Levee Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Ugh. Friends and foes I'm really getting tired of these comments about the 77 tour because of Jimmys "condition" and how the tour was not up to par with the others. I've tried to answer politely before that you can't judge an entire tour based on your boot collection, I've never wanted to use the "I was there and you were not card" But I'm using it. I saw them live two nights in Cincy in 77 and the shows and Jimmy were outstanding. And no I wasn't high or drunk, I'm not that stupid to see Zep "impaired". Was Jimmy sub par on certain nights? Absolutely, but I'm not going to throw the entire tour away because of a few shows, yes that's right, a few shows. As far as I'm concerned the 77 tour ranks very high , the power, raw energy and probably the best set list of any tour. So please stop judging Jimmy on whatever boots you own, and I'm sure as hell not going to apologize for being there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trashbag Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Yeah, I know some people who berate Jimmy's performance on the whole '77 tour based on just the Seattle show. Thing is, Jimmy's always had some sub par performances even before '77 (the '75 American tour comes to mind, although he did break his finger). Just because he didn't do as well in the Seattle show as he did in the past doesn't mean he did terrible the whole year. Same thing with the '80 tour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lzfan715 Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 I've not heard a lot of the 77 tour, but from what I've heard it wasn't bad. I think '77 was a bad year though, not necassarily because of the music, but their lives. Robert lost a son, Jimmy was bad into herion at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killing Floor Blues Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Ugh. Friends and foes I'm really getting tired of these comments about the 77 tour because of Jimmys "condition" and how the tour was not up to par with the others. I've tried to answer politely before that you can't judge an entire tour based on your boot collection, I've never wanted to use the "I was there and you were not card" But I'm using it. I saw them live two nights in Cincy in 77 and the shows and Jimmy were outstanding. And no I wasn't high or drunk, I'm not that stupid to see Zep "impaired". Was Jimmy sub par on certain nights? Absolutely, but I'm not going to throw the entire tour away because of a few shows, yes that's right, a few shows. As far as I'm concerned the 77 tour ranks very high , the power, raw energy and probably the best set list of any tour. So please stop judging Jimmy on whatever boots you own, and I'm sure as hell not going to apologize for being there. Some of us aren't fortunate enough to have see Zeppelin in the 70's, so all we have to go by is boots. The raw energy, power, and amazing set list were there, and like every other tour, there were highs and there were lows. It just seems like there were more lows than highs that year than in the years before. In might just be my opinion here, but what more so than Jimmy's playing, it's his tone that sounded awful. So thin and tiny in comparison to 69-72 tones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trashbag Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Some of us aren't fortunate enough to have see Zeppelin in the 70's, so all we have to go by is boots. The raw energy, power, and amazing set list were there, and like every other tour, there were highs and there were lows. It just seems like there were more lows than highs that year than in the years before. In might just be my opinion here, but what more so than Jimmy's playing, it's his tone that sounded awful. So thin and tiny in comparison to 69-72 tones. You have a point there about Page's tone. He didn't have that "growling" tone of the older days. Even at Earls Court, his tone sounded really clean and sharp and not very distorted at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eskimoblueday Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Ugh. Friends and foes I'm really getting tired of these comments about the 77 tour because of Jimmys "condition" and how the tour was not up to par with the others. I've tried to answer politely before that you can't judge an entire tour based on your boot collection, I've never wanted to use the "I was there and you were not card" But I'm using it. I saw them live two nights in Cincy in 77 and the shows and Jimmy were outstanding. And no I wasn't high or drunk, I'm not that stupid to see Zep "impaired". Was Jimmy sub par on certain nights? Absolutely, but I'm not going to throw the entire tour away because of a few shows, yes that's right, a few shows. As far as I'm concerned the 77 tour ranks very high , the power, raw energy and probably the best set list of any tour. So please stop judging Jimmy on whatever boots you own, and I'm sure as hell not going to apologize for being there. I don't get it...? Where's the