The Led Zeppelin Discussion Thread

[bathory]

New discussion point--my qualm with LZ:

 

Often times I find when I'm listening to LZ that I love the vocals, drums, and bass consistently, but Page is a total wild card. He might play something really cool and inspired, or he might fumble around for notes in a pretty amateur sounding manner, and often times I find he does a bit of both. I suppose it's mostly his leads I'm talking about, but he takes so many of them, it just seems like they could sound a bit less...sloppy?

 

You know he was a heroin addict from about 1975 until 1980, right? Are you talking about before 1975?

 

I tend to assume nearly anyone famous in that decade was on some kind of drugs, but most of them still manage to sound consistenly good, bad, average, inspiring, etc. Page just makes me mad because I often feel like he had much more potential had he just worked harder.

 

are you talking about his live performances? I don't find page's studio work sloppy or amateur at all. maybe "loose" or "unstructured" at times, but led zeppelin doesn't need al di meola or allan holdsworth. page's flaws just add to the sexiness of the led!

[custom55]

Robert can't plan any musical instruments? Other than the tambourine (even I can play that :) )?

 

Anyone here see them in the seventies?

 

I saw LZ 14 times... 73, 75 and 77 tours :codger: I have tickets stubs from 75 and 77.

 

[Entre_Perpetuo]

New discussion point--my qualm with LZ:

 

Often times I find when I'm listening to LZ that I love the vocals, drums, and bass consistently, but Page is a total wild card. He might play something really cool and inspired, or he might fumble around for notes in a pretty amateur sounding manner, and often times I find he does a bit of both. I suppose it's mostly his leads I'm talking about, but he takes so many of them, it just seems like they could sound a bit less...sloppy?

 

You know he was a heroin addict from about 1975 until 1980, right? Are you talking about before 1975?

 

I tend to assume nearly anyone famous in that decade was on some kind of drugs, but most of them still manage to sound consistenly good, bad, average, inspiring, etc. Page just makes me mad because I often feel like he had much more potential had he just worked harder.

 

are you talking about his live performances? I don't find page's studio work sloppy or amateur at all. maybe "loose" or "unstructured" at times, but led zeppelin doesn't need al di meola or allan holdsworth. page's flaws just add to the sexiness of the led!

 

Well amateur might not be the right word, but I often get the impression that he could play better but doesn't care enough to, now that I think about it I don't really hear much if this on Zep II, so maybe it came with fame.

[goose]

There's a bit that doesn't work with my two attempts on this subject, but the overall theme is about the same. I think that LZ shined brightest, but that Rush kept up a high standard for a long time and probably has more music that I consider great.

That was very well done! :cheers:

 

My favs:

 

MP v. ITTOD - The Camera Eye is a magical keyboard epic, while Carouselembra is a keyboard editing mistake that lasts over 10 minutes. :clap:

 

HYF v N&Z - Plant makes a rockin' keyboard record, showing that it can be done. Rush does not. :rfl:

 

VT v Might ReArranger - Rush comes back with a vengeance, and Plant just comes back. :rfl:

[goose]

Robert can't plan any musical instruments? Other than the tambourine (even I can play that :) )?

 

Anyone here see them in the seventies?

 

I saw LZ 14 times... 73, 75 and 77 tours :codger: I have tickets stubs from 75 and 77.

 

http://youtu.be/c4wNqjdCccY

:clap:

[goose]

New discussion point--my qualm with LZ:

 

Often times I find when I'm listening to LZ that I love the vocals, drums, and bass consistently, but Page is a total wild card. He might play something really cool and inspired, or he might fumble around for notes in a pretty amateur sounding manner, and often times I find he does a bit of both. I suppose it's mostly his leads I'm talking about, but he takes so many of them, it just seems like they could sound a bit less...sloppy?

 

You know he was a heroin addict from about 1975 until 1980, right? Are you talking about before 1975?

 

I tend to assume nearly anyone famous in that decade was on some kind of drugs, but most of them still manage to sound consistenly good, bad, average, inspiring, etc. Page just makes me mad because I often feel like he had much more potential had he just worked harder.

 

are you talking about his live performances? I don't find page's studio work sloppy or amateur at all. maybe "loose" or "unstructured" at times, but led zeppelin doesn't need al di meola or allan holdsworth. page's flaws just add to the sexiness of the led!

 

Well amateur might not be the right word, but I often get the impression that he could play better but doesn't care enough to, now that I think about it I don't really hear much if this on Zep II, so maybe it came with fame.

The sloppiness is the bluesy aspect of Zeppelin. It's intentional.

