McSeven Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 I 'l try to make this concise. Why does Zep seem more cooler against other bands. When anyone talks about Zep. They just come off as cool. Against the Beatles/Stones/The Who. I had a friend tell me that whenever Zep is mentioned against other bands. Zep always comes off with class. Anyone care to shed light on this? My take is that they were innovative and they always changed the structure of the songs. Communication breakdown on Zep 1 is different when its played live. I also think that Zep could do more live, than on albums. Where I see that the Beatles were more better on the albums, than live. Mc7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glicine Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 Because I'm a fan? I'm sure there are Beatles/Stones/Who fans thinking those bands are cooler than Zeppelin. And it doesn't disturb me the slightest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
59LesPaul Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 I 'l try to make this concise. Why does Zep seem more cooler against other bands. When anyone talks about Zep. They just come off as cool. Against the Beatles/Stones/The Who. It depends on who you ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deborah J Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 Hello McSeven, I can only speak for me. I grew up when those great bands were around and saw the majority live, (Stones, Who..etc) I think because LZ didn't splash themselves in front of every media opportunity, they kept this mystique about them. Peter Grant knew what he was doing! There were so many great bands then, but I saw LZ for the 1st time live in 73 and after that, none of the other bands ever measured up to this thunderous rock & roll, yet bluesy sound. These four together were just literally breathtaking. You would get the album and love it, but then to see them live was like seeing the Gods of MUSIC! None of the other bands had a presence like them on stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 They're cooler to some people but not to others - why compare them? It's all a matter of personal preference and someone who thinks the Stones are better doesn't bother me at all. There's no right and wrong answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dawg Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 Because it is a scientific fact that's why. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0tAOIQiz-8 edited because my computer at work has too many damn filters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
59LesPaul Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 I'm sure there are Beatles/Stones/Who fans thinking those bands are cooler than Zeppelin. And it doesn't disturb me the slightest. They're cooler to some people but not to others - why compare them? It's all a matter of personal preference and someone who thinks the Stones are better doesn't bother me at all. There's no right and wrong answer. This is actually cool to see......the fact of the matter is that "Zep seem(ing) cooler against other bands" is nothing more than an opinion.Granted,it's one that you're going to see a disproportionate amount of on a Led Zeppelin message board,but that's still all it is:An opinion. It would be nice if this thread would keep this same level of civility,but I'm not optimistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imPLANTed Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 Because.They.Are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeppFanForever Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 I 'l try to make this concise. Why does Zep seem more cooler against other bands. When anyone talks about Zep. They just come off as cool. Against the Beatles/Stones/The Who. I had a friend tell me that whenever Zep is mentioned against other bands. Zep always comes off with class. Anyone care to shed light on this? My take is that they were innovative and they always changed the structure of the songs. Communication breakdown on Zep 1 is different when its played live. I also think that Zep could do more live, than on albums. Where I see that the Beatles were more better on the albums, than live. Mc7 How's it going "McSeven?" I hope all is well with you. Bands like THE BEATLES, LED ZEPPELIN, THE ROLLING STONES, THE WHO, PINK FLOYD, BLACK SABBATH, CREAM, THE YARDBIRDS, FLEETWOOD MAC and THE KINKS to name a few, ARE ROCK ROYALTY! These legendary bands have left their mark in Rock n' Roll history, these bands will never die nor will they ever be forgotten. These bands have achieved and accomplished everything that a band can possibly accomplish, that these bands have nothing left to accomplish or prove. All of these older bands are the coolest when compared to today's bands. (No disrespect to the new bands.) ROCK ON! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 How's it going "McSeven?" I hope all is well with you. Bands like THE BEATLES, LED ZEPPELIN, THE ROLLING STONES, THE WHO, PINK FLOYD, BLACK SABBATH, CREAM, THE YARDBIRDS, FLEETWOOD MAC and THE KINKS to name a few, ARE ROCK ROYALTY! These legendary bands have left their mark in Rock n' Roll history, these bands will never die nor will they ever be forgotten. These bands have achieved and accomplished everything that a band can possibly accomplish, that these bands have nothing left to accomplish or prove. All of these older bands are the coolest when compared to today's bands. (No disrespect to the new bands.) ROCK ON! No arguing the influence those bands had on music that followed but there are a lot of newer bands who are influencing future generations of bands as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeppFanForever Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 No arguing the influence those bands had on music that followed but there are a lot of newer bands who are influencing future generations of bands as well. Why hello "ninelives!" How's it going? I hope all is well with you. You are right, there are some newer bands that are pretty good today. Like I said, I meant no disrespect to the newer bands. Bands such as U2, PEARL JAM and GREEN DAY to name a few, are bands that were influenced by the legendary 1960's British bands that are in turn, influencing the new upcoming bands as well as the future generations of bands. ROCK ON my friend! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lzzoso Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 In my opinion, one answer to this question is because of their name: LED ZEPPELIN . To me, the sound of that name and the spelling of that name projects an image of Strength and Power (which obviously describes their music). That is one reason I like to say the phrase the "MIGHTY LED ZEPPELIN". Very Powerful. Anyway, I started a new topic in the Master Forum under the heading: Led Zeppelin (by any other name...) which states how very different (I think) it would be if Jimmy and Peter Grant had decided to call their new group something other than Led Zeppelin. To quickly paraphrase: Our favorite group and the name of the website we are on right now could be something entirely different like "Mad Dogs" or "Whoopee Cushion".com. Think about that for a second. I know we (and the world) are all used to the name Led Zeppelin but think about this: Wouldn't it be kinda weird to say that "Whoopee Cushion" or "Mad Dogs" is your favorite band. The greatest band of all-time? The number one rock and roll song of all-time, "Stairway to Heaven" by Whoopee Cushion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 In my opinion, one answer to this question is because of their name: LED ZEPPELIN . To me, the sound of that name and the spelling of that name projects an image of Strength and Power (which obviously describes their music). That is one reason I like to say the phrase the "MIGHTY LED ZEPPELIN". Very Powerful. Anyway, I started a new topic in the Master Forum under the heading: Led Zeppelin (by any other name...) which states how very different (I think) it would be if Jimmy and Peter Grant had decided to call their new group something other than Led Zeppelin. To quickly paraphrase: Our favorite group and the name of the website we are on right now could be something entirely different like "Mad Dogs" or "Whoopee Cushion".com. Think about that for a second. I know we (and the world) are all used to the name Led Zeppelin but think about this: Wouldn't it be kinda weird to say that "Whoopee Cushion" or "Mad Dogs" is your favorite band. The greatest band of all-time? The number one rock and roll song of all-time, "Stairway to Heaven" by Whoopee Cushion. It wouldn't be weird at all because we wouldn't have known them as anything but whatever name they were, just as we know them as Led Zeppelin. The music would have been the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mangani Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 I 'l try to make this concise. Why does Zep seem more cooler against other bands. When anyone talks about Zep. They just come off as cool. Against the Beatles/Stones/The Who. I had a friend tell me that whenever Zep is mentioned against other bands. Zep always comes off with class. Well it certainly seems 'cooler' for younger folks to walk around with Led Zeppelin t-shirts on than Beatles, Stones, Who or Floyd t-shirts so I think you have a valid point. I don't know the answer to your question though. Maybe the mystery makes them cool? They certainly are not force fed to us like the Beatles and Stones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 They're cooler to some people but not to others - why compare them? It's all a matter of personal preference and someone who thinks the Stones are better doesn't bother me at all. There's no right and wrong answer. This is basically how I feel as well. If I was given the choice to see the surviving members of Pink Floyd on stage or the surviving members of Led Zeppelin, I'd choose Pink Floyd but that's me. That doesn't mean I don't love Zep's music, because I do. I just prefer PF. Everyone has their own tastes and bands they like more than others relative to what someone else thinks. We have a huge Stones fan here, I know back on the old board there was a poster by the name of VanaJonesy who was a huge Who fan. I've never understood why people get so defensive about something as subjective as what bands you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mangani Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 I don't think this thread was meant to be about 'better' or what music