Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Strider

Jimmy Page Responds to Keith Richards

Recommended Posts

On 2/2/2016 at 11:08 PM, anniemouse said:

What is also noticeable is with bands like Zep their music still sounds contemporary. Kashmir in full sounds phenomenal on the radio.

The same is true of 'Immigrant Song', which sounds just as fresh in the 2010s as it did in 1970.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2016 at 3:38 AM, SteveAJones said:

Led Zeppelin disbanded nearly 40 years ago.

The Rolling Stones are about to launch another massive South American tour.

I think Mick Jagger said it best when he sung "Time is on my side, yet it is!"

Agreed.

IF John Bonham had lived, and IF Led Zeppelin went on to release another 10-15 lps and IF they kept touring endlessly throughout the decades right up until now and were about to head to South America for another tour extension, THEN today's kids would probably view them as simply more old geezers like the stones and make fun of their ages (falling down on stage etc etc as I read above)

Instead, today's youth still sense the "magick" because they cannot see the old man behind the curtain.(Well maybe sometime next year perhaps)

We live in a world where numbers mean more than most anything else which is why so many modern musicians, actors, limelight seekers are more interested in their twitter followers count and FB "likes" more than the substance of their actual work.

Meanwhile their fans are more concerned with capturing the moment with a selfie than they are the moment itself.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2016 at 7:02 PM, SteveAJones said:

Meaning they're actually #1?

At least tell me you don't rate Page/Plant higher than Jagger/Richards.

No, not even close. I like the Stones but not as much as Zeppelin or the Beatles or Queen or Rush......................

I rate Page/Plant #1. But I can see an argument stating that Lennon/McCartney are #1. The Beatles have had a larger impact on music than Zeppelin. But as we all know that many of those Lennon/McCartney tracks were written by either one and not together. (at least after 1965)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, sixpense said:

I rate Page/Plant #1. But I can see an argument stating that Lennon/McCartney are #1. The Beatles have had a larger impact on music than Zeppelin. But as we all know that many of those Lennon/McCartney tracks were written by either one and not together. (at least after 1965)

Whaaat??? Page/Plant the #1 songwriting duo of all time?!?

There's no way their "Top 10" beats Lennon/McCartney's Top 10, or even Jagger/Richards Top 10. Does P/P even have ten?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I put forward this hypothesis;

The Beatles : Kicked the door in for UK music to become a global phenomenon. Grew as a band musically; was culturally important; appealed to a wide ranging audience and the majority of their catalogue sounds brilliant.

The Rolling Stones : Considering how long they have been around I cannot name a release after the Start me Up period. (that must be over 30 + years ago) There back catalogue that is the back bone of their reputation came in a 8 year period (approx.) Classic and quality tracks. Their touring seems to keep them in the public eye.

Led Zeppelin : A truly musically well balanced band in and out of the studio. Could turn their hand to any genre, I would put them just after The Beatles and Bowie for being utterly fearless about the musical direction they perused. They challenged themselves and the fans. Listening to LZ 1 and then Physical Graffiti alone proves that.

Downside (LZ) the excesses of the industry and the mythology surround all rock music in the 1970's seem to stick to  LZ the most and actually damaged them terribly. The next generation of musician's in the Uk berated them, they had little respect from the new breed of rock journalists and even with the release of books such as Hammer of the Gods their reputation 30 + years ago was a mess.

Decades on I think the music is being re evaluated and their reputation is building through the music just being on the whole amazing. Why the excesses and the hedonistic aspects of the Rock n Rock lifestyle damaged their reputation to the extent that it did and not other bands who were also indulging so to speak is open to question.

I also wonder if bands  have a finite ending (The Beatles; Led Zeppelin) as the evaluation of the quality of the band starts from that moment.

In the case of The Stones, The Who and U2 (30 + years together and counting) they are still a living entity and begs the question, do bands have a natural life span.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anniemouse said:

In the case of The Stones, The Who and U2 (30 + years together and counting) they are still a living entity and begs the question, do bands have a natural life span.  

The Stones cemented their legacy by 1973...everything since is really just a bonus, which shows just how iconic they really are!

IMHO, The Who is merely The Two. Had they disbanded in '78 there's no question they'd be held in higher regard than they are.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On February 3, 2016 at 6:54 PM, the chase said:

He did. Page handled it perfectly. I would guess he couldn't care less what Richards thinks. 

