Cameron Crowe on Getting Led Zeppelin on the Cover of Rolling Stone

[Jahfin]

To watch the clip with Cameron, click here.

[Janet]

Does anyone have the picture with black roses that he mentions?

[canadianeh!]

Janet, according to Neal Preston, the pictures were unusable because he had a shutter problem with the camera

[TheStairwayRemainsTheSame]

Makes me wonder how many other shots have vanished

[TheStairwayRemainsTheSame]

This is the original review:

John Mendelsohn

March 15, 1969

The popular formula in England in this, the aftermath era of such successful British bluesmen as Cream and John Mayall, seems to be: add, to an excellent guitarist who, since leaving the Yardbirds and/or Mayall, has become a minor musical deity, a competent rhythm section and pretty soul-belter who can do a good spade imitation. The latest of the British blues groups so conceived offers little that its twin, the Jeff Beck Group, didn't say as well or better three months ago, and the excesses of the Beck group's Truth album (most notably its self-indulgence and restrictedness), are fully in evidence on Led Zeppelin's debut album.

Jimmy Page, around whom the Zeppelin revolves, is, admittedly, an extraordinarily proficient blues guitarist and explorer of his instrument's electronic capabilities. Unfortunately, he is also a very limited producer and a writer of weak, unimaginative songs, and the Zeppelin album suffers from his having both produced it and written most of it (alone or in combination with his accomplices in the group).

The album opens with lots of guitarrhythm section exchanges (in the fashion of Beck's "Shapes of Things" on "Good Times Bad Times," which might have been ideal for a Yardbirds' B-side. Here, as almost everywhere else on the album, it is Page's guitar that provides most of the excitement. "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You" alternates between prissy Robert Plant's howled vocals fronting an acoustic guitar and driving choruses of the band running down a four-chord progression while John Bonham smashes his cymbals on every beat. The song is very dull in places (especially on the vocal passages), very redundant, and certainly not worth the six-and-a-half minutes the Zeppelin gives it.

Two much-overdone Willie Dixon blues standards fail to be revivified by being turned into showcases for Page and Plant. "You Shook Me" is the more interesting of the two — at the end of each line Plant's echo-chambered voice drops into a small explosion of fuzz-tone guitar, with which it matches shrieks at the end.

The album's most representative cut is "How Many More Times." Here a jazzy introduction gives way to a driving (albeit monotonous) guitar-dominated background for Plant's strained and unconvincing shouting (he may be as foppish as Rod Stewart, but he's nowhere near so exciting, especially in the higher registers). A fine Page solo then leads the band into what sounds like a backwards version of the Page-composed "Beck's Bolero," hence to a little snatch of Albert King's "The Hunter," and finally to an avalanche of drums and shouting.

In their willingness to waste their considerable talent on unworthy material the Zeppelin has produced an album which is sadly reminiscent of Truth. Like the Beck group they are also perfectly willing to make themselves a two- (or, more accurately, one-a-half) man show. It would seem that, if they're to help fill the void created by the demise of Cream, they will have to find a producer (and editor) and some material worthy of their collective attention.

• 
  
  look how wrong you can be!!!!
  

[dazedcat]

It is rather interesting how the reviewer compared the entire Zeppelin I album to Truth.

Very interesting actually.

[Sagittarius Rising]

You know, I really don't care what this guy says after al it's his opinion. What I have REAL problem with is his use of the word "spade." Even for 1969 this was way out of line. This guy is a bigoted asshole in my book, because of this single comment everything he says before or after is completely irrelevant.

[Honeybrown1976]

You know, I really don't care what this guy says after al it's his opinion. What I have REAL problem with is his use of the word "spade." Even for 1969 this was way out of line. This guy is a bigoted asshole in my book, because of this single comment everything he says before or after is completely irrelevant.

Exactly! I ceased to give his opinion any credence because of that one decrepit word.

[kaiser]

LED ZEPPELIN VS THE PRESS

Rolling Stone critic John Mendelssohn didn't 'dig' Led Zeppelin. Forty years on, he explains why.

"In the spring of 1969, Scenic Sound began promoting rock shows at a barn-like affair in Pasadena, Los Angeles, where floral floats were prepared for the town's annual New Year's Day morning Rose Parade. For their first shows in May, they booked as headliners a new English four-piece whose first album was getting played on local radio, despite getting dismissed as self-indulgent crapola in Rolling Stone. To review the show, the Los Angeles Times dispatched the self-same spotty young Jewish university student who'd written the Rolling Stone review.

