Rationalizing

[~tangerine~]

I will admit i didn't read beyond this last page so i don't know what was already said. I can keep it simple. I hope Jimmy calls them something else because without Robert Plant it's only 1/2 of Led Zeppelin (meaning you are missing half the band, Robert and John Bonham). I had enough of a problem with Zeppelin going on without Bonham, but without Robert it's Page and Jones, and so that's what i think they should call themselves.

I have to catch up. I heard this news today on the radio when the DJ was happy because it allows him to play 4hrs of Zeppelin (his entire shift). I agreed with what Jackson said. He said it "tarnishes" Zeppelin's legacy to play without Robert and call themselves Led Zeppelin.

[Knebby]

The facts were narrowly focused on, and the opinions dismissed, it appeared to me.

Quelle surprise.

[SunChild]

Just speaking for myself here, but as a rule I listen mainly for the music. One of the reasons is that I started listening to rock at the age of 10, and being an Icelandic kid, of course I couldn't really understand the lyrics until a few years later. This simply means that I already appreciated the music a great deal while not really knowing what the lyrics were about. Of course, this in itself is perfectly valid, but in a subjective way: because it doesn't mean everybody else should see things as I do - that would be absurd.

But I think there is more to this. If I placed a lot of emphasis on lyrics in Rock music (generally speaking, not just Led Zeppelin), I would probably stop listening to most of it, and just reach for my books of poetry - even Robert's very best lyrics (TSRTS, say) become laughable when compared with Baudelaire or Rimbaud. Now people will protest and say that the comparison isn't fair.....and I agree. It isn't fair. But WHY is that? Because lyrics in Rock & Roll usually don't have much independent value, aside from context, but are subservient to the music and the general feeling that the song is meant to carry.

This is something Robert did very well - really unusually well. To be quite honest, and at the risk of sounding arrogant, I really think the lyrics of most rock bands are embarrassingly stupid; while some of them can be fun a few times, say, when you're drunk and just having a good time, in the end it's all just extremely shallow. Jimi Hendrix had an unusual gift with words; strewn across his songs you find amazingly poetic expressions that just fit his musical vision like a glove. Robert was only 21 when he took over the writing of lyrics for Led Zeppelin. Extremely young. But he did a really good job, and got better at it over the years, too.

As for Robert writing the melodies, I have usually put it slightly differently: He had input on the melodies. This was important, however. Robert likes to improvise, and to not repeat things too much - same as Jimmy, which is one reason why they stylistically fit each other so well. But Jimmy really wrote music with his band mates in mind, and some of the songs are crafted in a way that makes me think he already had at least an outline of a melody in mind when he contacted Robert. Jimmy however has also said that a few times Robert did make him turn his head!

Yes, it really was Jimmy's band. But one of the most admirable things about his musical vision was that it left his band mates so much space to express themselves. And what a band it was.

As usual, Otto says it better than anyone! Nice post, man.

[SunChild]

Quelle surprise.

I'm certainly not waiting with 'bated breath for your thoughtful responses to his opinions, as I'd need a crash cart to be revived if I tried.

[Aquamarine]

The facts were narrowly focused on, and the opinions dismissed, it appeared to me.

Only the opinions that were based on "facts" that were actually fiction (i.e. stuff that wasn't true).

But what the hell, what does it matter--it's Friday, it's a beautiful night, I've got a great outfit and a hot date and I'm off to dance the night away! (Actually that last part was fiction, too. )

[Rorer714]

Only the opinions that were based on "facts" that were actually fiction (i.e. stuff that wasn't true).

But what the hell, what does it matter--it's Friday, it's a beautiful night, I've got a great outfit and a hot date and I'm off to dance the night away! (Actually that last part was fiction, too. )

Dancing the night away or the hot date? Did brspled hook you up with one of those young Brazilian zep fans?

[Soccerzubs]

Like man said before, Plant did help with the acoustic, it was Bonham who rarely pithced in.

EDIT: [sarcasm]Hold on guys, I just remembered Plant wrote most of the lyrics to STH, this band will never work without! [/sarcasm]

[Aquamarine]

Dancing the night away or the hot date? Did brspled hook you up with one of those young Brazilian zep fans?

She hooked me up with two of them at the O2--but then they went back to Brazil. :'(

That brspled!

[Rorer714]

She hooked me up with two of them at the O2--but then they went back to Brazil. :'(

That brspled!

No sense in keeping them anyway,you'd just have to feed them.Young men have a way of eating you out of house and home.