I was totally joking...i think its ridiculous

its an unfortunate side effect of rock journalism, to create stupid anti productive drama....which doesnt even have a getting folks talking value. Although for kids and young people it might...who are learning and appreciating rock music. Although for branding and marketing its great logic. So for marketing courses in colleges they can look at stuff like this as beneficial...promote your own brand while disregarding a competitors talent. But this is like the clip on the news today of snoop dog asking payton manning if he can get 50% off papa johns pizza in colorado....its ALL promotion to the point its all a commercial on tv or any media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had to make a choice between being a great songwriter or a great guitarist, I'd choose songwriter.

In other words, I'd rather be Keith Richards than Jeff Beck...all day long.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On February 4, 2016 at 1:52 PM, redirtuo said:

Agreed.

IF John Bonham had lived, and IF Led Zeppelin went on to release another 10-15 lps and IF they kept touring endlessly throughout the decades right up until now and were about to head to South America for another tour extension, THEN today's kids would probably view them as simply more old geezers like the stones and make fun of their ages (falling down on stage etc etc as I read above)

Instead, today's youth still sense the "magick" because they cannot see the old man behind the curtain.(Well maybe sometime next year perhaps)

We live in a world where numbers mean more than most anything else which is why so many modern musicians, actors, limelight seekers are more interested in their twitter followers count and FB "likes" more than the substance of their actual work.

Meanwhile their fans are more concerned with capturing the moment with a selfie than they are the moment itself.

 

Yes, however the Stones last "half-way decent" album was Tattoo You in 81', just two years after Zep's last studio outing. Every single song, much less album the Stones have released since then has either been recycled material with different lyrics or just straight up horrible shit. The Stones should have hung it up by 82' since they have contributed nothing since then. Of course the occasional tour would be good but the Stones are in no way relevant post 81' IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, middlezep said:

I was totally joking...i think its ridiculous

Cool.  I do too. 

 

 

 I have to agree the Stones were a hit making machine and among the best in Rock and Roll... Lennon / McCartney,  Jagger / Richards,  John / Taupin etc..

They are among the great all time songwriting duos. They win in the hit single contest over P/P .. seeing this turned into yet another who's better thread.

I can't remember playing a Stones album start to finish except Some Girls though. I dont think I'm alone. Led Zeppelin were about albums and IMO made much stronger albums.

And yes, I'd put Zeppelins 10 greatest songs up against any artist including the Stones. In The Light was not a hit by any means, but as a piece of music I'd put it above any Stones hit.. 

So let's call it a draw.. RS wins in the hit singles.. Zeppelin made better albums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IpMan said:

Yes, however the Stones last "half-way decent" album was Tattoo You in 81', just two years after Zep's last studio outing. Every single song, much less album the Stones have released since then has either been recycled material with different lyrics or just straight up horrible shit. The Stones should have hung it up by 82' since they have contributed nothing since then. Of course the occasional tour would be good but the Stones are in no way relevant post 81' IMO.

Strongly disagree!

Steel Wheels (1989) is a very strong album.

Voodoo Lounge (1994) is a good album.

Bridges to Babylon (1997) is a strong album.  

Their many tours since 1981 continue to be global extravaganzas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

Strongly disagree!

Steel Wheels (1989) is a very strong album.

Voodoo Lounge (1994) is a good album.

Bridges to Babylon (1997) is a strong album.  

Their many tours since 1981 continue to be global extravaganzas.

If you say so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a major Stones fan and never listened to those albums except for whatever hit songs were on the radio at the time, but those albums 89-97 were successful albums and tours.

Edit :  The Rolling Stones and Guns N’ Roses. How much freakin’ bad ass-ness can one stage take?

https://garyrocks.wordpress.com/2012/12/16/the-rolling-stones-and-guns-n-roses-how-much-freakin-bad-ass-ness-can-one-stage-take/ 

Edited by TheGreatOne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2016 at 5:39 AM, SteveAJones said:

Whaaat??? Page/Plant the #1 songwriting duo of all time?!?

There's no way their "Top 10" beats Lennon/McCartney's Top 10, or even Jagger/Richards Top 10. Does P/P even have ten?

It's all subjective. :-)

But I do recall in 1970 it was Zeppelin who kicked the Beatles off the #1 slot for most popular band. The Stones were around since '62 and couldn't accomplish that!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sixpense said:

It's all subjective. :-)

But I do recall in 1970 it was Zeppelin who kicked the Beatles off the #1 slot for most popular band. The Stones were around since '62 and couldn't accomplish that!

Well, The Stones could never top The Beatles because they were marketed as a sort of anti-Beatles, weren't as attractive and were more of an r&b group than a pop group.

