Jiri Posted May 3, 2008 Share Posted May 3, 2008 Danish TV, BBC ´71, TSRTS movie and of course the O2-show - gigs showing a band that is well prepared and disciplined. Texas Pop ´69, Royal Albert Hall ´70, HTWWW ´72 to some extend - gigs showing a band that is playing on the edge, taking risks, sounding like gods and like crap within minutes. I know version #2 sounds more exiciting. Still, thinking about version #1...I really like Jimmy´s "nonchalance" on Danish TV. I like Bonzo almost not moving on IMTOD (official DVD) while hell breaks loose soundwise (coming thru his wrists and fingers...) Which "band" do you prefer? On which occasions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotplant Posted May 3, 2008 Share Posted May 3, 2008 I'll take 'em either way, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Styrbjorn Posted May 3, 2008 Share Posted May 3, 2008 What part of TSRTS was "well prepared and disciplined?" I must have missed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiri Posted May 4, 2008 Author Share Posted May 4, 2008 The whole evening is a bit laid back, don´t you think? They have played the songs for quite a while and you can hear how the band functions as a perfectly timed unit. - Apart from a few mistakes the bits and pieces of D&C go along perfectly. - The end of Black Dog is in time (unlike on HTWWW), - The Page-Bonham interaction is brilliant in STH (unlike on HTWWW). - The stop-and-go-solo in Boogie Chilun in WLL is a perfect example of elaborated ensemble playing (unlike HTWWW) As Page - who hasn´t slept in days back then - also stated the show was good but not exactly one of those magic nights. While TSRTS sounds smooth and Jimmy´s playing is fluid, HTWWW sounds fresh and exciting, the band is more agressive and Jimmy takes more risks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhodey Posted May 4, 2008 Share Posted May 4, 2008 They have played the songs for quite a while and you can hear how the band functions as a perfectly timed unit. - The end of Black Dog is in time (unlike on HTWWW), - The Page-Bonham interaction is brilliant in STH (unlike on HTWWW). These two examples had NOT been played for quite a while at all. None off the 4th album had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielaarup Posted May 4, 2008 Share Posted May 4, 2008 Danish TV, BBC ´71, TSRTS movie and of course the O2-show - gigs showing a band that is well prepared and disciplined. Texas Pop ´69, Royal Albert Hall ´70, HTWWW ´72 to some extend - gigs showing a band that is playing on the edge, taking risks, sounding like gods and like crap within minutes. I know version #2 sounds more exiciting. Still, thinking about version #1...I really like Jimmy´s "nonchalance" on Danish TV. I like Bonzo almost not moving on IMTOD (official DVD) while hell breaks loose soundwise (coming thru his wrists and fingers...) Which "band" do you prefer? On which occasions? deffinitly the wild zep.. to me it gets a little boring to see a band live and then you just as well could have heard the album Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Garbage Posted May 4, 2008 Share Posted May 4, 2008 deffinitly the wild zep.. to me it gets a little boring to see a band live and then you just as well could have heard the album you could listen to 500+ Zeppelin shows and never have that problem. especially between 69-73 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audacity Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 The wild and the wooley. Unkempt, beastly and dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 I prefer allowing the music to move them freely for the most part. Where the concept of discipline fits into the picture I do not know, and I'm not so sure that I want to know either. I just like free, happy music, moving you along your way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predator Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 - The Page-Bonham interaction is brilliant in STH (unlike on HTWWW). Whoa whoa what? perhaps you should listen a few more times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brspled Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 What part of TSRTS was "well prepared and disciplined?" I must have missed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cactus Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 My interest in listening to the live recordings is not the enjoy a specific time period of the band, but rather to study and understand the development of the band's sound over time. From 1968 to 1980 is a massive change and if you are inclined, you can go through their live shows and hear different phases as they develop. So my answer is, I love 72 as it was a really dynamic period for the band on stage. I love 73 because there is something about their sound then that is amazing - Page's guitar sound and just the whole vibe. '77 has another feel - I think the scale of the production, and the drugs/lifestyle begin to change the tone of the music (the car accident lead to the new sound on Presence). It's all great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenman Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 Wild Zep for me, I think part of the problem with those clean shows is that Jimmy was afraid to present the "warts and all" sound outside the enivroment of a concert for fear of criticism. Really though I don't think that kind of playing was too the bands strenghts, that unstanding that allowed them to play very dyamatic songs very loosely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Action Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 Better loose and risky than