[goose]

I gotta tell ya, I don't feel the love for Houses of the Holy as much as some of my fellow TRFers. The reason, most likely, is the dreaded overplayed syndrome.

 

I think "The Crunge" is among Led Zeppelin's very few failed experiments. When I'm in certain moods, it just grates on me. I feel the same way about "D'yer Mak'er". I don't think they are bad songs, just bad Led Zeppelin songs.

 

And, I never really get the urge to listen to "The Ocean".

 

Everything else, top notch Zeppelin.

I'm with you on HotH. I love No Quarter, Over the Hills and Far Away, and the Crunge. The Ocean I adored in high school...and still have a soft spot for from my lunch room a cappella days with my mates. The rest...the vocals annoy me, and the production is too clean.

[ReRushed]

New discussion point--my qualm with LZ:

 

Often times I find when I'm listening to LZ that I love the vocals, drums, and bass consistently, but Page is a total wild card. He might play something really cool and inspired, or he might fumble around for notes in a pretty amateur sounding manner, and often times I find he does a bit of both. I suppose it's mostly his leads I'm talking about, but he takes so many of them, it just seems like they could sound a bit less...sloppy?

 

You know he was a heroin addict from about 1975 until 1980, right? Are you talking about before 1975?

 

I tend to assume nearly anyone famous in that decade was on some kind of drugs, but most of them still manage to sound consistenly good, bad, average, inspiring, etc. Page just makes me mad because I often feel like he had much more potential had he just worked harder.

 

are you talking about his live performances? I don't find page's studio work sloppy or amateur at all. maybe "loose" or "unstructured" at times, but led zeppelin doesn't need al di meola or allan holdsworth. page's flaws just add to the sexiness of the led!

 

Well amateur might not be the right word, but I often get the impression that he could play better but doesn't care enough to, now that I think about it I don't really hear much if this on Zep II, so maybe it came with fame.

The sloppiness is the bluesy aspect of Zeppelin. It's intentional.

Jimmy Page was the top session musician in England pre-Led Zeppelin. You don't achieve that by being a "sloppy" player. I once bought into the "Jimmy Page is a sloppy player" narrative. But, when I give Led Zeppelin a focused listen I find his playing anything but sloppy. Raw. Emotional. Free. At times, brilliant. But not sloppy.

Edited October 20, 2015 by ReRushed

[goose]

Of the 25 best songs from the bands combined, I wouldn't put more than 3 Zep songs on the list. And Rush would have at least the top 7 albums.

 

You opinion may differ.

Ya think?

 

[New_World_Man]

I voted for PG. There's a few songs on "houses of the holy" that rub me the wrong way.

[New_World_Man]

Wow, I didn't even know Robert Plant plays the guitar. Apparently Roger Daltry does too.

[HemiBeers]

New discussion point--my qualm with LZ:

 

Often times I find when I'm listening to LZ that I love the vocals, drums, and bass consistently, but Page is a total wild card. He might play something really cool and inspired, or he might fumble around for notes in a pretty amateur sounding manner, and often times I find he does a bit of both. I suppose it's mostly his leads I'm talking about, but he takes so many of them, it just seems like they could sound a bit less...sloppy?

 

You know he was a heroin addict from about 1975 until 1980, right? Are you talking about before 1975?

 

I tend to assume nearly anyone famous in that decade was on some kind of drugs, but most of them still manage to sound consistenly good, bad, average, inspiring, etc. Page just makes me mad because I often feel like he had much more potential had he just worked harder.

 

are you talking about his live performances? I don't find page's studio work sloppy or amateur at all. maybe "loose" or "unstructured" at times, but led zeppelin doesn't need al di meola or allan holdsworth. page's flaws just add to the sexiness of the led!

 

Well amateur might not be the right word, but I often get the impression that he could play better but doesn't care enough to, now that I think about it I don't really hear much if this on Zep II, so maybe it came with fame.

The sloppiness is the bluesy aspect of Zeppelin. It's intentional.

Jimmy and I have that intentional sloppy blues playing in common.

Edited October 20, 2015 by 2112FirstStreet

[HemiBeers]

Presence for Achilles and Nobody's Fault. Just because they're awesome. Throw away the rest of the album.

[LedRush]

Wow, I didn't even know Robert Plant plays the guitar. Apparently Roger Daltry does too.

 

Daltrey used to make guitars, IIRC. Plant learned soon after joining LZ.

Edited October 20, 2015 by LedRush

[goose]

New discussion point--my qualm with LZ:

 

Often times I find when I'm listening to LZ that I love the vocals, drums, and bass consistently, but Page is a total wild card. He might play something really cool and inspired, or he might fumble around for notes in a pretty amateur sounding manner, and often times I find he does a bit of both. I suppose it's mostly his leads I'm talking about, but he takes so many of them, it just seems like they could sound a bit less...sloppy?

