Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
TheStairwayRemainsTheSame

Analyzing A Lyric From Houses of The Holy (Am I correct?)

Recommended Posts

From the Houses of The Holy

We can watch the White Doves Go

From the Door comes Satans Daughter.

Lyrically, the song is an ode to Led Zeppelin concerts, with the "Houses of the Holy" referring to the arenas and auditoriums in which the band performed. White Doves mean Peace.

If it is the Arena's and White Doves mean peace, then Led is saying:

  • In the arena, Led Zeppelin and the crowd can watch Peace leave, and then Satan's daughter arrive..



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nice reminder of why i never had any respect for rolling stone

What a joke that review was. The guy does not know what he's talking about and must have been listening to something else or just doesn't know good music even if it were to hit him right in the face. :burp:

Edited by SuperDave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kudos to Rolling Stone and any publication that has been critical of Led Zeppelin. I may not always agree but it at least they were speaking their mind. Would you like to live in a world where everyone likes the exact same thing and finds absolutely no fault with it? I know I wouldn't. They have every right to express their opinion which is all it is. If I like something, someone else's opinion isn't going to change my thoughts on it. That goes for Led Zeppelin or any other band.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The attached review is terribly written. Houses of the Holy is my favourite Zep release. The writer obviously didn't realise that the Zep boys had a sense of humour and light.

As for the analysis of the lyric - which has nothing to do whatsover with the album - I don't think it means anything. I've always felt that Robert felt a little forced when he sang "Satan's daughter" - he wasn't very convincing - as if Jimmy put him up to it and he decided to sing it. My two cents anyway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel bad for anyone who pays to read their crap. Then and now. HOTH doesn't need that review. We know how good it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel bad for anyone who pays to read their crap. Then and now. HOTH doesn't need that review. We know how good it is.

I subscribe to Rolling Stone and have for quite some time. It doesn't mean I have to agree with their reviews of Zeppelin or any other artist. Their reviewers have just as much right to express an opinion as you and I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like The Crunge either, but it's a pure joke!! Dyer maker might not be the best attempt at the genre, but its' good!! I think Dancing days is good also!!But I also think that these three songs are the worst on the record!

So this three songs are the ones, I can understand the criticism about them! Especially because The Rolling stone never really liked Zep, except in recent years, and critics in general needed a few decades to fully accept them and to start understanding things, that their audience understanded at the start!!

So I can quite understand the criticism of The Rolling stone of the above three songs and perhaps even The song remains the same, because of the lack of melody and atypicall song structure,

but criticising The Rain song, No quarter; Over teh hills and perhaps also The Ocean is just PURE CRIME!!!! It doesn't matter if the critics didn't like thenm back then, it doesn't matter if it's the Rolling stone, it's just pure bloody crime!!

Sure most critics shared their thoughts with The Rolling stone, but it was obvious right there in 73, that this songs are pure masterpieces and a wide audience was just a further evidence of that. I think folks at Rolling stone must feel very ashamed of some of the things they wrote back then, especially now, that Zep has got complete critical recogniton and all the prestigious awards!!

Edited by Matjaz1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I can quite understand the criticism of The Rolling stone of the above three songs and perhaps even The song remains the same, because of the lack of melody and atypicall song structure, but criticising The Rain song, No quarter; Over teh hills and perhaps also The Ocean is just PURE CRIME!!!! It doesn't matter if the critics didn't like thenm back then, it doesn't matter if it's the Rolling stone, it's just pure bloody crime!!

So, anytime anyone's opinion differs from yours it's a "pure bloody crime"? They were just expressing an opinion of what they thought of Led Zeppelin, it's what critics (and even fans) do. It's certainly nothing worth getting so upset over. You like the songs you like which is really all that's important. And by the way, it's just "Rolling Stone", not the Rolling Stone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but I think it can be said objective enought, that The rain song, No quarter and Over the hills are great songs!! (THE silly, heh) Rolling stone, gave so much credit to The Beatles and The Rolling stones and so on, while never really admiting Zep are in the same league!