Yes, I was that spotty young student and, though I grow faint with embarrassment nearly 40 years after the fact on re-reading my horribly written review of the Rose Palace show, I haven't changed my mind. I liked tuneful songs with witty or poignant lyrics; I worshipped The Who and loved The Kinks and The Move. Zeppelin were about riffs and showing off. When I was able to make out any words, they seemed to be about what an implacable bull stud the singer was.

I will not, in the autumn of my years, withhold their due and claim not to have noticed Zeppelin's inventive arrangements. I had never heard a 4/4 beat turned inside out quite like John Bonham managed on Good Times, Bad Times. I might have been the only the person at the Rose Palace who seemed not to derive pleasure from how dexterously Jimmy Page played, how high Robert Plant was able to sing, at the undeniable brute power of the rhythm section.

When my review was published, I was denounced as a philistine or a faggot. Led Zeppelin came back as conquering heroes in mid-summer. The Los Angeles Times didn't invite my comments on their show at the Anaheim Convention Center in August, but I heard from several who attended how Plant's between-song patter had included a promise to make my ears resemble cauliflower.

A decade later, I attended a Wolverhampton Wanderers match with my friend Bev Bevan, once of The Move. We met Robert Plant outside of the stadium. and Bev introduced us. My name didn't ring a bell."

Taken from Mojo Classic: Led Zeppelin & The Story Of 1969

[selection7]

Takes some balls to not recant on his review even all these years later that basically amounted to overlooking all that musical brilliance and chemistry because he didn't find the lyrics poignant. I wouldn't want someone like that being even a casual fan of my band.

[kaiser]

I get where he was coming from as far as where HE himself wouldn't like the band/album/concert based on his preferences but at the same time if a reviewer is going to review any sort of creation they have to do it as unbiased as possible & if that's not possible for him/her then don't do it. I wouldn't review a hair metal band for example because I know I would be biased against them before I heard a note. In the end it comes down to the editors more than the reviewer in a sense as they should recognize a biased review before deciding to print it.

[chef free]

I do not remember reading even one positive review of a Zeppelin show or album back in the day. I think the "rock critics" were mad that they didn't discover the mighty Zeppelin before we did, we were supposed to like the music they told us to. I guess it's obvious who was right!

[Strider]

You know, I really don't care what this guy says after al it's his opinion. What I have REAL problem with is his use of the word "spade." Even for 1969 this was way out of line. This guy is a bigoted asshole in my book, because of this single comment everything he says before or after is completely irrelevant.

Having met the guy, I can assure you John Mendelsohn is not a racist bigot. His use of the term "spade" was his way of saying that by 1969, the trend of white guys trying to "sing the blues, man" in a histrionic and superficially "black" style(i.e. the opening and closing bits to Led Zep's "Bring it on, Home" and "Hats Off to Roy Harper") was, in his eyes, tiresome, inauthentic, and not a little disrespectful.

I'm not saying I agree with his views(never thought I'd see the day where I'd be defending John Mendelsohn), I'm just providing a little context. To Mendelsohn and many other critics of the day, Led Zeppelin's way of doing the blues was just as horrifyingly distasteful as the band Blues Hammer is to Steve Buscemi's R. Crumb-type character in "Ghost World".

The fact that he mentions Jeff Beck's "Truth" brings up another point. At this point in time, late-68 early-69, Jeff Beck was a far more known quantity than Jimmy Page. Jeff Beck was a guitarist's guitarist, and HE was the guy who was responsible for most of the Yardbirds cachet in the mid-60s, it was Beck who pushed the barometers of what you could do with a guitar in his work with the Yardbirds, along with Hendrix and Clapton. At that time, the BIG THREE was Clapton, Beck and Hendrix. Jimmy was just a session guy mopping up the crumbs in the last dying daze of The Yardbirds.

Jimmy had his admirers, yes, but there were just as many(Pete Townsend, Ray Davies) that were jealous or resentful of the fact that their producers(Shel Talmy, Micki Most, Andrew Loog Oldham's Immediate Records) would bring in Jimmy to play guitar on THEIR records in the early to mid-60s.

But Jeff Beck was a far bigger guitar hero in 1968 than Jimmy, so when "Truth" dropped in the wake of the demise of Cream, it sent ripples out everywhere.

