Order of the Setlist

[William Austin]

This is kind of silly, but it somewhat bugs me if a songs position in the live setlist is glaringly different than how it appears on the album (i.e. if a song appears at the near the end of the album but near the beginning of the live show and vice-versa); and this applies to all artists and not just LZ.

Obviously not every song in the setlist can be ordered to match the album, but it seems like LZ more than any other live act ever has this tendency. Some that come to mind are I Can't Quit You Baby, What Is And What Should Never Be, Sick Again, and Whole Lotta Love. Black Dog being played directly after Rock And Roll in Japan in 1972 is also a head scratcher; but the one that stands out the most is Bring It On Home being played in the middle of the show in 1970. That one should always be last.

This doesn't detract me in any way from enjoying the show, it's just one of those things I put a little too much though into. 

Truth be told, Jimmy and Robert always seemed to put together a well-balanced show (1971-1972 are my favorites) with lots of different kinds of songs in a great order. Some setlists do come to mind that are a bit flawed; late '72-early '73 is an example. I don't like the Rock And Roll/Over The Hills/Black Dog/Misty Mountain order. Immigrant Song being the encore was weird too. By the Summer though, it was much better.

I also don't like how quickly the songs from the debut album were removed from the setlist, never to return. Almost immediately when the second album was released, roughly 30% of the songs in the setlist were from the debut album. That's not a good statistic with only two albums out at that point. By the Summer of 1970, only Dazed and the occasional Communication Breakdown remained. The debut album is probably the best one, IMO, and it virtually being ignored on stage for 90% of the bands tenure is inexcusable.

Anyone else share these thoughts?

[TheGreatOne]

This is from LA Times interview with Jimmy

 

You often overdubbed several guitars on each Led Zeppelin track, yet live you didn’t use a second guitarist. Do you ever regret that?

No. There’s the studio recordings and the live shows, and the live shows were so different. If a number was in the set, it was going to get beaten up, and made to mutate because we were working it over every night. We weren’t a band going on stage doing every song note-for-note perfect, that was far from it.

[NealKenneth]

 

I also don't like how quickly the songs from the debut album were removed from the setlist, never to return...The debut album is probably the best one, IMO, and it virtually being ignored on stage for 90% of the bands tenure is inexcusable.

In my opinion, we can only wish Led Zeppelin had always been as aggressively progressive as they were in their early days.  It seems to me the band slowly lost momentum as they became unwilling to reel in their ever-expanding setlists until they were performing three hours or more every night...no wonder they got sick of touring!  And how can any band NOT be lackluster half the time when they are trying to perform that much (I'm looking at 75 and 77 in particular.)

The real issue I find inexcusable is the way they fought bootleggers without bothering to make recordings themselves...all while understanding that their live performances were crucial to their total expression.  There really is no reason a 4-track wasn't constantly rolling from 1970 onwards.

[pluribus]

There really is no reason a 4-track wasn't constantly rolling from 1970 onwards.

The band began recording all of their own shows from 1971 on, via soundboard "reference tapes" (as Page called them). While not proper multitracks, at least we can assume that recordings exist in some form. The timing of 1971, as opposed to 1970 or 1969 was likely in response to the rise of bootlegging, and Live on Blueberry Hill in particular. Lending credence to this is that 1971 is the first year to have soundboard recordings from seemingly random cities, like Hampton and Orlando, where Zeppelin was using their own crew.  Every soundboard that circulates before those dates is either from a festival gig (Texas Pop), a radio show (L'Olympia, BBC), or a venue that regularly recorded shows using their own equipment (Fillmore West). Not known if the band made any other soundboard recordings of any of their 1969 or 1970 shows.  

[NealKenneth]

The band began recording all of their own shows from 1971 on, via soundboard "reference tapes" (as Page called them).

Wow, I've never heard this before!  So is the theory that most soundboards circulating from after 1971 were originally "reference tapes" for the band?  Do you have a link to the interview/article where Jimmy Page said this?

[Strider]

Wow, I've never heard this before!  So is the theory that most soundboards circulating from after 1971 were originally "reference tapes" for the band?  Do you have a link to the interview/article where Jimmy Page said this?

How else would you be able to get a soundboard without the band being involved? This isn't something any audience member can accomplish on his own with portable tape recorders. It requires taping directly from the band's own sound mixing board.