punchline, Levee? Sorry, I thought this was going to be one of your funny threads. It's actually not funny at all, but I like it that you've got Jimmy's back on this issue. Cheers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Good post Levee. I'm all for musical discussion and nothing wrong with comparing shows, versions of songs etc. but it just seems like there's an awful lot of quick to criticise comments not just with Jimmy and the 77 tour, but the endless "oh Robert's voice sucked after 75" and the 02 show was this or that. Drugs or not, they're human and humans have off nights. As you said, you can't make blanket statements becuase of a few rough patches. Robert once said in regards to touring (this was back in 88) that it can often take a good 10 shows before they really gelled. As the famous expression goes, Zep were tight but loose and that's what makes them so special. You never know what will be and even those moments that may not have worked, I dunno, somehow in the larger picture, aren't so bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattmc1973 Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 I admit I'm one who regards Jimmy's playing as shoddy on the '77 tour. It was pretty good at the LA Forum shows, and not so good on many others I've heard. It's just amazing that someone's guitar playing can change and morph so much in the span of a few years. In '73 he was on fire, rarely making mistakes and playing very fluidly. In '77 his tone definitely sucked, but he also lost a LOT of the speed and dexterity that was his hallmark just a few years earlier. And it's not like he got old and couldn't do it anymore, he was still in his 30's for crying out loud. On my Destroyer boot for example, there's the Rover intro to Sick Again. It sounds like a beginning guitar student is playing it, it's awful. He just wouldn't have played like that before. When you look at his appearance, and listen to the tour as a whole, there's just no doubt that drugs took a big toll on him physically and it affected his playing. Did he suck all the time? No. Did he suck a lot more than on previous tours? Absolutely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levee Posted January 17, 2008 Author Share Posted January 17, 2008 I don't get it...? Where's the punchline, Levee? Sorry, I thought this was going to be one of your funny threads. It's actually not funny at all, but I like it that you've got Jimmy's back on this issue. Cheers. Sorry Ebeeday! 4 to 6 times a year I have to do a serious thread. It's in the Forum Guidelines. Sometimes this topic just wears me out, it even came up in the Photo thread today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levee Posted January 17, 2008 Author Share Posted January 17, 2008 I admit I'm one who regards Jimmy's playing as shoddy on the '77 tour. It was pretty good at the LA Forum shows, and not so good on many others I've heard. It's just amazing that someone's guitar playing can change and morph so much in the span of a few years. In '73 he was on fire, rarely making mistakes and playing very fluidly. In '77 his tone definitely sucked, but he also lost a LOT of the speed and dexterity that was his hallmark just a few years earlier. And it's not like he got old and couldn't do it anymore, he was still in his 30's for crying out loud. On my Destroyer boot for example, there's the Rover intro to Sick Again. It sounds like a beginning guitar student is playing it, it's awful. He just wouldn't have played like that before. When you look at his appearance, and listen to the tour as a whole, there's just no doubt that drugs took a big toll on him physically and it affected his playing. Did he suck all the time? No. Did he suck a lot more than on previous tours? Absolutely. Since we are basing the tour just on boots I'd put up "Listen to this Eddie" and "Badgeholders " up against any boot from any year. And I will give it to you, that a steady diet of Heroin and Banana Daiquiris is not a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killing Floor Blues Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 (edited) Since we are basing the tour just on boots I'd put up "Listen to this Eddie" and "Badgeholders " up against any boot from any year. And I will give it to you, that a steady diet of Heroin and Banana Daiquiris is not a good thing. I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that shows like Eddie and Badgeholders are top notch. And yes, they rival top shows from other tours regardless of year. Was every 1970 show 9/4 or 9/19 (for example) quality? No, but the drop off from the great shows compared to the rest of the tour was nothing like it was in 77. Edited To add: I agree forming a negative opinion regarding 77 Jimmy after hearing a few boots is unfair, but it works both ways. As GREAT as the two shows mentioned above were, they are not an indication of his playing for that entire tour. Edited January 17, 2008 by Killing Floor Blues Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilot of the Storm Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Since