So when Jimmy followed it a few months later with the first Led Zeppelin album, which not only superficially sounded similar to Beck's "Truth", but even had a cover of Dixon's "You Shook Me" just like the Beck album, some people got their feathers ruffled. Especially when Led Zeppelin, both the band and album, began outselling and outperforming Jeff Beck.

Old jealousies and rivalries came to the surface and it seemed most writers and musicians (particularly the English) sided with Beck. To them, Jimmy was nothing more than a carpetbagger, an opportunist riding in the wake of Beck's trailblazing and cashing in.

In hindsight, it was clear that Mendelsohn was going to hate Led Zeppelin. He LOVED the Kinks, and practically worshipped at the altar of Ray Davies. He was a Mod, dug fancy clothes and loved bands with short songs with clever lyrics. Loved the Who, Kinks, The Jam...bands like that. He loved dandies, and it was not an accident he ended up writing the fashion column Eleganza for Creem magazine all through the 70s.

I also think there was a little London prejudice against the North going on. The Stones, Kinks, and all these Swinging Londoners looked a little askance at newcomers like Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath. It wasn't just the fact they played heavy music...but, aside from Jimmy and JPJ, they were primitive heathens from Birmingham and other places in the Midlands. A little London snobbery I think played a part in the reception Led Zeppelin received.

Again, I'm not saying John Mendelsohn was "right" in what he said about Led Zeppelin, anymore than any critic is right or wrong; in the end, it all comes down to preferences.

More at fault to me were the editors of Rolling Stone and L.A. Times who assigned him to write anything about Led Zeppelin. It was OBVIOUS he wouldn't like them. The LA Times was particularly puzzling, as they had a writer, Pete Johnson, who gave the first Zeppelin album a rave review. Why not assign him to the Rose Palace shows in May 69?

[gerwinbakker]

Here's another interview with Mendelssohn, he has some interesting things to say about LZIII :

http://rockcriticsarchives.com/interviews/johnmendelssohn/johnmendelssohn.html

I dont know him that well, but he seems like a very negative guy...

[dazedcat]

I won't quote Strider's entire post but............what he said ^.

Truth was a very important record and if anyone has ever listened to the live Fillmore bootlegs of the original Jeff Beck Group the entire roadmap was laid out for early Zeppelin. Zep surpassed anything the JBG could have thought of doing in time but really, at the time of this review I can understand where the reviewer was coming from.

Especially if he had Truth in mind when he wrote his original review.

[selection7]

...at the time of this review I can understand where the reviewer was coming from.

Especially if he had Truth in mind when he wrote his original review.

Well, if his goal was to be "coming from" ignoring what's important about music, and more specifically, at least a couple of the greatest songs (and greatest musicians) in rock history, I guess he was wildly successful.

[kaiser]

Take in the context of the time in terms of music, reviews, & even the term "spade". I believe Page & Plant at that time made what would now be considered politically incorrect terms in regards to others race that in no means was meant to be harmful, as I'm sure was Mendohlsson's case, & also music at the time when Zeppelin came out was supposed to "mean" something according to critics, whatever that in itself means. Music is meant to simply be enjoyed as is all art, unfortunately rock music criticism in the 60's to even now, but to a lesser extent thankfully, is snobbish. I don't care if it's Rolling Stone or Kerrang or Vibe, each magazine has their own specific snob factor & that's just the way it is to in regards to your preference or not.

[dazedcat]

Well, if his goal was to be "coming from" ignoring what's important about music, and more specifically, at least a couple of the greatest songs (and greatest musicians) in rock history, I guess he was wildly successful.

Every critic whether you agree with him or not is coming from somewhere. Just about every review I've ever read compares the record or band being reviewed to somebody else who's already established. The guy who wrote this review did that, just like the rest of them do.

I didn't say I agreed with it, he clearly was wrong. Reviews and reviewers are biased though, mostly always.

[chef free]

Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read. Frank Zappa, quoted in Linda Botts, "Loose Talk" (1980)

US musician, singer, & songwriter (1940 - 1993)

[Honeybrown1976]

Having met the guy, I can assure you John Mendelsohn is not a racist bigot. His use of the term "spade" was his way of saying that by 1969, the trend of white guys trying to "sing the blues, man" in a histrionic and superficially "black" style(i.e. the opening and closing bits to Led Zep's "Bring it on, Home" and "Hats Off to Roy Harper") was, in his eyes, tiresome, inauthentic, and not a little disrespectful.