I'm beginning to believe she's a real Brazilian giver.

[guitarmy]

Just speaking for myself here, but as a rule I listen mainly for the music. One of the reasons is that I started listening to rock at the age of 10, and being an Icelandic kid, of course I couldn't really understand the lyrics until a few years later. This simply means that I already appreciated the music a great deal while not really knowing what the lyrics were about. Of course, this in itself is perfectly valid, but in a subjective way: because it doesn't mean everybody else should see things as I do - that would be absurd.

This touches on my point about language and music. Even though you didn't know the language, you could connect with the music, which makes the music stronger to me.

Think if it were in the reverse order and you tried listening to a poem written in English. You probably wouldn't like it because you didn't understand it (until you learned the language).

Music is a language in itself, it's just that we're not hardcoded with music like we are with language. Language is in our DNA, meaning that the thing that separates us from our dead human ancestors is the fact that we survived because we could communicate better.

Everyone had language first, before they had music. I think this gives the writers a head start.

But I think there is more to this. If I placed a lot of emphasis on lyrics in Rock music (generally speaking, not just Led Zeppelin), I would probably stop listening to most of it, and just reach for my books of poetry - even Robert's very best lyrics (TSRTS, say) become laughable when compared with Baudelaire or Rimbaud. Now people will protest and say that the comparison isn't fair.....and I agree. It isn't fair. But WHY is that? Because lyrics in Rock & Roll usually don't have much independent value, aside from context, but are subservient to the music and the general feeling that the song is meant to carry.

This is something Robert did very well - really unusually well. To be quite honest, and at the risk of sounding arrogant, I really think the lyrics of most rock bands are embarrassingly stupid; while some of them can be fun a few times, say, when you're drunk and just having a good time, in the end it's all just extremely shallow.

Generally stupid in the intellectual sense, yes. But as for context, the actual music does a lot of that work. "Immigrant Song" and "Going To California" are both loosely about two journeys, but in "Immigrant Song" it sure sounds like they're gonna get there faster. Likewise, Robert doesn't have to tell you that he's "going to California with an aching" in his heart. You can hear it in the music before he comes to the line.

How do you write a melody to "Immigrant Song" anyways? I'm just picturing Robert Plant doing an impression of Jack Black doing an impression of "Immigrant Song" in the movie "School of Rock".

It would be ridiculous, and that's what tells me this one started with the music/riff.

...

Going even further, I think the music inspires the lyrics a lot more often than the other way around. I believe this is the case because I've found it much easier to put new words to pre-thought-out music than put pre-thought-out words to new music.

Any other musicians wanna weigh in on that? It could be just me, but I think the music is a better starting point. This is coming from a person who *thinks* they can write both music and lyrics, and has done it both ways.

I've got lots of "lyrical material" lying around that I'm not using in any current work, and I've got lots of music lying around as well. But when I want to make something, I just find myself starting with the music and seeing if any of the "lyrical material" fits.

Now maybe you'll say (and I'm sure of it) that it just depends on the person and I guess I could see how it could go the other way around.

BUT!

Both language and music are attempts to describe human thought. Music is on a higher level though, because you can't record all of it with a pencil. Sure, you can write down the notes and chords, etc. If you could really record all of it in this way though, then there'd be no point to having this thing we call "audio".

Playing my own devil's advocate, you can't record all information in text either. Just take the misunderstanding Aquamarine and I had earlier. He thought I was being sarcastic and I simply wasn't. It was just interpreted that way, and so my communication was unsuccessful without a clarification.

So you can't record all the information without any actual recording for either, but I think it's easier to record lyrics from thought, than it is music from thought.

We don't have to think about how the words sound before we say them, at least not in the musical sense. There are plenty of patterns to speech though.

Jimi Hendrix had an unusual gift with words; strewn across his songs you find amazingly poetic expressions that just fit his musical vision like a glove. Robert was only 21 when he took over the writing of lyrics for Led Zeppelin. Extremely young. But he did a really good job, and got better at it over the years, too.

I'm never sure about Hendrix. Why? He fits the 60s so well that I can't tell if he's doing tongue in cheek nostalgia or if he IS THE SOURCE OF NOSTALGIA. Either way, yeah he really pulled it off.

And so did Robert. I don't have half the knowledge of blues history that he did when he started with Led Zeppelin.