Disbandment of The Beatles in April 1970 didn't hurt Led Zeppelin's ascent to becoming hailed as the most popular band.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think from reading various Richards and Stones books that Keith did a lot of hilarious and reckless things which are

entertaining to read about. But from a long time ago he kind of trashed Guns'n' Roses the same preposterous way,

from that point on I never paid ANY attention to his estimation of any artists or bands. Keith does sort of have a

preference for "authentic" blues, R&B, soul and reggae, that's part of his tunnel vision , not just the retarded attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty funny he trashed GNR as they were on tour together in 1989.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2016 at 7:36 AM, anniemouse said:

Can I put forward this hypothesis;

The Beatles : Kicked the door in for UK music to become a global phenomenon. Grew as a band musically; was culturally important; appealed to a wide ranging audience and the majority of their catalogue sounds brilliant.

The Rolling Stones : Considering how long they have been around I cannot name a release after the Start me Up period. (that must be over 30 + years ago) There back catalogue that is the back bone of their reputation came in a 8 year period (approx.) Classic and quality tracks. Their touring seems to keep them in the public eye.

Led Zeppelin : A truly musically well balanced band in and out of the studio. Could turn their hand to any genre, I would put them just after The Beatles and Bowie for being utterly fearless about the musical direction they perused. They challenged themselves and the fans. Listening to LZ 1 and then Physical Graffiti alone proves that.

Downside (LZ) the excesses of the industry and the mythology surround all rock music in the 1970's seem to stick to  LZ the most and actually damaged them terribly. The next generation of musician's in the Uk berated them, they had little respect from the new breed of rock journalists and even with the release of books such as Hammer of the Gods their reputation 30 + years ago was a mess.

Decades on I think the music is being re evaluated and their reputation is building through the music just being on the whole amazing. Why the excesses and the hedonistic aspects of the Rock n Rock lifestyle damaged their reputation to the extent that it did and not other bands who were also indulging so to speak is open to question.

I also wonder if bands  have a finite ending (The Beatles; Led Zeppelin) as the evaluation of the quality of the band starts from that moment.

In the case of The Stones, The Who and U2 (30 + years together and counting) they are still a living entity and begs the question, do bands have a natural life span.  

Excellent points top to bottom. It's rare that a band can survive the changing winds of music whilst staying true to their own sounds as they explore new ways of expressing themselves. I feel that Zep did it better than anyone, but even as I admit my bias (they're my favourite band by a light year), I defy anyone to name another band with more ingenuity. Sure you can recognize a Beatles tune as 'sounding like' the Beatles, same for the Stones, Who, of course, Pink Floyd, but that's a different thing than really surprising listeners with not only new directions but also showing growth in exploring them. 

There's something to Zep's legacy being cloaked in the mystique of a premature end; after all Hendrix and really anyone in the dreaded '27 club' never got to the 'fat Elvis' stage, so the reality of that career arch cannot be compared with the pedestal of the idealized state that 'gone at the top' inevitably produces. The fact is, we just don't know what else any of them had in store, but with Zep there was enough of a trajectory, enough transformation, that I think they would have made some very interesting music post ITTOD. BUT, and this now crosses over into the 'what if Bonzo had lived' thread, there would have to have been many 'what ifs' in addition to that one - overcoming addictions, no personal tragedies, manageable tour schedules, etc., etc., (remember that Jonesy was the first to have conflits about remaining in the band) - so the 'natural life span' is less 'natural' than it is about dealing with the increasingly difficult - and then insurmountable - obstacles that occurred. 

So bands that have lasted till today are scrutinized and criticized more, but then again, perhaps they deserve to be based on the direction they're in, particularly if they're rounding the same bases for the umpteenth time. 

Keef has no solid foundation from which to discuss Zep given the arch of their respective bands; the Stones have had no memorable song or interesting sound exploration for decades. In other words, they've had more shots at it, and yet.... Maybe it's apples to oranges, but that's the path that's been given to each band. 

Nobody exemplified ever onward better than Zep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Patrycja said:

Keef has no solid foundation from which to discuss Zep given the arch of their respective bands; the Stones have had no memorable song or interesting sound exploration for decades. In other words, they've had more shots at it, and yet.... Maybe it's apples to oranges, but that's the path that's been given to each band. 

Nobody exemplified ever onward better than Zep.

We could quibble till the cows come home over this. Stones have had no memorable song for decades?  The several multi-platinum albums during that time suggests otherwise. Additionally, any act with a back catalog as extensive as theirs---the argument becomes why invest time and effort in recording new material that won't make a setlist anyway?

