Zeppelin Mysteries Hosted by Steve A. Jones

[SteveAJones]

Japan - 29.09.71. Legendary show. What is the true source of the the famous "soundboard tape" ?

Monitor mix, from the desk? Or indeed recorded from the stage?

There are many theories as to what it is and why it exists. Personally, I believe it to be simple two-track soundboard recording of the mix that was being fed to the venue PA.

[SunChild]

Not necessarily, but most likely. I would have to find time to go back and look at the sequence to decide if it was a built set or an existing building.

It could have been shot in a shed somewhere, rather than a soundstage, as all the sound in that sequence was created in post-production anyway.

Heh... big shed.

But, point taken.

Hmm, worth considering. I perceived the "sunlight" to be natural and the exhaust fan in

the upper corner to suggest its a genuine exterior wall but as you and Cactus point out, it could merely be a soundstage, and if so it would seem to suggest it was Shepperton Film Studios.

Who's the director of that sequence, and, can we ask him?

I haven't watched that part in a long time, I'll have to check it out next time.

Edited July 8, 2008 by SunChild

[SteveAJones]

Who's the director of that sequence, and, can we ask him?

Peter Clifton. He's living in Australia now. I may be able to track him down now that you mention it. He's busy co-producing one film and developing another based on a book.

[badgeholder]

There are many theories as to what it is and why it exists. Personally, I believe it to be simple two-track soundboard recording of the mix that was being fed to the venue PA.

I'm of the opinion the recorder was possibly on an amp right behind/next to the drums, the way the cymbals are so hot and Bonzo's grunting. Are there any good photos from this gig we can examine?

[ally]

I'm of the opinion the recorder was possibly on an amp right behind/next to the drums, the way the cymbals are so hot and Bonzo's grunting. Are there any good photos from this gig we can examine?

I don't think that this is the case. No offense as I am as interested as you when it comes to this recording but IMHO, it is very much like the Pb recording. A little crisper in some areas for sure but the drums and the vocals are in the same place. Probably just a poor mix and nothing else.

[SteveAJones]

I'm of the opinion the recorder was possibly on an amp right behind/next to the drums, the way the cymbals are so hot and Bonzo's grunting. Are there any good photos from this gig we can examine?

This explanation courtesy of blackmikito:

As for the question as to whether or not the common recording that we have for this show is really an excellent audience recording instead of a soundboard....

First off, let me say this. Since I was in no way responsible for having made this recording, I admit that I can't say with any authority exactly why this recording sounds the way it does. I don't know why Bonham is so loud on the recording, while Plant is at times almost completely inaudible. I also can't say why it sounds better than almost every other audience recording I've ever heard, but yet also sounds worse than most any soundboard. It's a confusing tape, to say the least.

In any case, as we all have opinions as to what the recording is, I'll cut to the chase and give you mine. I think it's a soundboard.

Here's why...

Get out a copy of the show, and listen to "Going To California" through a pair of headphones. Notice that Jones' mandolin can be heard in the left channel, Page's guitar can be heard in the right, and Plant can be heard in the center. If you remove one earphone or the other, you will find that you can eliminate Jones or Page from the mix. Sure, you can still hear them in the background in the opposite channel. But when you put them back on, you'll see how isolated they really are in each ear.

To which...

Strict stereo separation = Soundboard

No recording from the audience, nor the stage, could provide the kind of stereo separation found on the Osaka recording. It just isn't possible. Sure, microphones from the audience could capture a general "stage left/stage right" feel. But not so much, nor so specific, so as to be able to strictly capture Jones in the left channel and Page in the right channel.

Notice that the shot accurately reflects the channel separation present on the recording: Jones on the left, Page on the right, and Plant in the center. Sure, you might see that photo and think to yourself "But why couldn't someone have recorded from in front of the stage, using two microphones expertly directed at Jones and Page? Why isn't that possible?"