There are several interviews Jimmy has given over the years where he referenced taping the shows so he could see what kind of musical ideas were coming out in the jams and medleys, and also he used soundboards to help stage and time his bow solo with the Showco guys.

[NealKenneth]

How else would you be able to get a soundboard without the band being involved?

I always assumed soundboards were the result of venue owners/employees spotting an opportunity.  Are all the soundboards from the theft of Jimmy Page's home in the late 80s?

[TheGreatOne]

No

[Strider]

I always assumed soundboards were the result of venue owners/employees spotting an opportunity.  Are all the soundboards from the theft of Jimmy Page's home in the late 80s?

No, some have been from former Showco employees who worked on the Zeppelin tours.

[Sathington Willoughby]

In my opinion, we can only wish Led Zeppelin had always been as aggressively progressive as they were in their early days.  It seems to me the band slowly lost momentum as they became unwilling to reel in their ever-expanding setlists until they were performing three hours or more every night...no wonder they got sick of touring!  And how can any band NOT be lackluster half the time when they are trying to perform that much (I'm looking at 75 and 77 in particular.)

The real issue I find inexcusable is the way they fought bootleggers without bothering to make recordings themselves...all while understanding that their live performances were crucial to their total expression.  There really is no reason a 4-track wasn't constantly rolling from 1970 onwards.

The band began recording all of their own shows from 1971 on, via soundboard "reference tapes" (as Page called them). While not proper multitracks, at least we can assume that recordings exist in some form. The timing of 1971, as opposed to 1970 or 1969 was likely in response to the rise of bootlegging, and Live on Blueberry Hill in particular. Lending credence to this is that 1971 is the first year to have soundboard recordings from seemingly random cities, like Hampton and Orlando, where Zeppelin was using their own crew.  Every soundboard that circulates before those dates is either from a festival gig (Texas Pop), a radio show (L'Olympia, BBC), or a venue that regularly recorded shows using their own equipment (Fillmore West). Not known if the band made any other soundboard recordings of any of their 1969 or 1970 shows.  

Good points there.

[chef free]

I suppose most of the songs from the first album were dropped from the setlist because they were covers.  The band was now writing their own material and it was more interesting to them.

[juxtiphi]

I suppose most of the songs from the first album were dropped from the setlist because they were covers.  The band was now writing their own material and it was more interesting to them.

 

  By the time they removed the tracks you are wanting they probably felt that they had played them enough and that it was time to move on. They made and played music that they wanted to hear which is why they are so unique. They didn't spend a lot of time worrying about what anyone else wanted. 

[Strider]

Frankly, I am glad they dumped some of the early songs from the set list by 1970. Who wants a band that remains stagnant? Go listen to the Ramones or AC/DC then.

"You Shook Me" sounded electric when I first heard the album but in concert it could often sound plodding and dull...with Plant resorting to the worst white-boy blues cliches. I never found Led Zeppelin's take on "Train Kept A Rolling" as convincing as the Yardbirds, and would have rather the band opened their early concerts with "Good Times Bad Times", which was inconceivably ignored. I don't mind "I Can't Quit You Babe" or "Killing Floor" so much on the early show tapes, but for me, the thrills of the first year are clearly "Communication Breakdown" (much harder, faster, and heavier in concert than on the record...true heavy metal before Black Sabbath even came on the scene), "Dazed and Confused", How Many More Times", "White Summer"/"BMS", and the epic "As Long As I Have You" jams. That was the one song from the early gigs that I wished Led Zeppelin had kept in the set list a bit longer...at least up thru the 1970 Royal Albert Hall show. Imagine an "As Long As I Have You" on that RAH DVD!

You will notice that Dazed, HMMT,and CB were all kept in the set list past the first year. Wisely so. But I am glad they jettisoned the blues cover rehashes and Yardbirds and other relics to make way for "Thank You", "Whole Lotta Love", "What Is and What Should Never Be", "Heartbreaker", "Immigrant Song", "Since I've Been Loving You", and "That's the Way". It completely broadened the musical scope of their concerts, skyrocketing Led Zeppelin above the lumpen pack of heavy bands plodding the boards of that time. The Grand Funks, Deep Purples, Iron Butterflys, Vanilla Fudges, Jeff Beck Group, Black Sabbaths, Ten Years Afters, etc.