Quintas Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 It wasn't just the failure of Roberts voice. It's that ALL of that great material from LZ1-Physical Graffiti was all done from 68-72. We may quibble over when a recording took place. But the vast majority was all pre-73. The 73,75,77 and 80 tours were essentially Vegas acts. The last LZ tour that mattered was 1972. Its just a fact. Would I pay to see them in '75 or '77? Yes I would. But its NOT the same band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ykrej Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 :slapface: I do not agree. They wrote brilliant material after Physical Graffiti...and the 1973 tour was to promote Houses of the Holy, the '75 tour to promote Physical Graffiti, the '77 tour was with Presence. No Vegas acts there. Imho the whole argument you just made is plain silly. It was the same band, it had just evolved a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Page_Maniac Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Led Zeppelin covered some great blues songs on the early albums. Since these songs were orginially written before 1968 it would appear that Led Zeppelin never really existed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mad dog Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 It wasn't just the failure of Roberts voice. It's that ALL of that great material from LZ1-Physical Graffiti was all done from 68-72. We may quibble over when a recording took place. But the vast majority was all pre-73. The 73,75,77 and 80 tours were essentially Vegas acts. The last LZ tour that mattered was 1972. Its just a fact. Would I pay to see them in '75 or '77? Yes I would. But its NOT the same band. You are misinformed, it is just fact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Action Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Did I really just read this shit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 It wasn't just the failure of Roberts voice. It's that ALL of that great material from LZ1-Physical Graffiti was all done from 68-72. We may quibble over when a recording took place. But the vast majority was all pre-73. The 73,75,77 and 80 tours were essentially Vegas acts. The last LZ tour that mattered was 1972. Its just a fact. Would I pay to see them in '75 or '77? Yes I would. But its NOT the same band. Completely disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rover Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Hello member 11,600: Your views are not shared by many on this board. I suspect your view are from the outside, ie, from someone that did not experience Led Zeppelin's live shows in person before and after 1972.... In concert Zeppelin were as dynamic in 1977 as they were in 1970. Every show.... I don't think so... But I was lucky enough to see them in top form twice in 1977 and in 1975. They were as good then as they were in 1970, which was very, very, very Good ! I gues you had to be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ally Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 It wasn't just the failure of Roberts voice. It's that ALL of that great material from LZ1-Physical Graffiti was all done from 68-72. We may quibble over when a recording took place. But the vast majority was all pre-73. The 73,75,77 and 80 tours were essentially Vegas acts. The last LZ tour that mattered was 1972. Its just a fact. Would I pay to see them in '75 or '77? Yes I would. But its NOT the same band. While I personally agree that 68 - 72 were the peak live years of the band, I can't agree that they did nothing worthwhile after that. Plenty of good new material to choose from and the 73 and 75 tours had many highlights. 77 was the last time I saw them live and although I wasn't blown away by much of it, comparing them to a Vegas act, would to say the least, be a real insult Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Action Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 My take on the tours: 1968-1969- Youthful and energetic. 1970-72- The above, and even more passionate. More spot-on as well. 1973- Started off great, rather sluggish as the tour progressed in America. Not my favorite year. 1975- Energetic and expansive, though sloppy at times. Superior to 1973. More energy. 1977- The best AND worst, wrapped up in one tour. No Quarter was simply amazing. However, other songs such as Kashmir and ALS hit some serious issues at times. The highs of this tour beat them all. Robert's singing better than the last two tours by quite a bit. 1979- Jimmy is on FIRE 7-24 and 8-4. Robert gets his voice back nearly 100%, and the rest of the band simply gets it done. 1980- Sloppy and lackluster, save for a few performances. It actually FELT like the end, even before Bonzo left us. Jimmy sounded wasted and worn out at times. There were a few outstanding pieces though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ally Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 My take on the tours: 1968-1969- Youthful and energetic. 1970-72- The above, and even more passionate. More spot-on as well. 1973- Started off great, rather sluggish as the tour progressed in America. Not my favorite year. 1975- Energetic and expansive, though sloppy at times. Superior to 1973. More energy. 