you prefer. I think it's about why Zeppelin are seen as 'cooler'. They do have a very very cool image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 So do a lot of other bands. I don't know why Zep are seen as "cooler" than other bands. This is all so subjective anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mangani Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Like I said, I personally see more young folks wearing Led Zeppelin t-shirts than I see young folks wearing Beatles or Stones or Who or Floyd t-shirts. It's just 'cool' to wear a Zep t-shirt. The word 'cool' is the vital word here. Cool in the sense that Steve McQueen was 'cool' I'm guessing the OP is meaning. I don't see Pink Floyd as a 'cool' band in the same way that Zeppelin are. Floyd are obviously one of the greatest bands of all time but they have the persona and presence of a bucket of toffee. Great musical band but 'cool'? Nah. They didn't even look standoutish. I thought Led Zep were waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay cool even before I really got into them. I never thought that about Floyd. Never. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Floyd's cool was a different kind of cool than what Zeppelin had. If rock and roll in the 70s was a high school, Led Zeppelin would be the captain of the football team. Pink Floyd would be that really smart kid in your creative writing class who wrote amazing stuff and never got into trouble. They were the "under the radar" cool. They did things musically and lyrically Zeppelin could never dream of and Zeppelin got away with the debauchery and good time arena rock that Floyd was miles away from. Much like Frank Sinatra and Elvis were both cool. One was rebel cool, the other was suave cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McSeven Posted August 28, 2009 Author Share Posted August 28, 2009 Electrophile/Mangani are right on my assesments. Zep would be the Captain of the football team/The Steve McQueen of Rock and Roll. Cool to me is not jumping up and down. Actually I alway use the mystique of Arogan from the Lord of the Rings as the personafication of Zep, if I had to take the characteristics of Zep and put them in a fictional character. Mc7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mangani Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Electrophile/Mangani are right on my assesments. Zep would be the Captain of the football team/The Steve McQueen of Rock and Roll. Cool to me is not jumping up and down. Cool to me is making up the rules as you go along and not sticking to the established well trodden paths. Hacking your own route through the forest. In this Led Zeppelin excelled more than any other major rock band. That's what I call cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mangani Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Pink Floyd would be that really smart kid in your creative writing class who wrote amazing stuff and never got into trouble. They were the "under the radar" cool. They did things musically and lyrically Zeppelin could never dream of and Zeppelin got away with the debauchery and good time arena rock that Floyd was miles away from. Now this is surprising to hear on a Zeppelin board. Pink Floyd elevated to musical genuises far above that of Zep and Zeppelin relegated to just a debauched funtime band??? Hells bells electrophile. What have you been drinking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evster2012 Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 I'm a HUGE Pink Floyd fan (and I'm not referring to my anatomy in any way), and the thing I love most about them is how they found their feet in the post-Syd era. More, Ummagumma, Atom Heart Mother are my favorite albums. You really get a sense of a band finding themselves. I never did find them "cool" though. Like it's "cool" to dig Floyd? Not in the sense of being "hip". They were odd. Pricelessly odd, and I wouldn't have them any other way. Edgy, yes. I guess Money is "cool" and slick, but I never considered Mason, Wright et al "cool". Gilmour is cool in a mellow sense. Waters is too uptight to be cool. Though I love his work dearly! Can't imagine life without the Floyd! Keith Richards is cool. Led Zeppelin? Don't know if they're cool (not sure what defines cool. Keith does), but they fucking rock! So does the Floyd! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reggie29 Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 In my best southern accent....... "Cool is as Cool does...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Now this is surprising to hear on a Zeppelin board. Pink Floyd elevated to musical genuises far above that of Zep and Zeppelin relegated to just a debauched funtime band??? Hells bells electrophile. What have you been drinking? I don't drink. Don't get me wrong, I love Led Zeppelin. They had a style of music, a style of performing that they were very good at. So did Pink Floyd. I just happen to think that Pink Floyd were more innovative and creative at what they did. Just because I'm a Zep fan and post on a Zep board doesn't mean I'm going to hide what I feel other bands did better. There's no shame in that. It's not like I substituted Pink Floyd for Oasis or Girls Aloud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.