Love it! (humor) and the honesty from a real Stone's fan, that ADMITS their lack of abundance of good songs on record.

Yes, those details I can agree with. I bought the disk because it was Page/Plant and was so excited to see a new release. I thought the CD had a decent amount of imagination as far as shedding new light on the few Zeppelin arrangements like "No Quarter" and "Nobody's Fault" but besides that it was kind of a weird album for me to handle. I still don't know if I can listen to it the whole way through again. The things they did with the desert musicians was something they have done and been facinated with for a long time. I think the "unreleased" recordings they did with the Bombay orchestra in 1972 ("friends") was such a better listen...for me anyway. The ones on Unledded had no impact on me at all, besides Wonderful One. As for The Clarksdale stuff, it had it moments where I still felt the fire, even though it wasn't continuous throughout.

I listen to music for the same reasons you do. Music is all about emotion, mood, feel. However you FAIL to understand that for ME, The Stones catalouge is limited to the songs that I feel move me. As for you, their songs may appeal to you on a greater more vast level. I do not listen to a band on the single purpose of comparing it with anything else. But, I do know if I like something or not from listening to it. So to simplify it for you, there are not many Stone's songs that appeal to me other than the tracks that happen to be their most popular. Which is why I feel they are an "overrated" band..that also holds the media crown of "greatest rock and roll band". If you have anymore questions, comments, etc. make sure you shed light on the countless ones I've directed to you, with no reply.

I love how you play Mr. Innocent, after you basically demand an explanation...your a great actor-you should move to hollywood. Im sure I'll get many replies from you in the near future, if it's something you feel was written out of context or you think needs an explanation. I now realise I'm not dealing or debating with someone who is normal by normal standards. Good day sir, and good luck with that. And for the record, the only nonsense here is you. Your a joke. You try and make philosophies from musical opinions....I'll let someone else take over-I got a life to live- Go listen to The Stones, you may feel better.

Should I write this reply to you in A.D.D. form?? Will you understand it better that way??? Get this through your thick, mindless, hard -headed skull....If you wanna call it "ranking" a band-that's fine..whatever you wanna turn it into , you will do so anyhow-so no matter what anybody elses opinion is, you will make sure it's understood by you at any cost. But ask yourself this very important question and it may answer anything you wanna throw back, Mr. Nobel Peace Prize Winner...without ranking or judging, how can someone then decide on who they like more, or if they like or dislike anyone at all??? You listen to a song and judge it to your own taste if you like it or not. Right???? You know if you like a certain genre of music, by judging it, listening to it, right?? Isn't that the way people have favorite bands, songs, etc. It is for me. I like what I like because I've listened to it. Therefore, calling a group "overrrated" is another way of saying that their music doesn't appeal to you as much as it may to the masses or to the media, who so many times crowns the Stones or The Beates as the "greatest rock and roll band"....I'm here to say that I don't agree with that, by my own taste. Their songs do not appeal to me or grab me like some other artist do. Your problem is, you don't RESPECT anyone elses opinion if it conflicts your own. If you don't agree, you wanna force a battle or explanation. There are plenty of people that disagree with me and plenty that do agree. The key is to be respectful to someone else's views, unless thay are taking it to another level. You FAIL to do that. You can't grasp anyone else opinion , but your own. But you sure do like to give your own....So here's the question....So if you do not rank art...does that mean that everything you listen to is completly equal??? I don't think so!

I had mixed thoughts the first time I listened all the way through. Songs I liked, songs I didn't, songs I thought (and still think) are great. You have to listen a few times to get the vibe of it. No, it's not 1975 and it's not Zeppelin. People expect these guys to make excellent albums that EVERYONE loves because of who they are, but for what it's worth, I think it's a good honest album. The title track is a good song, as is Burning Up, Most High, Shining in the Light, When the world was young, When I was a child. The production on the other hand didn't sit well with me. I think Page may have done better as a producer. But, it is what it is. Personally , it's better than the Unledded album. All that was, were mostly Zeppelin songs re-arranged. That didn't do anything for me.

Unoriginal...I think not. Along with Yes, they brought progressive rock into the mainstream , and made it a recognizable genre in due time. I agree that their best albums are past them, but there are a handful of good ones even past Moving Pictures. Signals is a really good album. You won't find too many bad songs (depending on your taste) within the first 8 albums. Rush made a name for themselves off of sheer talent. All of those guys are fuckin excellent musicians and they wrote a countless number of great songs. Overrated?? Well, only if your not a big fan to begin with.......But, I respect your opinion.

I totally agree... I admire your taste

I asked first. And I owe you nothing!

I LOVE Rush. One of my favorite groups for sure. Next to Zeppelin and Floyd I listen to them the most. I like the more obscure albums, like Caress of Steel and Hemispheres. But I personally think that everything up until Signals are great albums. I've seen them live 7 times and they never dissappoint. Can't say enough good things about them.

ADD Jaf ????? I'm waiting

I don't recalll ever once saying that Im "rating" a band...that's your words. Im sorry for that. You didn't answer my question Jahfin. ADD????

So am I , buddy. Even if it clashes yours.

... You also gotta have the last word, even if it means repeating yourself over and over again. -like beatin a dead horse. How old are you???

No, their "overrated" to me simply because there are not enough great tunes in each of their catalouges to hold them in that high of a place....Boy, do you have ADD????? Seriously...... You need to READ more , and less jibber jabber- I basically mentioned that more than a few times. So you can make it into a competition or whatever you wanna twist the words into. Anyway you look at it, their music does not measure up to their individual stature. Keep posting if you like- I validated my point and honest opinion (even if it doesn't meet your requirements or taste) more than enough.