tight and uptight. And TSRTS was really some of their tamer performances. They were much better before and after those shows, generally speaking. After hearing other shows, the MSG 73 shows were actually rather tame by comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderguy Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 Generally, I would rather hear them "go for it". That takes confidence and you can hear that confidence either way. What made them a great live band was that they did not sound like the same band as in the studio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Action Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 Generally, I would rather hear them "go for it". That takes confidence and you can hear that confidence either way. What made them a great live band was that they did not sound like the same band as in the studio. Right on the mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiri Posted May 6, 2008 Author Share Posted May 6, 2008 Whoa whoa what? perhaps you should listen a few more times Erm, I guess "whoa whoa" is referring to HTWWW? Or do you think TSRTS interplay was below average? I really like the HTWWW version. It´s wilder and Bonham and Page are both up for some wild improvisation. And here comes the BUT STH on TSRTS is pure joy for every Jimmy Page fan. His playing is fluid, his speed is actually amazing and his runs are actually leading somewhere musically (and are not just a parade of licks - which Jimmy sometimes used to do after ´73) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenman Posted May 6, 2008 Share Posted May 6, 2008 Jimmy's playing on TRSTS really was exceptional and generally I think those shows were the most sucessful "clean" performances but for me they still lacked the energy of say LA, Detroit or the Euro 73 dates. Many seem like it but I'v always viewed the BBC 71 show as a bit of a disaster, while not actually bad(71 Zep couldnt play a bad show blindfolded with one hand behind there backs) its by far the worst performance I'v heard from that year not to mention the terrible sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docron Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 The first post in this thread said something about sounding like crap... Someone tell me what about the Royal Albert Hall show sounded like "crap"?! The Earl's Court shows were far less solid as a whole than most of the well known 1970 shows. Someone please elaborate. I thought it was their best show as far as playing live after only being a year and some old. ( Find me another band that ever sounded even close to as good as these guys after just a year )... Hardly no other bands even attempt to do anything that sways from whats on their studio albums as far as improvisations and changing up their songs... Meanwhile, the Zeppelin have never played the same song twice, and most performances are near flawless. Regarding the topic, I guess I like the raw and un-tampered with style of their early gigs. The 1969 Fillmore West shows, RAH and Texas Pop are among my most favorite performances... The Danish TV Sessions, etc. that were obviously planned sound really clean, almost too clean... The atmosphere I picture Led Zeppelin creating is one of lunacy and all out musical war - the clean performances, like the Danish TV Sessions, lack as far as giving the crowd (all-be-it a bunch of what look like 13-16 year olds ) something really new and exciting to watch, as well as listen. It seems to me there is enough clean and planned out songs on their studio albums. I guess I vote for wild, raw, god damn banshee-like, early Zeppelin. Still, I'm at conflict with myself because the 4-1-71 show for BBC, which was also planned for, is one of their most raw-sounding all-outs theyve ever played. This is probably my favorite performance as far as the whole set is concerned, and they definitely didnt skimp on changing up the songs (i.e. medleys in Whole Lotta Love, extended version of Dazed and Confused). Plant is screaming at the top of his lungs for the whole set - definatley pushing his limits, and doesnt let his voice slip but once or twice in an hour or two. Ah the beauty of 1968-1971 Zeppelin. Maybe I should settle with myself and vote that "they both had their ups and downs" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theremin Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 The whole evening is a bit laid back, don´t you think? They have played the songs for quite a while and you can hear how the band functions as a perfectly timed unit. - Apart from a few mistakes the bits and pieces of D&C go along perfectly. - The end of Black Dog is in time (unlike on HTWWW), - The Page-Bonham interaction is brilliant in STH (unlike on HTWWW). - The stop-and-go-solo in Boogie Chilun in WLL is a perfect example of elaborated ensemble playing (unlike HTWWW) As Page - who hasn´t slept in days back then - also stated the show was good but not exactly one of those magic nights. While TSRTS sounds smooth and Jimmy´s playing is fluid, HTWWW sounds fresh and exciting, the band is more agressive and Jimmy takes more risks. fuck people who hafta label everything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiri Posted June 11, 2008 Author Share Posted June 11, 2008 fuck people who hafta label everything Thx for your elaborated opinion. I will not use the same distinguished vocabulary as you but let´s say: careful with all the people who adore something so enthusiastically withough questioning it sometimes. Oh, and I thought this is a forum. Not a collection of "Oh, they are so great"-threads. My bad. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.