I'm not saying I agree with his views(never thought I'd see the day where I'd be defending John Mendelsohn), I'm just providing a little context. To Mendelsohn and many other critics of the day, Led Zeppelin's way of doing the blues was just as horrifyingly distasteful as the band Blues Hammer is to Steve Buscemi's R. Crumb-type character in "Ghost World".

The fact that he mentions Jeff Beck's "Truth" brings up another point. At this point in time, late-68 early-69, Jeff Beck was a far more known quantity than Jimmy Page. Jeff Beck was a guitarist's guitarist, and HE was the guy who was responsible for most of the Yardbirds cachet in the mid-60s, it was Beck who pushed the barometers of what you could do with a guitar in his work with the Yardbirds, along with Hendrix and Clapton. At that time, the BIG THREE was Clapton, Beck and Hendrix. Jimmy was just a session guy mopping up the crumbs in the last dying daze of The Yardbirds.

Jimmy had his admirers, yes, but there were just as many(Pete Townsend, Ray Davies) that were jealous or resentful of the fact that their producers(Shel Talmy, Micki Most, Andrew Loog Oldham's Immediate Records) would bring in Jimmy to play guitar on THEIR records in the early to mid-60s.

But Jeff Beck was a far bigger guitar hero in 1968 than Jimmy, so when "Truth" dropped in the wake of the demise of Cream, it sent ripples out everywhere.

So when Jimmy followed it a few months later with the first Led Zeppelin album, which not only superficially sounded similar to Beck's "Truth", but even had a cover of Dixon's "You Shook Me" just like the Beck album, some people got their feathers ruffled. Especially when Led Zeppelin, both the band and album, began outselling and outperforming Jeff Beck.

Old jealousies and rivalries came to the surface and it seemed most writers and musicians (particularly the English) sided with Beck. To them, Jimmy was nothing more than a carpetbagger, an opportunist riding in the wake of Beck's trailblazing and cashing in.

In hindsight, it was clear that Mendelsohn was going to hate Led Zeppelin. He LOVED the Kinks, and practically worshipped at the altar of Ray Davies. He was a Mod, dug fancy clothes and loved bands with short songs with clever lyrics. Loved the Who, Kinks, The Jam...bands like that. He loved dandies, and it was not an accident he ended up writing the fashion column Eleganza for Creem magazine all through the 70s.

I also think there was a little London prejudice against the North going on. The Stones, Kinks, and all these Swinging Londoners looked a little askance at newcomers like Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath. It wasn't just the fact they played heavy music...but, aside from Jimmy and JPJ, they were primitive heathens from Birmingham and other places in the Midlands. A little London snobbery I think played a part in the reception Led Zeppelin received.

Again, I'm not saying John Mendelsohn was "right" in what he said about Led Zeppelin, anymore than any critic is right or wrong; in the end, it all comes down to preferences.

More at fault to me were the editors of Rolling Stone and L.A. Times who assigned him to write anything about Led Zeppelin. It was OBVIOUS he wouldn't like them. The LA Times was particularly puzzling, as they had a writer, Pete Johnson, who gave the first Zeppelin album a rave review. Why not assign him to the Rose Palace shows in May 69?

Damn it. I wished you wrote it, instead of him. I wish he would have just said that he hated the inauthentic means of playing blues or other black forms, instead of resorting to racial epithets.

On the rest of the material, I see where the insecurities and jealousies lie. I respect Beck and all the guitarists that came before Jimmy and didn't get as much play as he did. I understand where they are coming from. Maybe that's why I'm neutral on most English band camps. I can't choose sides because I like most of them.

Strider, thanks for your feelings on this. I appreciate your thoughts.

[selection7]

Every critic whether you agree with him or not is coming from somewhere. Just about every review I've ever read compares the record or band being reviewed to somebody else who's already established. The guy who wrote this review did that, just like the rest of them do.

I didn't say I agreed with it, he clearly was wrong. Reviews and reviewers are biased though, mostly always.

Absolutely that's true. Yet, it's not that important either. My point is, don't make that point out to be more forgiving than it needs to be. The guy's review was what the kids today would call an "epic fail". That he stands by it to this day makes him a jackass, not just someone with a point of view. I'm willing to grant leniency based on then being different times, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't call a spade a spade.

(sorry, couldn't resist ...that's not a racist expression, btw.)