1977- The best AND worst, wrapped up in one tour. No Quarter was simply amazing. However, other songs such as Kashmir and ALS hit some serious issues at times. The highs of this tour beat them all. Robert's singing better than the last two tours by quite a bit. 1979- Jimmy is on FIRE 7-24 and 8-4. Robert gets his voice back nearly 100%, and the rest of the band simply gets it done. 1980- Sloppy and lackluster, save for a few performances. It actually FELT like the end, even before Bonzo left us. Jimmy sounded wasted and worn out at times. There were a few outstanding pieces though. That sums it up pretty nicely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintas Posted December 2, 2008 Author Share Posted December 2, 2008 Led Zeppelin covered some great blues songs on the early albums. Since these songs were orginially written before 1968 it would appear that Led Zeppelin never really existed. Im not just talking about the 'early' albums. Led zep I-IV, Houses of the Holy and half of PG were recorded between between 68-72. The main creative burst was between these years. Was there good material recorded later? Yes. Were there good shows after '72? Yes. Rehearsed, predictable Arena shows, but yes, some were 'good' if you enjoy that sort of thing. But it wasn't the same. I hope my post doesn't sound trollish. Im not trying to argue. I like Presence, but I still stand by my statement that post '72 was a Vegas act that recorded a few songs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ally Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Im not just talking about the 'early' albums. Led zep I-IV, Houses of the Holy and half of PG were recorded between between 68-72. The main creative burst was between these years. Was there good material recorded later? Yes. Were there good shows after '72? Yes. Rehearsed, predictable Arena shows, but yes, some were 'good' if you enjoy that sort of thing. But it wasn't the same. I hope my post doesn't sound trollish. Im not trying to argue. I like Presence, but I still stand by my statement that post '72 was a Vegas act that recorded a few songs. It didn't sound trollish to me. Like I said, I happen to agree about those years as a live act. Just not the rest of your opinion but hey, your certainly entitled to it. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adi Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 My take on the tours: 1968-1969- Youthful and energetic. 1970-72- The above, and even more passionate. More spot-on as well. 1973- Started off great, rather sluggish as the tour progressed in America. Not my favorite year. 1975- Energetic and expansive, though sloppy at times. Superior to 1973. More energy. 1977- The best AND worst, wrapped up in one tour. No Quarter was simply amazing. However, other songs such as Kashmir and ALS hit some serious issues at times. The highs of this tour beat them all. Robert's singing better than the last two tours by quite a bit. 1979- Jimmy is on FIRE 7-24 and 8-4. Robert gets his voice back nearly 100%, and the rest of the band simply gets it done. 1980- Sloppy and lackluster, save for a few performances. It actually FELT like the end, even before Bonzo left us. Jimmy sounded wasted and worn out at times. There were a few outstanding pieces though. I couldn't agree more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 It wasn't just the failure of Roberts voice. It's that ALL of that great material from LZ1-Physical Graffiti was all done from 68-72. We may quibble over when a recording took place. But the vast majority was all pre-73. The 73,75,77 and 80 tours were essentially Vegas acts. The last LZ tour that mattered was 1972. Its just a fact. Would I pay to see them in '75 or '77? Yes I would. But its NOT the same band. Couldn't disagree more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joao Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 I kinda understand the "vegas" part, their shows got bigger, more lights, bigger venues, complex light shows, everything got more theatrical and I know that, I think was Robert who said that punk rock show them these exaggerations... I also read somewhere a critic I think talking about the early live shows saying that the LZ members looked like they could just have jumped from the crowd. First I'd like to say that I'm definitely a newbie when it comes to zep's history and that I've read those things somewhere and I'm not making things up but if I'm saying something wrong I apologize in advance, secondly I'm really into their early stuff now so probably not the best judge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3hrsoflunacy Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Im not just talking about the 'early' albums. Led zep I-IV, Houses of the Holy and half of PG were recorded between between 68-72. The main creative burst was between these years. Was there good material recorded later? Yes. Were there good shows after '72? Yes. Rehearsed, predictable Arena shows, but yes, some were 'good' if you enjoy that sort of thing. But it wasn't the same. I hope my post doesn't sound trollish. Im not trying to argue. I like Presence, but I still stand by my statement that post '72 was a Vegas act that recorded a few songs. I can assure you that was no Vegas act that rolled through Vienna, Munich, Berlin, Hamburg, Essen, and Offenburg in 1973. Each of us are entitled to our opinion, and I won't blast you for yours; but part of the beauty of the group was they weren't always the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adi Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 It wasn't just the failure of Roberts voice. It's that ALL of that great material from LZ1-Physical Graffiti was all done from 68-72. We may quibble over when a recording took place. But the vast majority was all pre-73. The 73,75,77 and 80 tours were essentially Vegas acts. The last LZ tour that mattered was 1972. Its just a fact. Would I pay to see them in '75 or '77? Yes I would. But its NOT the same band. How can you state that your own opinion is a fact?? I completely disagree with your statement and with all due respect I really don't understand where you made up all this crap from... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Action Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 How can you state that your own opinion is a fact??I completely disagree with your statement and with all due respect I really don't understand where you made up all this crap from... I was wondering about that one myself... I still take umbrage at the "Las Vegas act" crack. The Stones' last few tours? Well, that would qualify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanie_72 Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 It wasn't just the failure of Roberts voice. It's that ALL of that great material from LZ1-Physical Graffiti was all done from 68-72. We may quibble over when a recording took place. But the vast majority was all pre-73. The 73,75,77 and 80 tours were essentially Vegas acts. The last LZ tour that mattered was 1972. Its just a fact. Would I pay to see them in '75 or '77? Yes I would. But its NOT the same band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adi Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 I was wondering about that one myself... I still take umbrage at the "Las Vegas act" crack. The Stones' last few tours? Well, that would qualify. Agreed. Their last few tours are a true example to a "Vegas act"... I really don't think any of Led Zeppelin's concerts can be considered as an exaggerated theatrical show... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Action Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Agreed. Their last few tours are a true example to a "Vegas act"... I really don't think any of Led Zeppelin's concerts can be considered as an exaggerated theatrical show... Yeah. The Stones really pissed me off when they started all that "Sideshow Bob" shit with about 15 backing singers, a brass section and that fucking Chuck "Plink Plonk" Leavell. Las Vegas, indeed. Get back Taylor, and dump all that other shit. What were we talking about again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adi Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Yeah. The Stones really pissed me off when they started all that "Sideshow Bob" shit with about 15 backing singers, a brass section and that fucking Chuck "Plink Plonk" Leavell. Las Vegas, indeed. Get back Taylor, and dump all that other shit. What were we talking about again? Good call...it's really the time he'll move his ass right where it belongs with the Stones.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 1969-Intense, white hot energy exploded through the concert hall. 1973-They delivered high energy, power-packed, strong, carefree, light-hearted performances. You needed a few days to recover from one of those nights. 1975-Red hot and smoldering waves of music rocked the forum. Again, you needed 24 hours to come back to earth following one of these nights. 1977-A change was in the air. It wasn't just the failure of Roberts voice. It's that ALL of that great material from LZ1-Physical Graffiti was all done from 68-72. We may quibble over when a recording took place. But the vast majority was all pre-73. The 73,75,77 and 80 tours were essentially Vegas acts. The last LZ tour that mattered was 1972. Its just a fact. Would I pay to see them in '75 or '77? Yes I would. But its NOT the same band. I think I know what you mean. He was so strong in those days between 1968-1972 that he could not help himself. That's not taking anything away from subsequent performances that followed throughout the years. They weren't exactly Vegas acts after 1973, but I remember how it was in 1969, and you are right, there was a change after that. 1969 was very power-packed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ally Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 How can you state that your own opinion is a fact?? I completely disagree with your statement and with all due respect I really don't understand where you made up all this crap from... In fairness Adi, if the poster is someone who saw the band from 68-72 then I can somewhat understand where they might be coming from. There is no doubt that from 73 on, there were certainly more theatrics with lighting etc and the whole stage act certainly changed, especially Robert. I must admit that I wasn't too thrilled to see fireworks being let off on the stage. It seemed a little hoaky to me and most of my friends who had seen the band previously. As I've said, I agree with the poster about the live performances but strongly disagree about the studio work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Action Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 In fairness Adi, if the poster is someone who saw the band from 68-72 then I can somewhat understand where they might be coming from. There is no doubt that from 73 on, there were certainly more theatrics with lighting etc and the whole stage act certainly changed, especially Robert. I must admit that I wasn't too thrilled to see fireworks being let off on the stage. It seemed a little hoaky to me and most of my friends who had seen the band previously. As I've said, I agree with the poster about the live performances but strongly disagree about the studio work Must you ALWAYS be so damned reasonable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.