As for Robert writing the melodies, I have usually put it slightly differently: He had input on the melodies. This was important, however. Robert likes to improvise, and to not repeat things too much - same as Jimmy, which is one reason why they stylistically fit each other so well. But Jimmy really wrote music with his band mates in mind, and some of the songs are crafted in a way that makes me think he already had at least an outline of a melody in mind when he contacted Robert. Jimmy however has also said that a few times Robert did make him turn his head!

Yeah, among educated listeners, Led Zeppelin has an "anti-band/anti-music" sound that goes against the grain. From the start they knew what to do and executed it perfectly. The smart ones know that it was important to their success, and more so their HUGE success. They didn't agree that a song had to have a set structure and proved that it could be done and it made for some wonderful music.

Of course today, their music doesn't sound anti-anything because they perpetuated it so far that it became the norm. Hmm I don't really see any Led Zeppelin's out there today so maybe they didn't make it normal to make that kind of music. SURE, there are a lot of bands out there today that make music very much so in the spirit of Led Zeppelin. But there's no one out there that does this AND is super successful at it as Led Zeppelin was. Some come close, but not many. I think this is because there are a lot more options out there in the changed media driven world. And I mean "media" in the sense of product (MP3s, CDs, DVDs, ie what you gotta have) as well as the "journalistic"-exposure sense.

Yes, it really was Jimmy's band. But one of the most admirable things about his musical vision was that it left his band mates so much space to express themselves. And what a band it was.

Yeah I agree that it was and is Jimmy's band. It started with JUST HIM. And he wasn't selfish about that and I've never known him to be (or known him haha). I wouldn't blame him if he started to go down that path.

You can do amazing things when you let the other members share the spotlight. Unless you're the aforementioned Jimi Hendrix, who obviously proves me wrong. But that was an extreme exception!

And share the spotlight they did. Each one of them, not just in their own way, but sometimes just literally them with the spotlight on them. Sure the baptized in fire "wanking dog" had PLENTY of moments himself and played one of the most glamorous parts in rock history in doing so.

But I don't think he ever smothered the rest of them (despite the loooooooong solo complaints) and I think he did it in a way that makes us think it wasn't his band. But it was and is. He's just always emphasized the group. Whatever beef he's had with any member (and you KNOW there was something in the 11+ years or even the years since 1980), I've never heard it! It's pretty amazing to keep that stuff to yourself and not be blabbing about it.

But I almost wish he was selfish, because I especially enjoy the heavily Jimmy influenced Led Zeppelin I & II.

...

Let me take the first opportunity to state (within my own post!) that I may have been praying to St. Jimmy a little too much recently.

[Aquamarine]

You had a lot of good thoughts there, which my brain isn't up to giving the consideration they deserve, at this time of night. But your point "Both language and music are attempts to describe human thought" is particularly interesting, and reminds me of the saying--can't remember off-hand who said it--that "writing about music is like dancing about architecture." That's why I find it very hard to express how all this stuff works, and admire those who can express the sense of the music in the medium of lyrics.

Edited to add quickly, he has in fact blabbed quite a bit on and off about Robert over the years, depending on the state of their relationship at the time. And--entirely unconnected thought--Aquamarine is a she.

[SunChild]

Guitararmy wrote a bunch of awesome, thought provoking stuff, which I am going to cut and paste...

Music is a language in itself, it's just that we're not hardcoded with music like we are with language. Language is in our DNA, meaning that the thing that separates us from our dead human ancestors is the fact that we survived because we could communicate better.

Everyone had language first, before they had music. I think this gives the writers a head start.

Yes, I think you're right about the writers' head start.

But, are you sure we're not hardcoded with music? I understand your point, we don't get born with a guitar in our hands and the innate ability to play just through exposure, and the opposite is true of speech.

But it's possible to be illiterate. Whole civilizations of some sophistication didn't have written language. That's something else humans are taught, for which some have a native talent and others don't.

The best music goes straight to my nervous system, straight to my soul. I can't think of anyone (who isn't deaf) that doesn't like music of some kind - and that's including animals, even plants! There are no civilizations without some form of music.

Generally stupid in the intellectual sense, yes. But as for context, the actual music does a lot of that work. "Immigrant Song" and "Going To California" are both loosely about two journeys, but in "Immigrant Song" it sure sounds like they're gonna get there faster. Likewise, Robert doesn't have to tell you that he's "going to California with an aching" in his heart. You can hear it in the music before he comes to the line.

Yes, indeed.

LOl on "in 'Immigrant Song' it sure sounds like they're gonna get there faster."

