howling sound, or breaking up into a high pitch scream but he seemed to have it tamed by 1970. also it was a lot better than the later days when his voice would crack and when he could no longer hit the high notes.
-
2 hours ago, Mercurious said:
White Summer's not LOng enough!!!
Seriously, the two Willie Dixon covers on the first album are everything the critics said they were. I can enjoy "I Can't Quit You" live but cringe through "You Shook Me." There. I said it.
Why put two Dixon covers on the first album? One can only speculate, and no one (journalists, etc) has ever asked why? Was there a business arrangement between Grant/Page and Chess records, where Dixon worked as studio manager? Did the Yardbirds owe Chess money? THere had to be a reason, unless Page simply wanted to showcase Plant's over-the-top wailing in two different keys. I don't understand, probably better off not knowing.
you're overthinking it. the simple explanation is that they liked the songs and didn't have much original material that they felt fit the album.
-
17 hours ago, TheGreatOne said:
I don't recall anything with a Pirate symbol or anything. There a few shirts I've seen and was mostly all Pre-Zeppelin. Ruffled by the chest area and some shirts with ruffles at the cuff area too
pirate jimmy
-
30 minutes ago, KellyGirl said:
Damn I'm an outcast with the majority of these answers. I sense tomatoes being pelted at my
head.
There is a time and place for everything. I would not have enjoyed the band copying the
image of ' 73 into their O2 show, however male rock stars in the mid 1970s incorporating
sexual overtones into a live performance?? I say it went with the territory. The band went
outside the conservative box when it came to their stage presence. Robert Plant wearing pants
that tell you what side he rests it on goes with what Zeppelin were selling and what the fans
were willing to buy into. Plus they were writing amazing music on top of it. They fact they
were confident enough to peacock around in some rather feminine-esque garb, and be
wanted by the opposite sex is rather telling on what was taking place in that decade.
As much as I love the flamboyant 73 - 77 side of the band, I also like those very early days
too. Jimmy's stage attire at the Bath Festival with that fuzzy out of control beard, hat and
coat reminds me of Paddington Bear, and love the poorly fitted ZoSo sweater that makes
you wonder if it was swiped off a 5 year old kid.
What I don't like? 12 years and there is very little video. I blame Peter and his scare tactics
for that. Oh and the '76 PEOPLE magazine cover. Plant is wearing a crocheted sweater
Grandma made last Christmas. Bonzo is in his late 20s, yet in that picture it screams middle
aged math teacher. Jones is okay, but his hair looks a bit like a wig you would see at a
renaissance fair - and the photographer has him positioned a bit awkward. Lastly Jimmy. Jimmy
reminds me of a villainous woman on soap opera in the 70s like Dallas, Dynasty or Knots Landing.
If I squint and turn the lights down he reminds me a bit of Joan Collins. There are hundreds of
images of the band and this one doesn't do them justice. By the way I love Joan!
no offense but the contrast in opinion is probably because you are not a guy
. I dont think many of the guys were too excited to see roberts pants back in those days.. he was always a bit feminine from the early days and as a guy I can say, man did he pull it off but the later days was really more for the ladies than anything. that said it wasnt always extremely over the top but sometimes it could be distracting.
-
I was thinking about this today. robert plant was what turned me onto led zeppelin with LZI. subsequently, robert plant sort of turned me away from led zeppelins later years. he went from singing with angst and anger in his voice and then he sort of started getting a little too sexual and flamboyant with his singing later on. see 1:27 for an example.
the early sexual suggestions were cool but when it became so blatant it just lost its meaning.
also, in the beginning, tight but loose is the best way too describe them, the music was loose but the group was tight. later on, for me it feels like they were four musicians playing individually at the same time rather than a group playing together if that makes sense. the band because loose.
its not necessarily a bad thing, the band was evolving to something more mature (yet immature at the same time) but the band sprouted into ten different directions rather than just one or two and I think they spread themselves a little too thin. they were a bad ass, angry band in the beginning and I relate to that much more than the later stuff (live anyways).
there is obviously the drug use and all but I dont really pay attention to that. robert plants voice started burning out and that is really the worst thing that happened to them musically imo.
early on their style was way better as well. they went from being casual, yet well dressed young men, to being characters
-
9 hours ago, Nick S said:
awesome pics. I guess robert plant wasn't lying when he said, "I am a traveler of both time and space". look at jonesy talking on a cellphone
.
-
cant really get much more to the root of it all than that. I cant stand when there is a bunch of misinformation in documentaries. it should be good.
