Jump to content

Led Zeppelin: "A studio only Band"


Zepaholic

Recommended Posts

So, i'm sitting here with a few friends and the consensus opinion seems to be that LZ is a premier studio band but a "dud" live band. I ask why and they reply: "All of the live boots and official releases indicate that they cannot reproduce studio quality due to Jimmy being sloppy and not having a rhythm guitar player, as well as RP singing out of key and blah, blah, blah....".

Aside from the usual countermeasures like Blueberry hill and countless other great live reproductions, what do i do to convince them? Do i write them off as fucktards, or what?

Did Jimmy really need to carry a rhythm player for all of the dubs?

Speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they are right, in a sense.

Jimmy has spoken of wishing for a 2nd guitarist in the live setting, and apparently at the genesis of the band they even auditioned a few players.

Would Zeppelin live have been better with another player? Yes, in a technical sense. But it wouldn't be Led Zeppelin as we know and love them. That extra personality would have changed the dynamic musically. Zeppelin's famous jams would have been different.

Part of the Zeppelin mystique was that there were 4 virtuosos in the band. 4 virtuosos and a decent rhythm player would have changed it all.

Jimmy was not a 'sloppy' player, he just wasn't a precision player like Satriani or Vai, to whom he is being compared.

Zeppelin never attempted to 'reproduce studio quality' in the live setting. It was always supposed to be something new, different and unique.

Sure, 2 extra guitarists would have made ALS awesome, and freed Jimmy up, but it wouldn't be the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're fucktards. Led Zeppelin is one of the, if not THE, greatest live bands of in rock history. It had nothing to do with "reproducing" their studio records, that wasn't their goal. It had to do with improvisation, creating a hot vibe, and playing off the crowd. If you want to talk about Jimmy being sloppy, maybe they can point to '77-'80, but listen to any boot from '69-73, and most of '75, and there's no sloppiness, it's just Jimmy on FIRE.

You can point to countless articles and polls that point to Zep as being an awesome live band, or just play Dazed & Confused for them from any '73 show, then have them tell you they sucked live. If they still think that, they need to be hit in the foreheads with a tackhammer, because they're retards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having seen Zeppelin in their prime, I can safely say that they could play on stage. They were a very very good live band.

It's a stretch though to say they were a great live band, or the best live band. But they were much more than a "studio" band. That's just rock music critics bull####.

Regards;

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, i'm sitting here with a few friends and the consensus opinion seems to be that LZ is a premier studio band but a "dud" live band. I ask why and they reply: "All of the live boots and official releases indicate that they cannot reproduce studio quality due to Jimmy being sloppy and not having a rhythm guitar player, as well as RP singing out of key and blah, blah, blah....".

Aside from the usual countermeasures like Blueberry hill and countless other great live reproductions, what do i do to convince them? Do i write them off as fucktards, or what?

Did Jimmy really need to carry a rhythm player for all of the dubs?

Speak.

Your friends have no clue....seriously

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Led Zeppelin has more bootlegs than any other band ever because they suck as a live band? If Led Zeppelin were such a bad live band then we wouldn't be trying to find all the live boots that we continue to find.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Led Zeppelin has more bootlegs than any other band ever because they suck as a live band? If Led Zeppelin were such a bad live band then we wouldn't be trying to find all the live boots that we continue to find.

well spoken...

just tell your buddies to go to any Led-Zeppelin live message board so they can grasp the concept...

hell send them here! or RO... or even thetradersden where every third upload is a Zeppelin one. maybe then they will get the drift! :D:D:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, your friends undoubtedly hold Pink Floyd up as the premier live band.

Ha! Perfect!

But really, who cares? If your friends don't get it, let them. Some people think a concert should sound like the CD. Many people don't understand that for the majority of Zeppelin fans the studio material is a jumping off point for the places they would take the music too live. The mixed results are a testament to their fearless approach to their live shows.

I've seen plenty of bands that played the record not for note in concert and apart from being louder and a little more in your face it was utterly uninteresting to me.

I always tell people if you want it the same every time and perfect go listen to Rush. Or as Steve said, Pink Floyd. Either of those seem torturous compared to listening to a live Zep set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, i'm sitting here with a few friends and the consensus opinion seems to be that LZ is a premier studio band but a "dud" live band. I ask why and they reply: "All of the live boots and official releases indicate that they cannot reproduce studio quality due to Jimmy being sloppy and not having a rhythm guitar player, as well as RP singing out of key and blah, blah, blah....".

Aside from the usual countermeasures like Blueberry hill and countless other great live reproductions, what do i do to convince them? Do i write them off as fucktards, or what?

Did Jimmy really need to carry a rhythm player for all of the dubs?

Speak.

Yeah, I've gotten a lot of that over the years.

I suppose that having heard Zeppelin in so many different ways over the years, we may have the audio version of "jaded palette". One of the things I like about Jimmy's playing is that it's NOT the same every time he plays a song or solo.

To folks who are familiar with the band's sound strictly through the body of work represented by the studio albums, however, what comes at you through the Marshalls and across the stage may be so radically different as to be disconcerting.A thought anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, i'm sitting here with a few friends and the consensus opinion seems to be that LZ is a premier studio band but a "dud" live band. I ask why and they reply: "All of the live boots and official releases indicate that they cannot reproduce studio quality due to Jimmy being sloppy and not having a rhythm guitar player, as well as RP singing out of key and blah, blah, blah....".