"Stairway" is another example of lyrics merging with music, which is part of what makes it a masterpiece. But check out this chart of the musical progression, it's literally a stairway:

Yeah, among educated listeners, Led Zeppelin has an "anti-band/anti-music" sound that goes against the grain. From the start they knew what to do and executed it perfectly. The smart ones know that it was important to their success, and more so their HUGE success. They didn't agree that a song had to have a set structure and proved that it could be done and it made for some wonderful music.

You hit the nail right on the head!

So much is said in this simple lyric... "Where's that confounded bridge?"

They LOVE music, it shows at every turn. But frankly they were much more knowledgeable about it than almost any other rock 'n roll band.

They played rock as a legitimate musical form like any other, jazz, classical, standards, big band. They did it within the context of a commercial, even largely disposable genre.

I can see why it pisses a lot of people off, from all over the spectrum.

[guitarmy]

You had a lot of good thoughts there, which my brain isn't up to giving the consideration they deserve, at this time of night. But your point "Both language and music are attempts to describe human thought" is particularly interesting, and reminds me of the saying--can't remember off-hand who said it--that "writing about music is like dancing about architecture." That's why I find it very hard to express how all this stuff works, and admire those who can express the sense of the music in the medium of lyrics.

Yeah it is pretty cool, isn't it?

General listeners, amateurs, and professionals alike can all appreciate what it takes to create something in their own way.

Edited to add quickly, he has in fact blabbed quite a bit on and off about Robert over the years, depending on the state of their relationship at the time. And--entirely unconnected thought--Aquamarine is a she.

Oops! Somehow I knew that but it looks like I slipped. I'm gonna blame it on anonymity of the internet and my memory alike.

[Aquamarine]

Oops! Somehow I knew that but it looks like I slipped. I'm gonna blame it on anonymity of the internet and my memory alike.

No biggie. It's not like I'm on here looking for a date!

[Phlipper]

I could take up this page just lifting quotes from this thread... I won't bother quoting, but there's an awful lot of people in here who obviously DON'T HAVE THE FIRST CLUE WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT!

How can ANYONE possibly believe that the melody is the least important part of a song!?

[Aquamarine]

I could take up this page just lifting quotes from this thread... I won't bother quoting, but there's an awful lot of people in here who obviously DON'T HAVE THE FIRST CLUE WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT!

How can ANYONE possibly believe that the melody is the least important part of a song!?

Nobody said it was, that I'm aware of. Perhaps you don't have the first clue what you're talking about.

[Adi]

Nobody said it was, that I'm aware of. Perhaps you don't have the first clue what you're talking about.

that's exactly what I was thinking... there are some people on this forum that suffers from a problem of not understanding what they're reading... I think they should read every comment several times in order to understand what's wriitten in it...

[guitarmy]

Nobody said it was, that I'm aware of. Perhaps you don't have the first clue what you're talking about.

that's exactly what I was thinking... there are some people on this forum that suffers from a problem of not understanding what they're reading... I think they should read every comment several times in order to understand what's wriitten in it...

Yeah I get this feeling a lot.

It probably has to do with the nature of a forum to begin with. It's just not engineered for thoughtful debate but that doesn't mean we don't try!

I put a lot of thought into my posts and I hope everyone puts a similar effort into understanding where I'm coming from. I certainly try to do the same for all of your posts.

I usually don't strongly agree or disagree with things said around here, but I try to think of ways that I agree and disagree. I'll usually mention both and then say why I think one outweighs the other.

I think it's a good strategy because it at least lets the other person know that you've attempted to see their viewpoint, and to me, that's really all I need.

I don't need someone to agree with what I have to say, I just want them to understand what I was getting at.

[SunChild]

Yeah I get this feeling a lot.

It probably has to do with the nature of a forum to begin with. It's just not engineered for thoughtful debate but that doesn't mean we don't try!

I put a lot of thought into my posts and I hope everyone puts a similar effort into understanding where I'm coming from. I certainly try to do the same for all of your posts.

I usually don't strongly agree or disagree with things said around here, but I try to think of ways that I agree and disagree. I'll usually mention both and then say why I think one outweighs the other.

I think it's a good strategy because it at least lets the other person know that you've attempted to see their viewpoint, and to me, that's really all I need.

I don't need someone to agree with what I have to say, I just want them to understand what I was getting at.

Another nice post.

I've been on other fan forums where lots of thoughtful discussion, as well as civil debate, went on. After all, supposedly we all start from the same place of appreciating the band and its music, and should have that in common. I have my own thoughts as to what derails discussions here, but it's really too bad.