we are basing the tour just on boots I'd put up "Listen to this Eddie" and "Badgeholders " up against any boot from any year. ...good point there Levee, but be careful about trying to plug Kashmir on 'Badgeholders'. Page gets really lost mid- section and you can really feel the other three trying to help him out. At the end of it, Plant states 'That was an eight out of ten" One of my favorite parts on that boot btw, I love '77 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honeydripper Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 (edited) Moreso than any other tour, the 77 tour was also a tour of indulgance and excess. Both on and off the stage. It was also a visual spectacle....one that no boot can do justice. To any guitarist listening to a 77 guitar (noise) solo....it's a "WTF?" moment. To anyone including guitarists who witnessed it live, it was a magical moment. The piano solo in NQ also does'nt do anything for me on recordings...in fact it only takes away from the vibe of the song itself......and Out on The Tiles>Moby Dick??????forget it! Could have been 20 min shorter IMO. Having heard every 77 boot commonly available....I can say that Jimmy had a few moments that were as good as any......and also some moments that were the absolute worst......but the average would fall slightly under par for him. It was for the most part a "you had to be there" tour. And I was. All I can say is thank god Bonzo and JPJ were at their peak! Edited January 18, 2008 by Honeydripper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levee Posted January 18, 2008 Author Share Posted January 18, 2008 Edited To add: I agree forming a negative opinion regarding 77 Jimmy after hearing a few boots is unfair, but it works both ways. As GREAT as the two shows mentioned above were, they are not an indication of his playing for that entire tour. Fair enough. Pilot, you're right. I've always been a sucker for "Badgeholders" The acoustic set, OTHAFA and of course three hours of lunacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eskimoblueday Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Sorry Ebeeday! 4 to 6 times a year I have to do a serious thread. It's in the Forum Guidelines. Sometimes this topic just wears me out, it even came up in the Photo thread today. I hear ya, bro. But look what happened in this thread! It seems to me there's been a nice exchange of opinions here, without any fighting or name calling. That's awesome! Ok, I'm done being a girl now. Back to Jimmy's playing on the 77 tour.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilot of the Storm Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Pilot, you're right. I've always been a sucker for "Badgeholders" The acoustic set, OTHAFA and of course three hours of lunacy. ...don't forget "Ten Years Bonham" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bong-Man Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 I think most people use drugs as an excuse for Jimmy's supposedly off playing on the '77 tour. I think it was more inactivity than anything. Count how many shows Zep played in 71-73. Now count how many from 75 - 77. Jimmy was into other things, and no longer played every day. Even on recent tours, he doesn't fully hit his stride until he has a few shows under his belt. Some oldtimers here also seem to use drugs as an excuse, when it's really the setlist that bothers them. Look at the Noise solo.....it's dated and pretty much a waste of time to listen to now.....but if you were alive in '77 in the days before midi and computer generated sounds, that was cutting edge stuff. No one knew what he was doing because it didn't exist. People lose perspective that Peter Frampton was on the cutting edge by talking into a plastic tube. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattmc1973 Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Looking like this couldn't have helped, doesn't exactly scream "top of his game"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the-ocean87 Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 (edited) I think the Seattle show isn't THAT worse. There are a lot shows that suck more. -The second Knebworth night, all the 1980 shows and some others from 1975 and 1977. But i also think there are some good times on the 1977 tour. The Forum- Shows especially. And: Seattle was the last time, bonzo played a drum solo. And its one form the few drum solo - vids. But the sound form all the 1977 bootlegs is horrible! The bass and the guitar sound awfull. By the way: Which shows are filmed pro shot from the 1977 tour ??? - Seattle .......?? Edited January 18, 2008 by the-ocean87 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdh Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Page's "shoddy" playing is just a fact of what made Led Zeppelin, "Led Zeppelin". Page has always said that the band was a statement of who and what they were at that time. I enjoyed his "shoddy" playing. His playing has always been about emotion, feel and