Using Zeppelin to Spark up Rock articles

[McSeven]

I have noticed that a lot of rock Jounalist use Zeppelin to describe or give buzz to thier article. Why do you all think this is so? Must everything be Zeppelin-esque. Here is the latest artice in Rolling Stone using Zeppelin for Cache.

The quartet issued one of rock's all-time great debuts that year, their Zeppelin-esque album, Montrose, which spawned such soon-to-be hard rock standards as "Rock the Nation," "Bad Motor Scooter," "Space Station #5," "Rock Candy" and "Make It Last," all of which featured Montrose's tasty guitar playing. Hagar, however, would only remain with the band for one more release (1974's Paper Money) before exiting the group.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/guitarist-ronnie-montrose-dead-at-64-20120304#ixzz1oI5cwNmc

[Pagesbow]

I wouldn't say it's to give "buzz" but is just lazy journalism. But hey, it might sound "Zeppelin-esque" & I personally don't mind hearing that, either. It means that Zep define a particular sound and are an archetype. I'd rather hear that to "Beatle-esque" all the time.

[Rock Historian]

I own a good number of rock mags from different publishers....All in which in one way or another have some sort of article relating to Zeppelin. I have noticed in the past 5 or 10 years, (maybe even longer) that they do slide in mention of Zeppelin somewhere in just about everything you read, even if it's not the main topic or cover story of rock mag. It's almost an instant sale for the company in some respects if you list Zeppelin somehow, somewhere. It seems like there is an intent purpose or fomula that they have set in place to use them (Zeppelin) in order to guarantee a certain sales percentage. Ive often browsed through the latest copy of "Joe Blow" mag to find nothing new or interesting in it, besides the write up's they throw in of Zeppelin. Even some of those seem to get old, because it's usually the same exact article, re-printed over and over again with a different title. I can't tell you how many times Ive seen the Jimmy Page interviews from 77' in numerous mags, all around the same time...but hey-that's what sells

[Strider]

A tempest in a teapot. What would you have the writer say: the Cat Stevens-esque Montrose album?

I'm old enough to remember when Rolling Stone and mainstream media outlets slighted Led Zeppelin. They would use Cream, Jimi Hendrix, the Who or the Rolling Stones as reference points for bluesy, hard-rock bands. They would only use Led Zeppelin as a negative reference...much in the same vein as Grand Funk Railroad.

At least now Led Zeppelin is considered a positive reference and not a slur.

[Jahfin]

I've probably seen journalists use "Dylan-esque" more often than Beatles-esque or Zeppelin-esque. I don't consider any of them to be an example of lazy journalism or using the name of the artists mentioned as "cache". While it's certainly admirable for a writer to describe music without making comparisons to other artists, I don't necessarily fault them for it either. Sometimes, making such comparisons is a great way of describing music by giving the reader some touchstones they can relate to.

[dazedcat]

What Strider said. Time has been kind to Zeppelin, kind to the point where they're a positive reference today. When they were actually a working band critics couldn't line up fast enough to slam them, fans loved them but critics didn't.

Great music always wins out, I'm glad it did here.