One thing is, there's a culture of really really avoiding flame wars, which is a double-edged sword. Anyone who cut their teeth on Usenet is a little more rough-and-tumble than what is tolerated here. The civility of a moderated forum is to nice, too. But maybe a little more freedom of speech, letting personalities exist side by side, could also be tolerated? (Boy, going way off topic here...)

What you write about having mutual respect and at least making an effort to acknowledge other people's POV is excellent.

[guitarmy]

It looks like this thread clears it up.

I hear you loud and clear Jimmy.

What's interesting is that it would be Led Zeppelin WITH Robert Plant, following Jimmy's logic.

[Rorer714]

It looks like this thread clears it up.

I hear you loud and clear Jimmy.

What's interesting is that it would be Led Zeppelin WITH Robert Plant, following Jimmy's logic.

Thus ends another thread...unless you want to rationalize "WITH Robert Plant"?

It'll be awesome whatever it is.Let's go with that,okay?

[Phlipper]

Nobody said it was, that I'm aware of. Perhaps you don't have the first clue what you're talking about.

There were assertions that Plant's input was 'minimal' to say the least. For those of you who've never received a royalty check, the simplest way to put it is this royalty share:

Lyrics / Melody: 50%

Music: 50%

This is how a cold, hard calculating lawyer works it out. Many bands forego this for an even split, but many don't. If you then bare in mind that the lyrics and melody will ALMOST ALWAYS affect and change the structure (at least) of an already written song/riff, that also puts the composer of the lyrics/melody into a share of the music percentage. Now... who's got the 'greater' input to a song?

I personally think that Plant is irreplaceable, but that shouldn't stop the others from doing anything. Just that the new singer would need to have the chops to cope with the Zep stuff as well as new stuff

[guitarmy]

Thus ends another thread...unless you want to rationalize "WITH Robert Plant"?

It'll be awesome whatever it is.Let's go with that,okay?

Yes, rest in peace my thread.

OH WAIT another post... IT"S AALIIIIIVE

There were assertions that Plant's input was 'minimal' to say the least. For those of you who've never received a royalty check, the simplest way to put it is this royalty share:

Lyrics / Melody: 50%

Music: 50%

This is how a cold, hard calculating lawyer works it out. Many bands forego this for an even split, but many don't. If you then bare in mind that the lyrics and melody will ALMOST ALWAYS affect and change the structure (at least) of an already written song/riff, that also puts the composer of the lyrics/melody into a share of the music percentage. Now... who's got the 'greater' input to a song?

I personally think that Plant is irreplaceable, but that shouldn't stop the others from doing anything. Just that the new singer would need to have the chops to cope with the Zep stuff as well as new stuff

Isn't the melody part of the music?

As far as lyrics and melody effecting the structure, it might go the other way too. The music will effect the lyrics and does, because at the very least it sets a tone/feeling for the writer (who may be the same person).

It really depends on how the song was developed. Either way, it may only just be a COTE argument.

COTE = chicken or the egg

I don't agree with the way the lawyers do a lot of things in the music business. There are things I would bring up in a "Led Zeppelin stole lyrics" thread (in their defense of course!), but I'm glad that this thread did not come to that.

[Phlipper]

Isn't the melody part of the music?

As far as lyrics and melody effecting the structure, it might go the other way too. The music will effect the lyrics and does, because at the very least it sets a tone/feeling for the writer (who may be the same person).

It really depends on how the song was developed. Either way, it may only just be a COTE argument.

COTE = chicken or the egg

I don't agree with the way the lawyers do a lot of things in the music business. There are things I would bring up in a "Led Zeppelin stole lyrics" thread (in their defense of course!), but I'm glad that this thread did not come to that.

That's kind of my point.... it's all fluid - for people in here to say that Robert played less part in Zep's success than JP or JPJ is crap - chemistry is as much as anything else, and for that it took all four of them

[EpicForest]

There were assertions that Plant's input was 'minimal' to say the least. For those of you who've never received a royalty check, the simplest way to put it is this royalty share:

Lyrics / Melody: 50%

Music: 50%

Maybe that's how they cut it up for royalties but to me the lyrics are the least important aspect in the music. You appear to give it a split with melody, so 25%. I'd give the lyrical part MUCH less as it's the way one sings that gives the music it's validity. Someone could sing about yellow matter custard or a craberlocker fishwife for all I care. Honestly, poetry always bored me to tears.

I wanna be your big stuff hurtin'

always sounded better to me than

I wanna be your beast of burden, anyway.