price.pittsburgh Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 What do you think was the biggest determining factor, that in the early days of Zeppelin, separated them from Cream, The Yardbirds and The Jeff Beck Group, in terms of initial impact and success? There was obviously great guitar work in the other three bands and some good songs. Some argue that it was the production of the recordings by Zeppelin, and others suggest that it was the experience going in by JPJ and Page. I agree these were significant, but I fully believe the greatest strength of Zeppelin in 68/69, while on the road and in the studio was Robert Plant. Plant IMHO was the X factor. Even Rod Stewart couldn't draw people in like Plant could in those days. Plant's voice was a soul voice singing the blues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dark Lord Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 A segment of the population was ready to break away into a new direction, with heavier, longer, accessible rock / blues songs. Enter Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, and others. The time for change had arrived and they were talented, and in the right place at the right time. The Cream and The Yardbirds, amongst others, had alluded to this new direction, but were gone; Zeppelin took their ideas to the next level and refined them into near perfection. Plus they had nice hair, and blouses, as the threads around here would suggest were important to a segment of would be fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 ^^^ That...and the alchemical qualities of the four. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosmic_juice Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I hear ya price ...people were in awe of all their talents combined but im with you....no one had heard a voice like Plants before ...with that range they should have put him outside to warn for storms lol... And honestly no ones had that range since or atleast i haven't heard them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dark Lord Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I hear ya price ...people were in awe of all their talents combined but im with you....no one had heard a voice like Plants before ...with that range they should have put him outside to warn for storms lol... And honestly no ones had that range since or atleast i haven't heard them Gilmour, Dio, Gilan to name a few. In fact, as truly amazing as Plant was, I doubt he had the range of these three, if measured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 What do you think was the biggest determining factor, that in the early days of Zeppelin, separated them from Cream, The Yardbirds and The Jeff Beck Group, in terms of initial impact and success? You mean, apart from the fact that at least two of those bands, Cream and the Yardbirds, were already defunct when Led Zeppelin hit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
price.pittsburgh Posted April 21, 2015 Author Share Posted April 21, 2015 You mean, apart from the fact that at least two of those bands, Cream and the Yardbirds, were already defunct when Led Zeppelin hit? But they never hit like Zeppelin did when they first appeared, is my point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 ^^^Cream did. Cream was incredibly popular. Why do you think England went in mourning and the BBC devoted a huge chunk of time to their farewell concert? That's why England was slow to embrace Led Zeppelin compared to America...they were still grieving over Cream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabrielle Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Chart above is based on The Range Place 2.0 © I think, when it comes to voice, there are more important qualities than range but range is at least measurable, the rest is very subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
price.pittsburgh Posted April 21, 2015 Author Share Posted April 21, 2015 ^^^Cream did. Cream was incredibly popular. Why do you think England went in mourning and the BBC devoted a huge chunk of time to their farewell concert? That's why England was slow to embrace Led Zeppelin compared to America...they were still grieving over Cream. Fair enough. I may be focusing too much on the U.S. sales of both bands early albums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixpense Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Outside of the musicianship, without question It was the songs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IpMan Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Regarding range, on it's own means little, after all the singer from Boston had a greater range than all those guys mentioned above but who outside of Boston fans even know his name? Even more so, Boston is remembered for their guitars, not their singer. The voice itself has to have that unique quality and that is what Plant has and always had. Just like Jagger or Stewart, those are unique voices, their range, or lack thereof means nothing. Of course range + that unique quality will always steal the show and that is what you had with both Plant & Mercury. That being said it is still a combination of what each member brought to the table which made Zeppelin massive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
price.pittsburgh Posted April 22, 2015 Author Share Posted April 22, 2015 Regarding range, on it's own means little, after all the singer from Boston had a greater range than all those guys mentioned above but who outside of Boston fans even know his name? Even more so, Boston is remembered for their guitars, not their singer. The voice itself has to have that unique quality and that is what Plant has and always had. Just like Jagger or Stewart, those are unique voices, their range, or lack thereof means nothing. Of course range + that unique quality will always steal the show and that is what you had with both Plant & Mercury. That being said it is still a combination of what each member brought to the table which made Zeppelin massive. Good point about unique quality combined with range. Some people have range but are just annoying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixpense Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Regarding range, on it's own means little, after all the singer from Boston had a greater