Rolling stone probably reviewed thousands of small artists and many big names, but while they managed to be fair to all the other big names, they just weren't to Zep.

And yeah, everyone has the right to his own opinion, but professional reviewers should be a bit more objective, right!? The way they discredit the best songs on the album is just totally ridicioulus! These are people who are suppose to have a wide enough knowledge of music, to write something credible. Although I think opinion makers are useless. Everyone should make up his mind alone and listen to music according to personal taste and while critics can sometimes influence the public and even artists, they are basicaly just music journalist, hired for whatever reason by a magazines and they write their opinons and articles. If you are a fan, you won't really care much about such critic, right??!! But I guess a lot of the time, critics have a wider view then most people, but Zep were just ahead of their time and each of their albums was such a suprise in a new direction, critics didn't get it!

As far as the lyrics go, yeah, I think Houses of the holy are the stadiums and auditoriums, the white doves indicate, that Zeppelin were always there for the goodness and peace and so on and the satan's daughter in my opinion(who elses?) represents the evil which is just always around the corner and I guess also makes it way to a Zeppelin concert in the form of a few people who didn't come to listen, but are just jiving around and throwing fire crackers and selling pirate posters and evil is also reflected in songs like Dazed and confused, although that song is certainly not promoting evil, no Zep song does that. Leave that to the metal guys!

Edited by Matjaz1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but I think it can be said objective enought, that The rain song, No quarter and Over the hills are great songs!! (THE silly, heh) Rolling stone, gave so much credit to The Beatles and The Rolling stones and so on, while never really admiting Zep are in the same league!

Rolling stone probably reviewed thousands of small artists and many big names, but while they managed to be fair to all the other big names, they just weren't to Zep.

And yeah, everyone has the right to his own opinion, but professional reviewers should be a bit more objective, right!? The way they discredit the best songs on the album is just totally ridicioulus! These are people who are suppose to have a wide enough knowledge of music, to write something credible. Although I think opinion makers are useless. Everyone should make up his mind alone and listen to music according to personal taste and while critics can sometimes influence the public and even artists, they are basicaly just music journalist, hired for whatever reason by magazines and they write their opinons and articles. If you are a fan, you won't really care much about such a critic, right??!! But I guess a lot of the time, critics have a wider view then most people, but Zep were just ahead of their time and each of their albums was such a suprise in a new direction, critics didn't get it!

As far as the lyrics go, yeah, I think Houses of the holy are the stadiums and auditoriums, the white doves indicate, that Zeppelin were always there for the goodness and peace and so on and the satan's daughter in my opinion(who elses?) represents the evil which is just always around the corner and I guess also makes it's way to a Zeppelin concert in the form of a few people who didn't come to listen, but are just jiving around and throwing fire crackers and selling pirate posters and evil is also reflected in songs like Dazed and confused, although that song is certainly not promoting evil, no Zep song does that. Leave that to the metal guys!

Sorry for this post!! I just wanted to correct some spelling errors and somehow made a quote instead of just correcting the post!

Edited by Matjaz1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I subscribe to Rolling Stone and have for quite some time. It doesn't mean I have to agree with their reviews of Zeppelin or any other artist. Their reviewers have just as much right to express an opinion as you and I.

Frankly their reviews have lacked substance or credibility for some time now, the days of Lester Bangs are long gone. Jann Wenner is in bed with his corporate sponsors, as evidenced by Justin Timberlake's recent release getting as many stars as Physical Graffiti and Blood on the Tracks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly their reviews have lacked substance or credibility for some time now, the days of Lester Bangs are long gone. Jann Wenner is in bed with his corporate sponsors, as evidenced by Justin Timberlake's recent release getting as many stars as Physical Graffiti and Blood on the Tracks.

Bangs was only with RS for a short time to start with so I don't see where that's a real barometer to measure the quality of their writing against. Same for the Justin Timberlake review, it's merely someone's opinion, one you just so happen to agree with. Giving his record a favorable review isn't a sign that they're "in bed" with the people that advertise with the magazine. If that was true, by your reasoning they'd never post any negative reviews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always thought that the white doves refers to San Fransisco, when they released doves into the crowd.