-
courtesy of someone on another forum
-
13 minutes ago, Reggie29 said:
Same difference. Here the terminology is Very Old Stock.
no you are mistaken. "very old stock" and "new old stock" could be what you are thinking about. vos doesn't mean that they are using the same old wood and hardware they used back in the 50's. all it means is that the specifications are the same i.e. same neck profiles, long tenon, 100% nitro finish, light aging ect...all they are doing is making a historically accurate replica. if they were building guitars from a stock of supplies from the 50's the would be asking a hell of a lot more money for them.
-
56 minutes ago, IpMan said:
I seriously doubt that, they are guitars, not a Picasso. Jimmy's #1 LP (arguably his most valuable guitar) would fetch maybe $200,000 to $300,000 in an auction. However, once Page goes off to box city for the big dirt nap (hopefully not for a few more decades), the value of the guitars he played personally will go up exponentially.
That being said, VOS guitars, from my experience, retain their value better vs. a standard issue, but in the end if you get what you paid for them consider yourself lucky. A friend bought an Alex Lifeson signature LP (Red) when they first came out. That is one sweet guitar and the Floyd Rose w/ LP really brought the versatility. In the end though it was not the guitar for him and he put it up for sale. His return was about 95% of purchase after two years of ownership and heavy gigging with the instrument.
no way, if jimmys black beauty wasnt stolen that thing would have gone for around that much at auction(who knows how much it was being sold for as it was floating around the black market) but not the number one. if jimmys number one were to ever be sold I would have no doubt in my mind that it would probably become the most expensive guitar ever to be sold (along with pearl gates and claptons guitar if it ever surfaces). I wouldn't be surprised if it went for a few million.
-
8 hours ago, Reggie29 said:
Black Beauty has since been returned. It could be worth anything between $250 - 500K. Not sure about the Twin Neck but it'd be too rich for my blood!
It is not a replica per se. They are re-issues built to Page's modifications / specifications. Notably the volume and tone controls have pull / push pots installed.
VOS (Very Old Stock) are made with aged timbers that are as old as the original releases. The electronics (Pickups) whilst maybe new are hand wound etc. The same way as they have always been made.
At worst they are worth the original price but these would IMO, increase in value simply because of Page's association.
Search for vintage or collectors online.
vos stands for vintage original spec.
-
4 hours ago, sixpense said:
2008 Gibson Les Paul Jimmy Page Custom VOS Black Beauty, #065/500 $8,300
ah, I looked on reverb but couldnt find the specific guitar. O.P. look at the price guide below. it shows what people paid for the guitars, what condition they were in and when
-
go to the forum below, they will get you some info. you can post in either of these sections. make sure to title the thread with the guitar details like "vos black beauty price help" or something like that. since they are vos you would probably have a better shot in the historic section but be prepared to get a few snarky replies. it happens from time to time. also they wont give you anything unless you give them pictures, year and some specs. because they aren't just run of the mill stock guitars it might be hard to get a solid estimate.
http://www.mylespaul.com/forums/gibson-les-pauls/
http://www.mylespaul.com/forums/historics-reissues/ -
3 minutes ago, TheGreatOne said:
not exactly, some retired people do Janitor jobs. When I grew up, my Janitor was involved with the WW2 Little Boy nuke. It's a blurry memory as a child but remember he had a military picture of him next to the bomb with other people
that may be but as I said im going off of the info we have from people who knew him. they basically say he lived at home his whole life and didn't get out of the house much other than to do his job, as a janitor at a highschool and to record concerts.
) to upload the footage so unless they were planning on releasing movies or it was to be broadcast on tv, filming show on a regular basis just wasn't logical. most of the footage from bands of the 60's - 70's we have now is either from tv specials, documentaries or from music festivals. as for bootleg footage, I doubt there would be much more even if peter grant didn't have his reputation, as the footage situation is basically the same for most bands of that era, a few clips from people in the crowd but not much and not that great of quality. I know jimmy didn't like the cameras much either so im sure it was just as much his decision to only film the shows when it felt right.
and love the poorly fitted ZoSo sweater that makes
. he was always a bit feminine from the early days and as a guy I can say, man did he pull it off but the later days was really more for the ladies than anything. that said it wasnt always extremely over the top but sometimes it could be distracting.
travelling riverside blues
in Led Zeppelin Master Forum
Posted · Edited by sk8rat
it is not totally original. if you listen to robert johnsons music a lot of it is the same but he had very specific licks and phrases which jimmy used for their version. obviously it sounds very different but you can hear where jimmy got a lot of the phrasing for their version just overall from robert johnson.