presence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ally Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Page's "shoddy" playing is just a fact of what made Led Zeppelin, "Led Zeppelin". Page has always said that the band was a statement of who and what they were at that time. I enjoyed his "shoddy" playing. His playing has always been about emotion, feel and presence. I agree his playing has alway's been emotion,feel and presence. And this is not to make light of your post, but it was clear to me that he was feeling REALLY BAD. It actually hurt me to see what was happening to him. I can't believe that even 1st timers to a Zeppelin show wouldn't notice his condition Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Styrbjorn Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Page's "shoddy" playing is just a fact of what made Led Zeppelin, "Led Zeppelin". Page has always said that the band was a statement of who and what they were at that time. I enjoyed his "shoddy" playing. His playing has always been about emotion, feel and presence. You've clearly not heard Seattle or pretty much any of the 1977 Tour apart from the LA run. You could say his playing was about heroin, countless bum notes and absence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slagfarmer Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 I was watching a boot from Seattle in 77, I can see why this was not released on the official DVD. Compared to my earls court and knebworth boots Jimmy does not sound or look very good. Looks like the lifestyle has caught up with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Action Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 (edited) All in all, Jimmy was excellent in 1977. Yes, there were off nights indeed. But based on the shows I have (LTTE, Badgeholders, Cleveland 4-28, Houston, Landover, LA 6-27, NYC 6-11 and of course Destroyer, where he wasn't all that), overall he was great. I don't know why everyone goes out of their way to crap on 1977. Personally, I thought the 1973 tour was a bit flaccid at times. Sluggish in comparison to 1975 and later, as well as 1972 and earlier. I guess it boils down to preference. Edited January 18, 2008 by Rock Action Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep41 Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 (edited) i agree with a lot of posts here. Page wasnt "shoddy" all the time in 77, nor was he always on either. There are probably a million different factors that go into it, but since its so openly discussed, the main factor had to be the drugs and what he was taking. As a long time guitarist and avid student of Page for decades, on some 77 shows you can hear exactly what he's TRYING to do and what he's trying to get across but in actuallity it comes out as half ass and shoddy. I have played guitar some live shows when I was messed up (well, not on herion or anything that hard) and literally the exact same thing happens. I know what I want to do and how I want to do it, but it just doesnt come out right because your too fucked up to execute it. AND that would explain the reason why he's "ON" on certain nights too. Assuming Page just didnt get lucky once in a while and nail the riffs/solos (we know that luck is not the case!) there had to be other forces at work when he was shoddy and it was obviously drugs. My point? I dont think Page's technique or ability or competence diminished. How he played was simply a function of what and how much of substances he put in his body, and sadly that affected him greatly and we are still talking about it 30 years later. I also wanted to say -- please dont make the mistake of judging tone and sound quality from a bootleg -- especially a soundboard --- because there so many ways that tone can get screwed up on a recording. Plus keep in mind since a soundboard is a direct feed from many many microphones --- there are all kinds of forces at work , especially at the huge venues Zep was playing in 1977. All kinds of EQ and volumes and levels and things are adjusted to make the sound system and PA as best as it can be LIVE AT THAT TIME IN THAT VENUE FOR THAT SIZE CROWD. Why do you think at the smaller venues the soundboard is better? Because its small and there's minimal factors and adjusting that needs to be done. But at the Kingdome, LA forum, Richfield Coliseum, Pontiac, etc etc, you really need to mess with things to get the best sound live -- and not worry about what its gonna sound like on a recording. Page's TONE was not suffering at any time folks. He changed nothing once he started using primarily his #1 and #2 Les Paul, a few Marhall 1959 plexis, a wah and some phaser. Its all the same exact stuff at the same settings. If your hearing any tonal differences its because of the obvious two things: 1. Page's shoddy playing on off nights 2. The overall soundboard mix for different veunes/atmospheres, etc Think about it. Its no coincidence that Page's tone magically sounds better on nights when he was "on" ya know? Edited January 18, 2008 by zep41 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.