It is fairly well documented, including here ;

britrockbythebay.blogspot.com/2010/.../led-zeppelin-june-1973.html

"Another memorable moment was at the end of "Stairway." They brought out a large box and released some white doves. The birds were not that eager to leave and some had to be coaxed out. One dove flew up, but then flew back and landed on Robert Plant's hand. Jimmy Page put his guitar down and walked over. Plant and Page stood there petting the bird, which seemed very much at home in Robert's hand".

I personally think the lyrics are slightly different to the common transcription and are (IMHO) ;

From the houses of the Holy

We can watch the white doves go, from the dark of Satans dawning

And it only goes to show.

Sorry for this post!! I just wanted to correct some spelling errors and somehow made a quote instead of just correcting the post!

As far as the lyrics go, yeah, I think Houses of the holy are the stadiums and auditoriums, the white doves indicate, that Zeppelin were always there for the goodness and peace and so on and the satan's daughter in my opinion(who elses?) represents the evil which is just always around the corner and I guess also makes it's way to a Zeppelin concert in the form of a few people who didn't come to listen, but are just jiving around and throwing fire crackers and selling pirate posters and evil is also reflected in songs like Dazed and confused, although that song is certainly not promoting evil, no Zep song does that. Leave that to the metal guys!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The author does make some good points. Dancing days, Crunge and Dyer Maker indeed are crap and the 1st album cuts HOTH to shreds.

nah....they are just fun songs.....one of the great things about zep is they never took themselves too seriously

many of their songs (to me) are just good ole beer drinking kick ass rock n roll.....and thats the way i liked it then........and thats the way i like it now B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bangs was only with RS for a short time to start with so I don't see where that's a real barometer to measure the quality of their writing against. Same for the Justin Timberlake review, it's merely someone's opinion, one you just so happen to agree with. Giving his record a favorable review isn't a sign that they're "in bed" with the people that advertise with the magazine. If that was true, by your reasoning they'd never post any negative reviews.

No, by my reasoning they would never post a truly negative review of an artist whose record company is a huge advertiser. Or a friend. I don't think my view of RS is unique or controversial. I work in publishing and frankly it would be hard for a magazine like Rolling Stone to survive without becoming more "corporate" over the years, sad but true.

Having said that, I still think the magazine has some really good writers and outstanding features. But the reviews are tainted in my opinion, I give them no credence. Every new Stones record is, "their best since Exhile". Springsteen could fart for 45 minutes and get four stars. I don't need to read their reviews anymore because I know them before I read them in most cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nah....they are just fun songs.....one of the great things about zep is they never took themselves too seriously

Nothing wrong with that except when it affects the quality of the music.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always thought that the white doves refers to San Fransisco, when they released doves into the crowd.

It is fairly well documented, including here ;

britrockbythebay.blogspot.com/2010/.../led-zeppelin-june-1973.html

"Another memorable moment was at the end of "Stairway." They brought out a large box and released some white doves. The birds were not that eager to leave and some had to be coaxed out. One dove flew up, but then flew back and landed on Robert Plant's hand. Jimmy Page put his guitar down and walked over. Plant and Page stood there petting the bird, which seemed very much at home in Robert's hand".

I personally think the lyrics are slightly different to the common transcription and are (IMHO) ;

From the houses of the Holy

We can watch the white doves go, from the dark of Satans dawning

And it only goes to show.

The evils being the touts and the bootleggers and the naysayers of zeppelin?

As far as the lyrics go, yeah, I think Houses of the holy are the stadiums and auditoriums, the white doves indicate, that Zeppelin were always there for the goodness and peace and so on and the satan's daughter in my opinion(who elses?) represents the evil which is just always around the corner and I guess also makes it's way to a Zeppelin concert in the form of a few people who didn't come to listen, but are just jiving around and throwing fire crackers and selling pirate posters and evil is also reflected in songs like Dazed and confused, although that song is certainly not promoting evil, no Zep song does that. Leave that to the metal guys!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, by my reasoning they would never post a truly negative review of an artist whose record company is a huge advertiser. Or a friend.