To which, sure it's possible. But, the reality is that it didn't happen. See this photo from the Osaka show itself, of the only known performance of "Friends":

This shot occurs later in the show, after the band had played "Going To California", and Jones had gotten up to put on his bass. Note that Bonham is now to the left of Plant, having taken Jones' spot onstage. Which means, that if the recording we have was really made from the stage/audience, we should now hear Bonham's conga drums in "Friends" in the left channel of the recording, given that Bonham was now situated physically in the same place where Jones and his mandolin were during "Going To California", correct? Yet, this doesn't happen. Instead, during "Friends", we hear Bonham in the right channel with Page, and Jones in the left. Which, if this was an audience, or stage recording, wouldn't make any sense. Whereas a soundboard not only reflects what the microphones are recording, but also where the soundman wants to put them in the stereo spectrum (regardless of where the players actually are onstage), a stage recording is slave to the physical location of whatever is making the sounds onstage. To which, whatever is making sound on the left of the stage, will always be heard on the leftside of the recording. Just as whatever's on the right, will always be heard in the right. Yet, that isn't the case when you look at those two photos while listening to the recording. What is "left" on one song (Jones in GTC) becomes "right" a few songs later (Bonham in Friends).

And so, you might ask "But what about the possibility of the recording having been made off of the band's stage monitors? Couldn't that explain the channel separation and all of those questions about stage positioning?"

For that, the short answer is again "No". Because, if the recording was made from anywhere else but in front of the stage, then there wouldn't have been any of that stereo separation found in the acoustic set on the recording at all. Sure, perhaps recording from stage monitors on the side or from another place onstage might have been possible, but consider that the band didn't even use monitors during this period. Neither on the stage, to the side of it, nor in the air above:

Which means, given the band's equipment setup, that if someone really recorded on the stage (besides the arguments against this above) that person would also have had to have found a way to not only pickup the jet-engine-loud sound of Page's amps and Bonham's drums without distorting, but they also would've had to have been able to pick up something so quiet as the sound of the band's acoustic instruments during that portion of the show and still have that be audible too. Given that no monitors were present to help compensate for the volume difference should anyone have tried to record from the stage, the difference in sound would've been enormous. And, again, it goes back to that question about the physical position of the band onstage during the different times of the show. How could any one set of mics strictly split the sound of Jones' Mandolin in the left channel, with Page's acoustic in the right, and yet, in the same recording, also split Bonham's drums and Page's amps the same way? Especially when those two groups of instruments (Jones' mandolin and Page's acoustic guitar vs. Bonham's drums and Page's amps) are located on completely different parts of the stage? The answer is, again, no, that isn't possible.

And so on and so forth. There are more examples I could give for why this recording is a soundboard (such as Plant's mic-handling noise, and the proximity effect of his voice/breathing into his mic during certain parts) but I'm guessing that if you didn't buy the points above, chances are that you won't agree with those either. To which, all of my ranting will amount to little more than technical talk trying to discredit theories about a "magic stage microphone". The proof will ultimately depend on whether or not a more complete or otherwise obvious version of this recording surfaces. As you can see, I think that the version that we've had all this time is more than enough to prove what this recording is and what it isn't. But, that's neither here nor there, I suppose. What's most important is that, regardless of what any of us think this recording might be, the concert it features is one of the very best shows that the band ever gave.

blackmikito 1/22/08

Edited July 9, 2008 by SteveAJones

[eagle87]

This explanation courtesy of blackmikito:

As for the question as to whether or not the common recording that we have for this show is really an excellent audience recording instead of a soundboard....

First off, let me say this. Since I was in no way responsible for having made this recording, I admit that I can't say with any authority exactly why this recording sounds the way it does. I don't know why Bonham is so loud on the recording, while Plant is at times almost completely inaudible. I also can't say why it sounds better than almost every other audience recording I've ever heard, but yet also sounds worse than most any soundboard. It's a confusing tape, to say the least.

In any case, as we all have opinions as to what the recording is, I'll cut to the chase and give you mine. I think it's a soundboard.