Nor is it a competition for me. Funny you see my post that way- We like who we like for our own reasons. But, our opinion makes us EACH who we are - that's all we got. Are you gonna tell me that the vast majority of The Who, Stones and Beatles tunes are good or great? If so, that's your own opinion and good for you. I don't see their legacies that way.

I agree that The Beatles cannot be compared to the "bands" you mentioned for the clear fact that they were true musicians. I referred to them as the first "boy band" for the sheer fact that flocks of women who had no intention of caring about the depth or shallowness of their purposely written pop tunes - turned them into mass hysteria. There is a youtube clip from John Bonham talking about the Beatles. Basically he says something along the lines "People just wanted to see THEM, they didn't really care about the music. It was about seeing them because they were so big at the time. So, I wouldn't denounce that they had big role in defining what a boy pop band is today, regardless if the bands of today wrote their own songs or not-the mass appeal remains the same. Good looking guys, writting (or getting help writting) catchy , simple, commercially acceptable pop tunes. The Beatles definitly started that way. The very first few albums were songs like Love me Do, Can't buy me Love, etc.etc, etc....come one man. It's the same mindset (purposely written pop tunes to sell to a market) -just a different era. The Beatles got much deeper with the latter albums. They wrote meaningful songs. As far as The Who and The Stones, yes they left a mark on Rock and Roll for sure, but I don't believe they are as good as everyone makes them. Like I said, the best songs from these groups are the ones you hear most often on popular playlist radio. For Zeppelin-the unknown, less played tracks were equally as good. That makes for a better cataloge in my book. Hence, a band worthy of their title. Miss You, is my favorite Stones tune. Sympathy for the Devil, Angie, Waiting on a Friend. Things like that were really, really good. The Who had great ones too. Who Are You, Behind Blue Eyes, Baby O'Reily, Wont get Fooled Again, Join Together, 5:15 . Great tunes. But for me, if you are considered to be one of the greatest, quanity and quality are equal. The Stone's don't have that going for them in my book. Nor do the others.

My first concert was Jimmy Page at the Municipal Auditorium , New Orleans - September 24th 1988. I was a month before turning 15. I went with a guy who turned me on to music in general (I wrote a thread about it called - Why I Love Zeppelin). It was a great show. The venue was far from packed, but everyone there seemed to be a die hard Zep fan. I can't really recall if it was heavily advertised on local radio. I still rememer the concert itself very clear.There was a guy named Mason Ruffner that opened up. A three piece band with a flashy guitar player. They were good too. I saw loads of kids from school who were Zep freaks like myself. A few made signs out of sheets with the ZOSO symbol drawn on them. Every time Page went to one side of the stage , they held up the signs. It was a great time for me. I have a really good cassette recording of the entire show. Think I'll go listen to it for old time sake.

Three bands that come to mind that are just a tad overated: The Stones, The Who, The Beatles. All three bands wrote good music, don't get me wrong, but I think they wrote just as many "not so great tunes" as they did well written ones. As for Zeppelin-it's hard to find a song I don't like. Which is part of the reason I like them so much. The Stones and The Who made good records, but not every song on every album was good. Some were just plain silly or not worth listening too twice. The Beatles did alot for the revolution of music. However, they were the first "boy band". They made great pop tunes in the beginning and wrote much deeper material towards the end of their career, but again-half of their cataloge isn't worth mentioning. In a case such as these three bands mentioned, the more popular songs are the best ones. As for Zeppelin, the songs you don't hear by popular demand are just as good as the ones overplayed. That's the key difference.

Van Halen. I'm going to say that I am probably in the minority section of VH fans that prefer Sammy Hagar albums with VH - over Roth. They just sounded different (in a better more mature way) with Hagar. He was an extremely better vocalist if you just go off of talent and quality of songs they wrote with him. Roth made a permanant statement with VH and they worte alot of great songs with him as well. To me, their better songwriting days were in the latter half of their career. The 5150 album is a favorite of mine. What a monster!

I agree. I think it's Page's best overall playing since Zeppelin and maybe my personal favorite (you gotta say your own "personal" favorite on here, or you'll get questioned, bashed, or made a topic of - so beware!) of his entire carrer besides Zeppelin albums. There are a few spots within Coverdale's lyrics that sound a bit too "predictable" or "cliche" to me "personally" but besides that I love it as a whole.

Hair metal is another word for glam, glam metal, hair metal, glam rock..Is there really that much difference???? You know what I meant and if you don't, your pretty narrow-minded, for someone who claims to listen to such a wide range of music..you of all people should have understood my comment. I think there are quite a few people who are getting a little annoyed with you Jahfin. I've grown more patient with age with stupid remarks, but still in all, you tend to want to pick out any particular word you dont feel fit, or that you want an exact definition for. However, you know exactlty what I meant with my comment. No where in there did I refer to "glam" as a dirty word, but as a reference of what type of style it reminds me of . It's a shame someone can't post a simple, very simple comment without you twisting it, or making some sort of goofy comment based on what YOU think it should be...that's kinda sad brotha. One things for sure, aside from your constant cracks on just about every thread we both dig Zeppelin and that's alright by me, but sometimes you need to learn how to keep your mouth shut. Hasn't happened yet though...have a good evening man, I sincerley mean that. And oh, congradulations, you got more out of me than expected...won't happen again though. I'll let you entertain a few others who enjoy your post.

I'd like to see anything from C/P again, but more on the lines of a studio album then outtakes and filmed rehearsals. I really like all of the unreleased tracks Ive heard so far. That was some of Page's best playing, without a doubt. Even though a handful of the popular tracks, like "shake my tree" had sort of a glam sound to them, it's still a great album. The lesser known tracks are the better ones I think. "Easy does It" and "Absolution Blues" are killer.

UNMASKED..or UNHELMETED