Aside from the usual countermeasures like Blueberry hill and countless other great live reproductions, what do i do to convince them? Do i write them off as fucktards, or what?

Did Jimmy really need to carry a rhythm player for all of the dubs?

Speak.

Utter bollocks. Live, they were breathtaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you show them the Mothership DVD? I'm watching it like a sports fanatic watches a game! I can't help myself from yelling, "God!" and "Whoo!" and "Damn!" I even scared my cat when I kicked my feet up and down. I don't know how they pulled off some of those songs live the way they did. Dudes were locked in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you show them the Mothership DVD? I'm watching it like a sports fanatic watches a game! I can't help myself from yelling, "God!" and "Whoo!" and "Damn!" I even scared my cat when I kicked my feet up and down. I don't know how they pulled off some of those songs live the way they did. Dudes were locked in.

Even better, get the real DVD not the ripoff Mothership one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, i'm sitting here with a few friends and the consensus opinion seems to be that LZ is a premier studio band but a "dud" live band. I ask why and they reply: "All of the live boots and official releases indicate that they cannot reproduce studio quality due to Jimmy being sloppy and not having a rhythm guitar player, as well as RP singing out of key and blah, blah, blah....".

Aside from the usual countermeasures like Blueberry hill and countless other great live reproductions, what do i do to convince them? Do i write them off as fucktards, or what?

Did Jimmy really need to carry a rhythm player for all of the dubs?

Speak.

You had to be there live to appreciate the concert; imagine the best thing that ever happened to you and you're in the ballpark. In those days, technology was not what it is today in regard to bootlegs, and Jimmy was very critical of bootlegs at the time due to his concern for quality. I think your friends are wrong; the shows were outrageously wonderful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've easily seen hundreds of concerts and no one has come close to what Zep were during their glory days. We talked a bit about what it was like to see Zep live here: http://forums.ledzeppelin.com//index.php?s...c=4982&st=0

You had to be there live to appreciate the concert; imagine the best thing that ever happened to you and you're in the ballpark. In those days, technology was not what it is today in regard to bootlegs, and Jimmy was very critical of bootlegs at the time due to his concern for quality. I think your friends are wrong; the shows were outrageously wonderful.

"Outrageously wonderful" is a great description.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zeppelin was so quick in the studio, that they were reluctant to even record an album. They are a "live" band foremost. There is not one studio version i prefer over a live version. But the only thing i could say is that most of the songs on TSRTS are still my favorite versions, even though i have 10+boots. I have a feeling because the songs are cleaner and closer sounding to the studio versions. I think the one fault zep has was not spending more time in a studio, but i can't see any downsides because they didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're fucktards. Led Zeppelin is one of the, if not THE, greatest live bands of in rock history. .

i'm with you, matt.

i'll leave it to the most understated gentleman that ever strapped on a fender precision:

john paul jones

"on our worst night we were as good as anyone, and on our best night we could mop the floor with the fuckin' lot of them"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm with you, matt.

i'll leave it to the most understated gentleman that ever strapped on a fender precision:

john paul jones

"on our worst night we were as good as anyone, and on our best night we could mop the floor with the fuckin' lot of them"

And it's official: I can no longer contain my wanton lust for JPJ. My name is Suz, and I'm a Jonesaholic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You had to be there live to appreciate the concert; imagine the best thing that ever happened to you and you're in the ballpark. In those days, technology was not what it is today in regard to bootlegs, and Jimmy was very critical of bootlegs at the time due to his concern for quality. I think your friends are wrong; the shows were outrageously wonderful.

I've never had the chance to see Led Zep live, so I can't compare. But I know what you mean. I have been to a concert from a big rock and roll band and the feelings I experienced on that night I have never come close to feeling again, in any context. The singer said to us, "remember this feeling man - we could start a fucking revolution," and he was right. If only the spirit and energy of rock could fuel the rest of my life....!!!

But if someone taped that show it might not have sounded that great - maybe there were mistakes or whatever, but when you're there and in the moment, you don't hear that. You feel the energy and that can never be captured by a live recording.

I imagine this is the same experience people had seeing Zep, and I hope to one day have the oportunity to see them for myself, even if it doesn't compare to their glory days.

Edited by Cactus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never had the chance to see Led Zep live, so I can't compare. But I know what you mean. I have been to a concert from a big rock and roll band and the feelings I experienced on that night I have never come close to feeling again, in any context. The singer said to us, "remember this feeling man - we could start a fucking revolution," and he was right. If only the spirit and energy of rock could fuel the rest of my life....!!!

But if someone taped that show it might not have sounded that great - maybe there were mistakes or whatever, but when you're there and in the moment, you don't hear that. You feel the energy and that can never be captured by a live recording.

I imagine this is the same experience people had seeing Zep, and I hope to one day have the oportunity to see them for myself, even if it doesn't compare to their glory days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What those idiots fail to realize is the incredible complexity of translating those layered studio tracks into a live setting and yet still maintaining the songs' original integrity. Take Ten Years Gone, for example.

Jonesey on acoustic with foot bass pedals, Jimmy on electric, Bonzo and Robert. Simply incredible. To fill that amount of sonic space among four men is not an easy task. The fact that they were so adaptable is what amazes me to this day..

No other band could pull that off.

Edited by NastyNole1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...