Here's why...

Get out a copy of the show, and listen to "Going To California" through a pair of headphones. Notice that Jones' mandolin can be heard in the left channel, Page's guitar can be heard in the right, and Plant can be heard in the center. If you remove one earphone or the other, you will find that you can eliminate Jones or Page from the mix. Sure, you can still hear them in the background in the opposite channel. But when you put them back on, you'll see how isolated they really are in each ear.

To which...

Strict stereo separation = Soundboard

No recording from the audience, nor the stage, could provide the kind of stereo separation found on the Osaka recording. It just isn't possible. Sure, microphones from the audience could capture a general "stage left/stage right" feel. But not so much, nor so specific, so as to be able to strictly capture Jones in the left channel and Page in the right channel.

Notice that the shot accurately reflects the channel separation present on the recording: Jones on the left, Page on the right, and Plant in the center. Sure, you might see that photo and think to yourself "But why couldn't someone have recorded from in front of the stage, using two microphones expertly directed at Jones and Page? Why isn't that possible?"

To which, sure it's possible. But, the reality is that it didn't happen. See this photo from the Osaka show itself, of the only known performance of "Friends":

This shot occurs later in the show, after the band had played "Going To California", and Jones had gotten up to put on his bass. Note that Bonham is now to the left of Plant, having taken Jones' spot onstage. Which means, that if the recording we have was really made from the stage/audience, we should now hear Bonham's conga drums in "Friends" in the left channel of the recording, given that Bonham was now situated physically in the same place where Jones and his mandolin were during "Going To California", correct? Yet, this doesn't happen. Instead, during "Friends", we hear Bonham in the right channel with Page, and Jones in the left. Which, if this was an audience, or stage recording, wouldn't make any sense. Whereas a soundboard not only reflects what the microphones are recording, but also where the soundman wants to put them in the stereo spectrum (regardless of where the players actually are onstage), a stage recording is slave to the physical location of whatever is making the sounds onstage. To which, whatever is making sound on the left of the stage, will always be heard on the leftside of the recording. Just as whatever's on the right, will always be heard in the right. Yet, that isn't the case when you look at those two photos while listening to the recording. What is "left" on one song (Jones in GTC) becomes "right" a few songs later (Bonham in Friends).

And so, you might ask "But what about the possibility of the recording having been made off of the band's stage monitors? Couldn't that explain the channel separation and all of those questions about stage positioning?"

For that, the short answer is again "No". Because, if the recording was made from anywhere else but in front of the stage, then there wouldn't have been any of that stereo separation found in the acoustic set on the recording at all. Sure, perhaps recording from stage monitors on the side or from another place onstage might have been possible, but consider that the band didn't even use monitors during this period. Neither on the stage, to the side of it, nor in the air above:

Which means, given the band's equipment setup, that if someone really recorded on the stage (besides the arguments against this above) that person would also have had to have found a way to not only pickup the jet-engine-loud sound of Page's amps and Bonham's drums without distorting, but they also would've had to have been able to pick up something so quiet as the sound of the band's acoustic instruments during that portion of the show and still have that be audible too. Given that no monitors were present to help compensate for the volume difference should anyone have tried to record from the stage, the difference in sound would've been enormous. And, again, it goes back to that question about the physical position of the band onstage during the different times of the show. How could any one set of mics strictly split the sound of Jones' Mandolin in the left channel, with Page's acoustic in the right, and yet, in the same recording, also split Bonham's drums and Page's amps the same way? Especially when those two groups of instruments (Jones' mandolin and Page's acoustic guitar vs. Bonham's drums and Page's amps) are located on completely different parts of the stage? The answer is, again, no, that isn't possible.

