eternal light 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. He's essentially right about 1968-1972. I remember an incredibly solid, intense wall of energy that delivered a wham like a sonic boom, very hot stuff. Picture a volcano erupting; the heat was almost searing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ally Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 He's essentially right about 1968-1972. I remember an incredibly solid wall of energy that delivered a wham like a sonic boom, very hot stuff. Picture a volcano erupting; the heat was almost searing. Excellent description EL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adi 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 I understand what you're saying but yet again their shows weren't just about some fireworks or light shows...their shows were great and successful mainly because the musical performances were great... he wrote in his comment: 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 I can understand from this comment that since their shows got more theatrical it made Led Zeppelin a shitty band and because of that their career was over and with this saying I definitely can't agree... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ally Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Must you ALWAYS be so damned reasonable? Ahh,well I don't like to speak for other's but, I've made my share of posts here that didn't come over quite the way I wished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 I understand what you're saying but yet again their shows weren't just about some fireworks or light shows...their shows were great and successful mainly because the musical performances were great... he wrote in his comment: I can understand from this comment that since their shows got more theatrical it made Led Zeppelin a shitty band and because of that their career was over and with this saying I definitely can't agree... No, that's not what he means. It was different in 1969. Using Las Vegas as a way to characterize the change is not quite accurate, but there was a difference in the following years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ally Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 I understand what you're saying but yet again their shows weren't just about some fireworks or light shows...their shows were great and successful mainly because the musical performances were great... he wrote in his comment: I can understand from this comment that since their shows got more theatrical it made Led Zeppelin a shitty band and because of that their career was over and with this saying I definitely can't agree... I can't agree with the Vegas tag either Adi. I should have added that in my comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Action Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 No, that's not what he means. It was different in 1969. Using Las Vegas as a way to characterize the change is not quite accurate, but there was a difference in the following years. I think he had the right intent, but the wrong phrasing. Using the term" Las Vegas act" definitely means they were but a shell of themselves, a joke. At least that's the way I read it. No worries though. We all have our individual perceptions of Led Zeppelin's career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 I think he had the right intent, but the wrong phrasing. Using the term" Las Vegas act" definitely means they were but a shell of themselves, a joke. At least that's the way I read it. No worries though. We all have our individual perceptions of Led Zeppelin's career. You're right, shrugging Led Zeppelin off as another Vegas act in 1973 fails to do the band justice, as they delivered heart and soul during that time as well. I guess he was at a loss for words to describe the change that did happen after 1969. He is correct, 1973 brought a different kind of a performance from the band, but certainly a high quality one. But the kinetics in 1969 were different than 1973. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adi Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 No, that's not what he means. It was different in 1969. Using Las Vegas as a way to characterize the change is not quite accurate, but there was a difference in the following years. I know. I can see it very clearly...I just don't like the way he disrespected the band...I think that even with the "theatricality" their shows were still great and their musical career definitely didn't end on their 1972 tour... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 I know. I can see it very clearly...I just don't like the way he disrespected the band...I think that even with the "theatricality" their shows were still great and their musical career definitely didn't end on their 1972 tour... He probably did not intend any disrespect, but was maybe struggling for the right words to describe the change. You're right, Led Zeppelin certainly delivered very high quality goods in 1973 and after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ally Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 I know. I can see it very clearly...I just don't like the way he disrespected the band...I think that even with the "theatricality" their shows were still great and their musical career definitely didn't end on their 1972 tour... It didn't Adi http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6z6USHq2MU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glicine Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 You're right, shrugging Led Zeppelin off as another Vegas act in 1973 fails to do the band justice, as they delivered heart and soul during that time as well. I guess he was at a loss for words to describe the change that did happen after 1969. He is correct, 1973 brought a different kind of a performance from the band, but certainly a high quality one. But the kinetics in 1969 were different than 1973. Yes, you've got the right word EL. It was "different". But worse? No at least not in my eyes. And he indeed went too far to say the band delivered nothing really good after 1972. Robert's voice changed, the band took different musical directions, but, like you said, heart and soul was still there, it was still the Led Zeppelin we had and loved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danelectro59 Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 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. I think you're very misinformed. Some of PG was recorded pre-73, but most was done in 1974. And if you think Presence wasn't one of their best albums, you've been listening to another group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGDAN Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Hi All, I would just like to say this, with Led Zeppelin it was all about the music not the "theatricality". Music first, theatre second. But Led Zeppelin never stood on their laurels, as their music went through changes why would their stage act not change as well. They didnt even have a light show untill, as i think Jimmy once said, "we saw the Bad Company light show and decieded we needed to catch up with what was going on in the real world" or something like it. People keep going