 

Zep's studio output was always fluid, but praise for being ever onward ends there as the live shows became self-indulgent. To this day I cannot believe Page was still performing White Summer as late as 1980, and Bonham's 20 to 25 minute drum solos were about 10 to 15 minutes too long after 1975. The routing for the tours also became predictable, though we know events transpired that prevented them from taking the live show to places it never went (South America, etc). 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, SteveAJones said:

We could quibble till the cows come home over this. Stones have had no memorable song for decades?  The several multi-platinum albums during that time suggests otherwise. Additionally, any act with a back catalog as extensive as theirs---the argument becomes why invest time and effort in recording new material that won't make a setlist anyway?

 

Zep's studio output was always fluid, but praise for being ever onward ends there as the live shows became self-indulgent. To this day I cannot believe Page was still performing White Summer as late as 1980, and Bonham's 20 to 25 minute drum solos were about 10 to 15 minutes too long after 1975. The routing for the tours also became predictable, though we know events transpired that prevented them from taking the live show to places it never went (South America, etc). 

  

Yes that's true and to clarify, I didn't say how many decades, so in the last two, for instance, are there any memorable stand out songs? But if you take a far longer view, then of course there are some great songs in the Stones catalogue. Also, to the extent that it's a subjective enterprise, some fans will find some RS songs even in the last twenty or so years that they connect with. As to your setlist/recording question, well it's simply a matter of creative exploration; either they're interested in it or not, regardless of whether new tunes make a live show's final cut (Zep unfortunately excluded or did not play enough of some incredible songs, too. That didn't stop the band from getting them down in the studio). And while album sales are an indication of popularity (which can simply mean people like more of something familiar; how can such sales be gauged in terms of genuine interest or just fans buying something from a band because it's released?), it's not necessarily an indication of new creative ventures.

Still, while we could argue around the edges of certain aspects, the heart of the matter is that even though the Stones have had a longer shot at it, Zep in their shorter lifespan as a band were far more creative and innovative. The live shows were bloated at times, and the set list did suffer from tunes that ought to have been dropped, but the fact that they could have made those choices, that they could have shortened the drum solos or even the winding paths that other songs went down just speaks all the more to the staggering variety of the options available to them (that they made the choices they did is another matter). Were the Stones live ever as widely and wildly different as Zep? 

People like what they like, but I think Zep were the far more exploratory and experimental and inventive band in the studio and live.

Edited by Patrycja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On February 6, 2016 at 2:05 PM, the chase said:

 

So let's call it a draw.. RS wins in the hit singles.. Zeppelin made better albums.

 

Agreed 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Patrycja said:

. Were the Stones live ever as widely and wildly different as Zep? 

People like what they like, but I think Zep were the far more exploratory and experimental and inventive band in the studio and live.

 

Agreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the Keith Richards documentary on Netflix last night. I highly recommend it. Not that I fully agree,  but I understand him and can see where he's coming from much better. A nice reminder. One quote that made perfect sense was "I'm more about the Roll than the Rock". (Paraphrase).

He thinks Zeppelin, I assume is more Rock, the Stones are more Roll and that's fine and probably pretty accurate. Two very different bands. 

Interesting that he included Elvis' "Baby let's play house", which is the song Jimmy points to as the song that really inspired him. 

I think watching him and some of his off the cuff comments .. It's just the way he is.

I usually come away from watching a music doc with a new appreciation for the subject.. Even Ginger Bakers. Watching someone say something vs reading it for some reason is much less irritating to me.. If that makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can definitely get a different understanding of someone's meaning in reading versus hearing it. Most of the time hearing it smooths the edges of first impressions of a read, and gives a greater context, but sometimes it's has the opposite effect so that a positive read resonates in an offputting way when hearing it. Rambling a bit there, but although I haven't seen that doc, I've seen several Keef interviews and haven't really come away with a largely different impression. Given his knowledge of music, it's puzzling for him to be so flippant about the music others create. There need to be these contexts of 'roll' and assumptions that he thinks other bands are 'rock' but Zep transcended that category despite its heaviness. I don't know, Keef and Baker increasingly come across as slightly jealous in print and in interviews. He's got an accomplished career, yet seems to need to bring up the Stones by cutting others bands down unnecessarily. There's just no context in which his original statement is accurate unless a skewed perception in his head counts. His opinion seems mired in an attempt to keep the Stones discussion going. The music speaks for itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×