 

You know he was a heroin addict from about 1975 until 1980, right? Are you talking about before 1975?

 

I tend to assume nearly anyone famous in that decade was on some kind of drugs, but most of them still manage to sound consistenly good, bad, average, inspiring, etc. Page just makes me mad because I often feel like he had much more potential had he just worked harder.

 

are you talking about his live performances? I don't find page's studio work sloppy or amateur at all. maybe "loose" or "unstructured" at times, but led zeppelin doesn't need al di meola or allan holdsworth. page's flaws just add to the sexiness of the led!

 

Well amateur might not be the right word, but I often get the impression that he could play better but doesn't care enough to, now that I think about it I don't really hear much if this on Zep II, so maybe it came with fame.

The sloppiness is the bluesy aspect of Zeppelin. It's intentional.

Jimmy Page was the top session musician in England pre-Led Zeppelin. You don't achieve that by being a "sloppy" player. I once bought into the "Jimmy Page is a sloppy player" narrative. But, when I give Led Zeppelin a focused listen I find his playing anything but sloppy. Raw. Emotional. Free. At times, brilliant. But not sloppy.

Yeah...Jimmy was a music-biz insider. I thought about that as I was navigating the site the Re-Rushed posted (I think it was him). Zeppelin was carefully crafted, and Jimmy was shrewd in the business side of things. He borrowed from the best...and the obscure (relatively speaking) Edited October 20, 2015 by goose

[LedRush]

I gotta tell ya, I don't feel the love for Houses of the Holy as much as some of my fellow TRFers. The reason, most likely, is the dreaded overplayed syndrome.

 

I think "The Crunge" is among Led Zeppelin's very few failed experiments. When I'm in certain moods, it just grates on me. I feel the same way about "D'yer Mak'er". I don't think they are bad songs, just bad Led Zeppelin songs.

 

And, I never really get the urge to listen to "The Ocean".

 

Everything else, top notch Zeppelin.

I'm with you on HotH. I love No Quarter, Over the Hills and Far Away, and the Crunge. The Ocean I adored in high school...and still have a soft spot for from my lunch room a cappella days with my mates. The rest...the vocals annoy me, and the production is too clean.

 

When The Song Remains the Same and The Rain Song are the weakest links, you know you have an all-time great album.

[Entre_Perpetuo]

New discussion point--my qualm with LZ:

 

Often times I find when I'm listening to LZ that I love the vocals, drums, and bass consistently, but Page is a total wild card. He might play something really cool and inspired, or he might fumble around for notes in a pretty amateur sounding manner, and often times I find he does a bit of both. I suppose it's mostly his leads I'm talking about, but he takes so many of them, it just seems like they could sound a bit less...sloppy?

 

You know he was a heroin addict from about 1975 until 1980, right? Are you talking about before 1975?

 

I tend to assume nearly anyone famous in that decade was on some kind of drugs, but most of them still manage to sound consistenly good, bad, average, inspiring, etc. Page just makes me mad because I often feel like he had much more potential had he just worked harder.

 

are you talking about his live performances? I don't find page's studio work sloppy or amateur at all. maybe "loose" or "unstructured" at times, but led zeppelin doesn't need al di meola or allan holdsworth. page's flaws just add to the sexiness of the led!

 

Well amateur might not be the right word, but I often get the impression that he could play better but doesn't care enough to, now that I think about it I don't really hear much if this on Zep II, so maybe it came with fame.

The sloppiness is the bluesy aspect of Zeppelin. It's intentional.

Jimmy Page was the top session musician in England pre-Led Zeppelin. You don't achieve that by being a "sloppy" player. I once bought into the "Jimmy Page is a sloppy player" narrative. But, when I give Led Zeppelin a focused listen I find his playing anything but sloppy. Raw. Emotional. Free. At times, brilliant. But not sloppy.

 

Well, I don't think listening any closer is gonna make me think he couldn't've played better at this point, though I do think he could be an amazing player when he wanted to and certainly had the background for it. Once again, maybe I'm choosing the wrong words ("amateurish," "sloppy"), but something about roughly half of his playing rubs me the wrong way and comes off as kind of not-cared-for. He does have some particularly great moments on most tracks though, and somehow the guitar break in Heartbreaker manages to take exactly what I'm talking about with him and turns it into something wonderful and extraordinary, where it usually comes off as under rehearsed or underwritten or something. Spontanaity's great and totally bluesy/jazzy when it sounds good, but when you're just making noise up there because you've not put much thought into what you'll play, you tend to lose my attention and a bit of my respect.