Justin Timberlake is on Jive Records, so what you're saying is, they'll give every artist on Jive a positive review because evidently he's a friend and Jive is a "hugh advertiser"? I don't think either is true. I looked up the list of artists on Jive and haven't seen where they've given them all favorable reviews (or even reviewed them at all). I also haven't ever noticed where Jive has advertised a great deal with Rolling Stone.

I don't think my view of RS is unique or controversial. I work in publishing and frankly it would be hard for a magazine like Rolling Stone to survive without becoming more "corporate" over the years, sad but true.

I've never questioned your view or that Rolling Stone's coverage has become more mainstream over the years. My point has been that they have had every right to criticize Led Zeppelin (or any other artist for that matter). They've also praised other artists that have been on Atlantic Records over the years. In addition to that, they're not the only publication that's had less than favorable things to say about Led Zeppelin. So, should they have given them raving reviews for every single album and concert they've ever done from the start?

Having said that, I still think the magazine has some really good writers and outstanding features. But the reviews are tainted in my opinion, I give them no credence. Every new Stones record is, "their best since Exhile". Springsteen could fart for 45 minutes and get four stars. I don't need to read their reviews anymore because I know them before I read them in most cases.

Check the reviews section at Rolling Stone's website and you'll soon find that they haven't said "every new Stones record is 'their best since Exile", nor have they given every one of Springsteen's records a favorable review. I've heard "the best since Exile" thing before myself particularly with their last album (A Bigger Bang). Oddly enough, the closer it got to the album's release, that quickly turned to "their best since Tattoo You", which I read in more than one publication. All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter at hand, which is an unfavorable review of Houses of the Holy. It's not like Rolling Stone were the only magazine that weren't praising it. Are those other publications also guilty of the things you accuse Rolling Stone of? Bottom line is, it's all up to the listener, not a review in a magazine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justin Timberlake is on Jive Records, so what you're saying is, they'll give every artist on Jive a positive review because evidently he's a friend and Jive is a "hugh advertiser"? I don't think either is true. I looked up the list of artists on Jive and haven't seen where they've given them all favorable reviews (or even reviewed them at all). I also haven't ever noticed where Jive has advertised a great deal with Rolling Stone.

I've never questioned your view or that Rolling Stone's coverage has become more mainstream over the years. My point has been that they have had every right to criticize Led Zeppelin (or any other artist for that matter). They've also praised other artists that have been on Atlantic Records over the years. In addition to that, they're not the only publication that's had less than favorable things to say about Led Zeppelin. So, should they have given them raving reviews for every single album and concert they've ever done from the start?

Check the reviews section at Rolling Stone's website and you'll soon find that they haven't said "every new Stones record is 'their best since Exile", nor have they given every one of Springsteen's records a favorable review. I've heard "the best since Exile" thing before myself particularly with their last album (A Bigger Bang). Oddly enough, the closer it got to the album's release, that quickly turned to "their best since Tattoo You", which I read in more than one publication. All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter at hand, which is an unfavorable review of Houses of the Holy. It's not like Rolling Stone were the only magazine that weren't praising it. Are those other publications also guilty of the things you accuse Rolling Stone of? Bottom line is, it's all up to the listener, not a review in a magazine.

Well I became a Zep fan in the 70's so obviously I've never been one to put a lot of credence in reviews! As for the other stuff we can agree to disagree although we certainly do agree in some areas.

And I'll have to take you up on your Springsteen challenge because I don't ever recall him getting a bad review in RS...

Edited to add: Jive is owned by a megacompany in Sony and yes, I'm still betting that their sponsorship tentacles are in the Rolling Stone machine.

On another subject, anyone remember when Maxim gave a Black Crowes record a poor review And later had to apologize and admit that they hadn't listened to it? Not painting Tolling Stone with a Maxim brush but shameful nonetheless.

Edited by mstork

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...