And so on and so forth. There are more examples I could give for why this recording is a soundboard (such as Plant's mic-handling noise, and the proximity effect of his voice/breathing into his mic during certain parts) but I'm guessing that if you didn't buy the points above, chances are that you won't agree with those either. To which, all of my ranting will amount to little more than technical talk trying to discredit theories about a "magic stage microphone". The proof will ultimately depend on whether or not a more complete or otherwise obvious version of this recording surfaces. As you can see, I think that the version that we've had all this time is more than enough to prove what this recording is and what it isn't. But, that's neither here nor there, I suppose. What's most important is that, regardless of what any of us think this recording might be, the concert it features is one of the very best shows that the band ever gave.

blackmikito 1/22/08

First off, let me say this. Since I was in no way responsible for having made this recording, I admit that I can't say with any authority exactly why this recording sounds the way it does. I don't know why Bonham is so loud on the recording, while Plant is at times almost completely inaudible. I also can't say why it sounds better than almost every other audience recording I've ever heard, but yet also sounds worse than most any soundboard. It's a confusing tape, to say the least.

Also was a little confusing for me to read this...

Is a very interesting opinion and I want to hear this recording because until now I did not know of its existence... then I will give my opinion, if I can... (well I finaly find a good translator, that helps me -some times-)...

Edited July 9, 2008 by eagle87

[MadScreamingGallery]

Does anyone know the name of the artist and the name and date of the painting in this photograph? My friend and I always thought that this photo was taken at Pangbourne and the painting was one from Jimmy's collection of Pre-Raphaelite art:

[Medhb]

Does anyone know the name of the artist and the name and date of the painting in this photograph? My friend and I always thought that this photo was taken at Pangbourne and the painting was one from Jimmy's collection of Pre-Raphaelite art:

GREAT mystery question! I don't know but I'd be willing to bet it's worth a pretty penny Hopefully someone will be able to answer that one!

[SteveAJones]

Does anyone know the name of the artist and the name and date of the painting in this photograph? My friend and I always thought that this photo was taken at Pangbourne and the painting was one from Jimmy's collection of Pre-Raphaelite art:

Great question. Certainly the photograph of Jimmy was taken at home in Pangbourne. The name, date and artist of the Pre-Raphaelite painting is a mystery for now.

[ally]

Also was a little confusing for me to read this...

Is a very interesting opinion and I want to hear this recording because until now I did not know of its existence... then I will give my opinion, if I can... (well I finaly find a good translator, that helps me -some times-)...

It's a badly mixed soundboard

[the ocean]

I lose this game! I don't know the answers to any of these!

ok I'll admit I haven't read through all 44 pages...yet. It's good reading though.

Edited July 14, 2008 by the ocean

[beatbo]

Does anyone know the name of the artist and the name and date of the painting in this photograph? My friend and I always thought that this photo was taken at Pangbourne and the painting was one from Jimmy's collection of Pre-Raphaelite art:

looks 16th century dutch to me (a guess), but i don't recognize the artist. a color photo would help a little...

[MadScreamingGallery]

looks 16th century dutch to me (a guess), but i don't recognize the artist. a color photo would help a little...

Thanks for venturing a guess. I've seen color photos of Jimmy at Pangbourne during that time but no color shots of that photo with the painting.

[SunChild]

Does anyone know the name of the artist and the name and date of the painting in this photograph? My friend and I always thought that this photo was taken at Pangbourne and the painting was one from Jimmy's collection of Pre-Raphaelite art:

Don't know, but, does anyone have an explanation for why he has such great taste in art and such funny taste in trousers? (Well, circa this photo...)

More seriously, there are several photos that seem to be part of this shoot... maybe someone can identify or locate the interview/article they ended up in?

[bonzo1026]

Just to clarify, it was Robert who attended Jimmy's show at The Centrum in Worcester, MA on October 29th 1988. Robert performed at The Centrum the following night, but

Jimmy definately wasn't there; he was playing The Spectrum in Philadelphia.

And I was there! I think Page was 10/27/88 in Philly and Plant the 21st. Many brain cells ago but I was at both shows. I know they were within a week from each other.