[goose]

New discussion point--my qualm with LZ:

 

Often times I find when I'm listening to LZ that I love the vocals, drums, and bass consistently, but Page is a total wild card. He might play something really cool and inspired, or he might fumble around for notes in a pretty amateur sounding manner, and often times I find he does a bit of both. I suppose it's mostly his leads I'm talking about, but he takes so many of them, it just seems like they could sound a bit less...sloppy?

 

You know he was a heroin addict from about 1975 until 1980, right? Are you talking about before 1975?

 

I tend to assume nearly anyone famous in that decade was on some kind of drugs, but most of them still manage to sound consistenly good, bad, average, inspiring, etc. Page just makes me mad because I often feel like he had much more potential had he just worked harder.

 

are you talking about his live performances? I don't find page's studio work sloppy or amateur at all. maybe "loose" or "unstructured" at times, but led zeppelin doesn't need al di meola or allan holdsworth. page's flaws just add to the sexiness of the led!

 

Well amateur might not be the right word, but I often get the impression that he could play better but doesn't care enough to, now that I think about it I don't really hear much if this on Zep II, so maybe it came with fame.

The sloppiness is the bluesy aspect of Zeppelin. It's intentional.

Jimmy Page was the top session musician in England pre-Led Zeppelin. You don't achieve that by being a "sloppy" player. I once bought into the "Jimmy Page is a sloppy player" narrative. But, when I give Led Zeppelin a focused listen I find his playing anything but sloppy. Raw. Emotional. Free. At times, brilliant. But not sloppy.

 

Well, I don't think listening any closer is gonna make me think he couldn't've played better at this point, though I do think he could be an amazing player when he wanted to and certainly had the background for it. Once again, maybe I'm choosing the wrong words ("amateurish," "sloppy"), but something about roughly half of his playing rubs me the wrong way and comes off as kind of not-cared-for. He does have some particularly great moments on most tracks though, and somehow the guitar break in Heartbreaker manages to take exactly what I'm talking about with him and turns it into something wonderful and extraordinary, where it usually comes off as under rehearsed or underwritten or something. Spontanaity's great and totally bluesy/jazzy when it sounds good, but when you're just making noise up there because you've not put much thought into what you'll play, you tend to lose my attention and a bit of my respect.

 

Here's some solo stuff where he's got pretty clear tone. But there's still that dirt in some solo parts.

[ReRushed]

New discussion point--my qualm with LZ:

 

Often times I find when I'm listening to LZ that I love the vocals, drums, and bass consistently, but Page is a total wild card. He might play something really cool and inspired, or he might fumble around for notes in a pretty amateur sounding manner, and often times I find he does a bit of both. I suppose it's mostly his leads I'm talking about, but he takes so many of them, it just seems like they could sound a bit less...sloppy?

 

You know he was a heroin addict from about 1975 until 1980, right? Are you talking about before 1975?

 

I tend to assume nearly anyone famous in that decade was on some kind of drugs, but most of them still manage to sound consistenly good, bad, average, inspiring, etc. Page just makes me mad because I often feel like he had much more potential had he just worked harder.

 

are you talking about his live performances? I don't find page's studio work sloppy or amateur at all. maybe "loose" or "unstructured" at times, but led zeppelin doesn't need al di meola or allan holdsworth. page's flaws just add to the sexiness of the led!

 

Well amateur might not be the right word, but I often get the impression that he could play better but doesn't care enough to, now that I think about it I don't really hear much if this on Zep II, so maybe it came with fame.

The sloppiness is the bluesy aspect of Zeppelin. It's intentional.

Jimmy Page was the top session musician in England pre-Led Zeppelin. You don't achieve that by being a "sloppy" player. I once bought into the "Jimmy Page is a sloppy player" narrative. But, when I give Led Zeppelin a focused listen I find his playing anything but sloppy. Raw. Emotional. Free. At times, brilliant. But not sloppy.

 

Well, I don't think listening any closer is gonna make me think he couldn't've played better at this point, though I do think he could be an amazing player when he wanted to and certainly had the background for it. Once again, maybe I'm choosing the wrong words ("amateurish," "sloppy"), but something about roughly half of his playing rubs me the wrong way and comes off as kind of not-cared-for. He does have some particularly great moments on most tracks though, and somehow the guitar break in Heartbreaker manages to take exactly what I'm talking about with him and turns it into something wonderful and extraordinary, where it usually comes off as under rehearsed or underwritten or something. Spontanaity's great and totally bluesy/jazzy when it sounds good, but when you're just making noise up there because you've not put much thought into what you'll play, you tend to lose my attention and a bit of my respect.

