Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jimtriantafyllou97@gmail.c

  1. No worries, mate, thanks for the info anyway!
  2. I hope I didn't offend anyone with my post, really (you weren't offended, but I don't know about the rest . I agree 100% about the total subjectivity of music I see your reasoning in disliking All My Love, although I'm rather fond of the tune. That's the beauty of Zep! There's something for everyone! P.S. Is there any way to change my username? As you can see, I typed the email in the space for the username when signing up I send a message to the admin last year, but no reply yet
  3. Don't shoot me, but I think Presence sounds tired as fuck. The history behind the making of the album is more interesting than the music in it. ALS and NFBM are certified classics, of course, while FYL is an underrated (albeit a tad repetitive) gem with a very nasty vibe to it, but the rest? Royal Orleans and Hots On For Nowhere are lightweight funk, not bad but certainly filler material, Candy Store Rock is one of the blandest, dullest rockers they ever recorded (and unlike the aforementioned two, its riff is really uninteresting and generic) and easily the weakest here, while the only use for TFO was to use some of its guitar licks for SIBLY on stage. Again, it's not bad (the guitar works at times is marvelous), but on the whole feels to be meandering. It is nowhere near as gripping and passionate as SIBLY or IGC. Now feel free to lynch me ITTOD isn't that bad, but Carouselambra and Hot Dog are cringe-worthy beyond imagination. I cannot even describe it. Coda is worthy only for Poor Tom, a song so cool it should have been on the third album instead of Hats Off. The two live cuts are available on DVD. The rest is flat, boring, generic hard rock. Zep were infinitely better than "Wearing And Tearing" and "Darlene". Really.
  4. Good call about the Stones; as far as live albums go, Ya Ya's is pretty much a lesson on how to make one. Whatever they lacked in improvisation, they made up with a great ear for changing the sound, arrangements and melodic components of their songs. Too bad they're a pretty boring act nowadays (not that it diminishes in any way their glorious past ) I dunno about Santana; I saw the Tanglewood 1970 concert that's on youtube the other day and I didn't witness a lot of changes for the majority of songs (maybe I need to jog my memory, though, it's been several months )
  5. Now, I know "best" doesn't exist since music is all about taste, which is subjective. But I think most of us have more or less similar criteria when it comes to live shows, so here they are (ordered from the most important to the least): 1) Technical Skill - If you can't even strum properly, forget about connecting with your audience. Not only does every member need to perform his song parts, but they also need to be in sync with each other. This criteria seems obvious and unnecessary for the popular bands, but looking at the underground scene reveals a lot of bad playing. 2) Energy - A lifeless, plodding live performance can mar a newcomer's opinion on a certain band's output. Tremendously important aspect of the live experience, bands need to play with conviction and fire. Now that we got rid of the obvious requirements that every live band should match, let's look at some a lot of people overlook... 3) Ability to change the songs from their studio counterparts - This is by far the most important thing a live band should work on (after the obvious 1&2, of course). Variating from the original is the essence of a live show. Otherwise I might as well listen to the studio albums. There are four ways to change your songs live: a. sonically (altering the sounds of the instruments, like a different guitar distortion or bass tone), b. arranging-wise (changing the tempo, instruments, mood), c. melodically (altering the various riffs/solos, vocal hooks, drum patterns and bass lines of a given song) and d. structurally (this includes everything from adding new sections to full-blown improvisational passages). Zep used all four methods, for example, and this what made them such a legendary live act. 4) Setlist - You can be the best guitarist, have the most energy and make your songs unrecognizable, but if the actual song selection sucks, so will your live show. First of all, a good setlist should not just be a bunch of random songs thrown in: the songs should flow seamlessly together and there has to be a level of diversity as far as song sequencing goes. In other words, don't throw all the upbeat numbers in one place, then all the ballads in the other. Tension and release is pretty important, as well as build-up; after all, Zep had a reason to finish their concerts (not counting encores) with Stairway and not, say, Celebration Day. Also, there has to be a balance between the well-known hits, the deeper cuts and the new material. Listening only to the old warhorses is equally boring as listening to an album cut that only the band members remember or listening to only the "fresh" stuff from their upcoming album. 5) Visual aspect - In other words, the stage presence of the members and the lighting/effects/inflated penises (nod to my man Mick here) etc. Since this is not a musical factor and only matters when actually attending a concert or watching a DVD, it is naturally the least important...but it still matters. Looking awkward/bored/annoying/fake etc. can really mar the live experience a lot. After all, the Seattle show from 77 is not worse than a lot of other nights musically, but Jimmy's "sleeping sickness" has turned off plenty of listeners and has even helped in the bad reputation of the '77 tour. Based on these criteria (which I think many people share), what are the best live bands of all time?
  6. That would be great, man, I am interested 100% (let's do this through PM, I guess). I'll definitely get down to bootleg hunting myself to find what I'm looking for and If I do, I'll post it here for anyone interested
  7. It would be great if you could check, if it would be easy of course Yes, boards or multitracks since with an audience it will be more difficult, I fear
  8. Unless I'm having the wrong copies, no bootleg of which you suggested has the guitar on only one channel (although Southampton and especially BBC come close), unfortunately
  9. I have listened to this bootleg a few times, but, being an absolute dumbass, I didn't think of checking it Thanks a lot, Nick
  10. Hi, I was wondering whether exist bootlegs (from any year) where the guitar is only at one channel. I was spinning Live At Leeds the other day and it astounded me how good the separation is. On one channel you have the band without Pete and on the other the whole band minus some backing vocals (if I recall correctly). I ask this because it is great for going "full-geek" on the various details the rest of the band played without Jimmy's lead "getting in the way" lol. The official live releases sadly don't have this (unless I bought the wrong edition, which is unlikely), but what about bootlegs?
  11. It ain't easy, for sure, but most Zeppelin songs are intermediate (or more) level difficulty-wise. The difficulty of TSRTS is mainly its frenetic tempo -the techniques used are not that different from other LZ songs (apart from hybrid picking). Try slowing it down to a comfortable speed and practice the shit out of it
  12. Are we seriously debating Led Zeppelin's innovations? For starters, they simply invented heavy metal. Before you come with "Black Sabbath did it!!" remarks, take the time to re-listen to "Dazed And Confused" (the studio version) and try to put yourself in early 1969. Zep were not the first "heavy" band, or the first "hard rock" band, they were the first "demonic" band. Stolen or not (and it is indeed stolen), Dazed was unlike any other song before it. It was too dark, too menacing, too satanic, too eerie, too schizophrenic to be compared with any other hard rock song before it. There were heavy songs, there were dirty songs, there were some dark ones, but there weren't anything like Dazed in 1969. This song (and Zep's debut as a result) was the main influence for both Deep Purple and Black Sabbath, as their members will admit. So, creating heavy metal (and this is something even the most amateur rock historian will tell you, it's common knowledge). It doesn't matter if the song were stolen or covered. What matters is the innovation in sound, attitude, mood, playing, period.
  • Create New...