range than all those guys mentioned above but who outside of Boston fans even know his name? His name was Brad Delp and died from suicide. The first Boston lp was one of the biggest selling records of all time. Many people outside of Boston know his name. Mercury to me covered the most range. (octave-wise) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosmic_juice Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 One thing i thought about this topic is that guys like Mercury had great range but a lot of high notes were falsetto which was great... Gillan also used falsetto but as much a i like DP and rock out to em his falsetto was a bit grating... Plants upper register before he abused his voice WAS NOT falsetto... He could move from a lower normal register to a high register smoothly and again no falsetto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosmic_juice Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Also could someone present an example of David Gilmour reaching for his upper register... His names been brought up and i cannot think of any examples that put him in league with Plant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jabe Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Post # 3 sums it succinctly. All elements combined at the precise time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
price.pittsburgh Posted April 23, 2015 Author Share Posted April 23, 2015 One thing i thought about this topic is that guys like Mercury had great range but a lot of high notes were falsetto which was great... Gillan also used falsetto but as much a i like DP and rock out to em his falsetto was a bit grating... Plants upper register before he abused his voice WAS NOT falsetto... He could move from a lower normal register to a high register smoothly and again no falsetto Agree fully. Plant in his heyday never used a falsetto and by not doing so it brought way more passion on those songs than maybe anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dark Lord Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Also could someone present an example of David Gilmour reaching for his upper register... His names been brought up and i cannot think of any examples that put him in league with Plant Im shocked. Try "Murder" for starters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabrielle Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 @ 1:30 is his highest sung note. He can sing powerfully but not really high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babysquid Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 The production was a big thing as well. Now I love the sound of 60's records but listen to Cream's Wheels of Fire, JB's Truth or Yardbirds Roger the Engineer (also try the Beatles, stones, Hendrix etc..) and then listen to Led Zeppelin 1. The whole way it was recorded really captures the energy and ambience of a rock group playing together. This had rarely been done so well before. Led Zeppelin was like moving from SD to HD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
price.pittsburgh Posted April 23, 2015 Author Share Posted April 23, 2015 I thnk The Beatles Abbey Road is great production but then they split Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IpMan Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 What is this talk about Gilmour as a vocalist? If there was one element the Floyd NEVER had it was a decent vocalist. Gilmour's voice is one of the flattest, most boring voices in rock music. I don't know and I don't care about his range because as a singer he is about as plain as a piece of white paper. When I listen to Floyd it's because of the music, not because of the vocals. Except for Great Gig in the Sky, no one I have ever talked to thinks Gilmour was a good singer. Talk about a dose of Pablum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabrielle Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 I don't know how can people talk about vocals with such a conviction. It's very subjective. There are people who like Ozzy's singing more than Dio's. Many people say that they like Led Zeppelin despite of Plant or that he was whine/nails on chalkboard/cat in a heat etc. but he was a part of Zeppelin sound just like Gilmour was a part of Pink Floyd's sound, his voice suited this kind of music. Personally, I love his vocals on High Hopes, Echoes, Learning to Fly etc. He is never considered among the greatest (and rightfully so) because he can't do the vocal gymnastics but for that I'm glad, I love that not everybody sound like Mercury, Dio or Gillan. I guess that's because I don't listen to many PF songs in a row, then it might get boring. Not all of those who aren't considered good are necessarily bad, sometimes they just suit fine. About the topic, One night I was bored and watched "x-factor" and "the voice" auditions of people who tried with Led Zeppelin song. They usually choose WLL or "Immigrant Song" but I've seen "Ramble On", "When the Levee Breaks", "What is and What Should Never be", "Dazed and Confused", "Stairway to Heaven", "Rock and Roll" and "Black Dog" too. All who auditioned passed but those who had the song chosen for by judges struggled. I think it's universally known that many LZ songs are very difficult to sing and if you have enough confidence to sing them that mean something. And it applies to professional singers too (like Tyler or Kennedy). People choose these songs because the vocal parts of them sound impressive and they know that not many people will attempt them. Keith Relf's or Jack Bruce's vocals (with all respect) doesn't have this kind of "wow" effect. Yeah this and appearance part didn't hurt either, would the Doors be as big if Jim Morrison was ugly? was Steve Marriott lack of good looks the reason why he is not as universally known? (outside of uk) One can only speculate. I think it's different for everybody, someone will be grabbed by vocal parts, some by drum sound, some by riffs, some by hammond organs etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mook Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 I was listening to Led Zeppelin I today and the singing is just scary. I think the reason they fared so much better than the other bands is because their albums were just much better. It's that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.