Can you provide more examples of Page not putting much thought into what he plays?

[New_World_Man]

I gotta tell ya, I don't feel the love for Houses of the Holy as much as some of my fellow TRFers. The reason, most likely, is the dreaded overplayed syndrome.

 

I think "The Crunge" is among Led Zeppelin's very few failed experiments. When I'm in certain moods, it just grates on me. I feel the same way about "D'yer Mak'er". I don't think they are bad songs, just bad Led Zeppelin songs.

 

And, I never really get the urge to listen to "The Ocean".

 

Everything else, top notch Zeppelin.

I'm with you on HotH. I love No Quarter, Over the Hills and Far Away, and the Crunge. The Ocean I adored in high school...and still have a soft spot for from my lunch room a cappella days with my mates. The rest...the vocals annoy me, and the production is too clean.

 

When The Song Remains the Same and The Rain Song are the weakest links, you know you have an all-time great album.

 

Really, it's only "dancing days" and "Dyer maker"(or however it's spelled) that I don't care for that much and partly because those songs were played a lot on the radio but also they just sound too far out of LZ's comfort zone and mine. At least "the Crunge" doesn't seem to take itself too seriously. I figure these are the ones you guys don't care for much. So this album is a mixed bag but then again so are a few of their other albums.

[Blue J]

New discussion point--my qualm with LZ:

 

Often times I find when I'm listening to LZ that I love the vocals, drums, and bass consistently, but Page is a total wild card. He might play something really cool and inspired, or he might fumble around for notes in a pretty amateur sounding manner, and often times I find he does a bit of both. I suppose it's mostly his leads I'm talking about, but he takes so many of them, it just seems like they could sound a bit less...sloppy?

 

You know he was a heroin addict from about 1975 until 1980, right? Are you talking about before 1975?

 

From the various things I've read, I believe he didn't kick heroin until about 1984.

 

I never got involved with it, either, but early in my recovery, I was friends with some people who had been. How a person maintains as a performing musician when addicted to it is beyond my understanding.

 

Same goes for all of the great jazz and blues players who had a history with it, going back to the 1950s- Charles Mingus, Billie Holiday, Ray Charles...and on and on.

[Stormtron]

My favorite is III. I like their folkier side.

[geezer]

Physical Graffiti my favourite; as I said in the Xanadu vs Kashmir thread, it would be even without disc 2

[Lorraine]

New discussion point--my qualm with LZ:

 

Often times I find when I'm listening to LZ that I love the vocals, drums, and bass consistently, but Page is a total wild card. He might play something really cool and inspired, or he might fumble around for notes in a pretty amateur sounding manner, and often times I find he does a bit of both. I suppose it's mostly his leads I'm talking about, but he takes so many of them, it just seems like they could sound a bit less...sloppy?

 

You know he was a heroin addict from about 1975 until 1980, right? Are you talking about before 1975?

 

I tend to assume nearly anyone famous in that decade was on some kind of drugs, but most of them still manage to sound consistenly good, bad, average, inspiring, etc. Page just makes me mad because I often feel like he had much more potential had he just worked harder.

 

are you talking about his live performances? I don't find page's studio work sloppy or amateur at all. maybe "loose" or "unstructured" at times, but led zeppelin doesn't need al di meola or allan holdsworth. page's flaws just add to the sexiness of the led!

 

Well amateur might not be the right word, but I often get the impression that he could play better but doesn't care enough to, now that I think about it I don't really hear much if this on Zep II, so maybe it came with fame.

The sloppiness is the bluesy aspect of Zeppelin. It's intentional.

Jimmy Page was the top session musician in England pre-Led Zeppelin. You don't achieve that by being a "sloppy" player. I once bought into the "Jimmy Page is a sloppy player" narrative. But, when I give Led Zeppelin a focused listen I find his playing anything but sloppy. Raw. Emotional. Free. At times, brilliant. But not sloppy.

Yeah...Jimmy was a music-biz insider. I thought about that as I was navigating the site the Re-Rushed posted (I think it was him). Zeppelin was carefully crafted, and Jimmy was shrewd in the business side of things. He borrowed from the best...and the obscure (relatively speaking)

 

That's what the book said about Jimmy. I didn't know he had been a very much in demand session guitarist too at one point.

[Lorraine]

Physical Graffiti my favourite; as I said in the Xanadu vs Kashmir thread, it would be even without disc 2

 

You stupid man! Don't you know what a boooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrring song that is? Get with it! ;)