[bonzo1026]

I'm sure he calls them a lot of names, and rightfully so, but in at least one retelling it was "those two bitches".

Well I hate to confuse the issue but I heard in interview where Jimmy said it was a guy that he was trusting to care for Charlotte while he was gone. Anyone else heard this one?

[reids]

Don't know, but, does anyone have an explanation for why he has such great taste in art and such funny taste in trousers? (Well, circa this photo...)

More seriously, there are several photos that seem to be part of this shoot... maybe someone can identify or locate the interview/article they ended up in?

Back in those days, pretty much everyone had funny taste in clothes. Remember leisure suits, bellbottoms, butterfly collared shirts, etc...?

Maybe Page was into the whole Loch Ness thing (and wanted to look the part)???

R

Edited July 16, 2008 by reids

[SteveAJones]

And I was there! I think Page was 10/27/88 in Philly and Plant the 21st. Many brain cells ago but I was at both shows. I know they were within a week from each other.

Thanks for that; Jimmy played Philly the next night (10/30/88) as I posted originally.

[SteveAJones]

Well I hate to confuse the issue but I heard in interview where Jimmy said it was a guy that he was trusting to care for Charlotte while he was gone. Anyone else heard this one?

Can you cite the interview? I did receive word via PM whom was responsible and under what premise they were allowed access to his home. I don't wish to break a confidence

on a public board but if he discussed it publicly I could verify the comments in the interview.

[Medhb]

Can you cite the interview? I did receive word via PM whom was responsible and under what premise they were allowed access to his home. I don't wish to break a confidence

on a public board but if he discussed it publicly I could verify the comments in the interview.

Ahhh, that would be great to get clarification! I also had read this somewhere! But of course don't remember, it had to be a book, I'm sure. I thought the guy was a friend of a girl that was watching Charlotte but basically they WERE houseguests! YIKES! To break a trust like that....

[bonzo1026]

Can you cite the interview? I did receive word via PM whom was responsible and under what premise they were allowed access to his home. I don't wish to break a confidence

on a public board but if he discussed it publicly I could verify the comments in the interview.

Not off the top of my head but I know that's what I either heard or read. It may have been in this book: Jimmy Page: Magus, Musician, Man: An Unauthorized Biography.

I can try and thumb through it and take a look.

[bonzo1026]

Thanks for that; Jimmy played Philly the next night (10/30/88) as I posted originally.

I'm not totally disagreeing with you here. I'll have to pull out my ticket stubs. I remember Plant played on I think a Friday, then Van Halen was the very next night or the way other way around. I know Van Halen and Plant played back to back nights. I have a boot of Jimmy in MSG on 10/26/88.

I can confirm this with ticket stubs. I'll get back to you.

[SteveAJones]

I'm not totally disagreeing with you here. I'll have to pull out my ticket stubs. I remember Plant played on I think a Friday, then Van Halen was the very next night or the way other way around. I know Van Halen and Plant played back to back nights. I have a boot of Jimmy in MSG on 10/26/88.

I can confirm this with ticket stubs. I'll get back to you.

My original posts are 100% correct. Believe me, I'd know. Even so, I look forward to

your findings. Here are additional details:

Jimmy was staying at the Plaza Hotel in New York and he and the band were flown in a private jet to Philly and back. By the way Jimmy did not play MSG on 10/26/88 he played the Meadowlands Arena in East Rutherford, NJ. He actually happened to be battling influenza while doing that show, which he came down with in Cleveland on 10/20/88. It was his fourth since becoming ill but his performances did not suffer for it. In fact, each gig was exceptional in it's own way.

[SteveAJones]

Ahhh, that would be great to get clarification! I also had read this somewhere! But of course don't remember, it had to be a book, I'm sure. I thought the guy was a friend of a girl that was watching Charlotte but basically they WERE houseguests! YIKES! To break a trust like that....

...change that to read the woman (and her male companion) watching Scarlet was the one who stole the tapes and you'd be correct.