on about them being better in this year or that year, the tour in this year was better than the one in that year, so what? I'm just so glad that i have been able to listen to their music for 38 years. I've had a copy of "The Song Remains The Same" on VHS video since 1976, yes i said 1976, and it cost me and arm and a leg to get it converted to Betamax as that was the machine i had at the time. And of course the three times i have seen them, Knebworth twice and Munich 1980, and i wish i had seen them a lot more but ticket demand as it was then ment you were not always that lucky. So who cares, when, who, how or why?, just enjoy, because when they are all gone we will only have the Music anyway. Regards, Danny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 From what I have read they scaled things back for the 1980 tour so I'm not sure how that would qualify as a "Vegas" type production. The clips I've seen from Knebworth also appear to me as Zep blasting on the stage in the manner in which they do best - nothing "showy" about it from my eyes. Their shows changed over the years but that was part of the magic of Zep - the music changed too. It'd be boring if they stayed exactly the same. Not having seen them live, I am only basing it on knowing people who have as well as seeing bootleg dvds and I can't say just because the arenas were larger over the years that they lost their edge and became more of a revue, or whatever you want to call it. Presence happens to be my absolute favorite Zep album Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatbo Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 zeppelin certainly existed to the day john bonham died. to state otherwise is to comment on your own opinion. whether you appreciated a band that grew outside of the parameter that you were accustomed to, or if it was not as pleasing to you in some respect is an entirely different statement. i myself believe 9or choose to believe) that the 1980 tour would have been a monster with the band finding the groove and slamming it into your forehead. europe was meant to be a warm-up, after all. and physical graffitti? instant nullification of your point. one of the greatest albums of all time. even the songs recorded for that album. i saw other comments, vegas and what-not. oh, and stones. that's right. taylor is washed up, btw.(unless you find those old arlen roth guitar lesson videosfrom the '80s). and you get your moneys worth with the stones if you like seeing rock music in a stadium. mick jagger sings better than he ever did. obviously not everyone's cup of tea. better than U2 in a stadium. but i love both bands... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Action Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 zeppelin certainly existed to the day john bonham died. to state otherwise is to comment on your own opinion. whether you appreciated a band that grew outside of the parameter that you were accustomed to, or if it was not as pleasing to you in some respect is an entirely different statement. i myself believe 9or choose to believe) that the 1980 tour would have been a monster with the band finding the groove and slamming it into your forehead. europe was meant to be a warm-up, after all. and physical graffitti? instant nullification of your point. one of the greatest albums of all time. even the songs recorded for that album. i saw other comments, vegas and what-not. oh, and stones. that's right. taylor is washed up, btw.(unless you find those old arlen roth guitar lesson videosfrom the '80s). and you get your moneys worth with the stones if you like seeing rock music in a stadium. mick jagger sings better than he ever did. obviously not everyone's cup of tea. better than U2 in a stadium. but i love both bands... You were doing great till you got to the Stones. Taylor isn't washed up at all. And Jagger...uh, well this is a topic for another thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatbo Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 You were doing great till you got to the Stones. Taylor isn't washed up at all. And Jagger...uh, well this is a topic for another thread. agreed. just making a point that this is an opinion thread, not fact (or close to it). and we all have one of those... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Action Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 agreed. just making a point that this is an opinion thread, not fact (or close to it). and we all have one of those... Fair enough. Of course, I never used the word "fact", unlike the other chap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dzldoc Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Myself, I love the big light shows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Yes, you've got the right word EL. It was "different". But worse? No at least not in my eyes. And he indeed went too far to say the band delivered nothing really good after 1972. Robert's voice changed, the band took different musical directions, but, like you said, heart and soul was still there, it was still the Led Zeppelin we had and loved. Time naturally brings changes. It would be very unusual to duplicate what happened in 1969. And you are correct, the band delivered excellent quality after 1972. I guess the guy just missed the huge, exhilirating rush of energy from 1969, the whole massive all out thrill that it really was. If you think Robert Plant has a strong ego today, you should have seen him then. And always remember, he must be proud of what he does. So there was a lot of that spirit underlining everything with great enthusiasm. Led Zeppelin truly did spoil us in 1969. As a result some of us are very hard to please now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Haircut Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 I'll amend his point to include 1973. That was the last year I was so heavily into Led Zeppelin and it was because Houses of the Holy was released then and that was the last album that was a 10 to me. I love the live shows up to then and most of 1975 and some of '77 - '80, but nowhere near the '68-'73 period. Funny how people get up in such arms about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Haircut Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Fair enough. Of course, I never used the word "fact", unlike the other chap. But even through that, it is IN FACT his opinion. That's the only way to read a statement like that. He's no more wrong than someone saying it's a FACT that all the albums were great. It's ALL, in fact, opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zepyep Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Hi all, 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. Shithead,and that is what you are,... 4 posts and you are an expert!O k,....... Your ignorance is bliss and you don't know what your talking about. Maybe learn something here and the spout off,...one can only hope. Then again,.. KB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 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. Your certainly entitled to your opinion, but history ("...demand unprecedented in the history of rock...") strongly suggests otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.