Jump to content

Physical Graffiti--Best album ever?


Vincent Vega

Recommended Posts

That's because people can't make up an opinion for themselves when it comes to music.

'Gee wiz, they're popular that means I like them too'. :rolleyes:

How else does Lil' Wayne have all those fans? Led Zeppelin is the Lil' Wayne of the earlier generations.

You know it is interesting to read peoples take on Led Zeppelin comparing them to other bands...This was a band that critics hated, the band never spoke to the press, and refused to issue singles and yet they were the biggest band in the world selling out their shows in minutes in the early to mid 70's with little to no press or hit singles. To the haters, you may not like them but if you were honest you would admit there was something to them I think.........

They were different at that time I will give them that, but musically they are awful.

I mean look, Iron Man was one of metal's most famous songs and if that was released today it would be considered to be terrible. It's the same way with Led Zeppelin, they started hard rock and they were something different during the era but really they aren't anything special. They suck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I mean look, Iron Man was one of metal's most famous songs and if that was released today it would be considered to be terrible. It's the same way with Led Zeppelin, they started hard rock and they were something different during the era but really they aren't anything special. They suck.

If their music had nothing to offer today's rock fans, they'd be forgotten like Humble Pie, or Bread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean look, Iron Man was one of metal's most famous songs and if that was released today it would be considered to be terrible. It's the same way with Led Zeppelin, they started hard rock and they were something different during the era but really they aren't anything special. They suck.

If their music had nothing to offer today's rock fans, they'd be forgotten like Humble Pie, or Bread.

It's because Humble Pie didn't start the hard rock movement. Led Zeppelin started shitty hair metal and shit rock like we still have today, like Buckcherry and Wolfmother.

They aren't special, nor did they lead to anything special.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because people can't make up an opinion for themselves when it comes to music.

'Gee wiz, they're popular that means I like them too'. :rolleyes:

How else does Lil' Wayne have all those fans? Led Zeppelin is the Lil' Wayne of the earlier generations.

You know it is interesting to read peoples take on Led Zeppelin comparing them to other bands...This was a band that critics hated, the band never spoke to the press, and refused to issue singles and yet they were the biggest band in the world selling out their shows in minutes in the early to mid 70's with little to no press or hit singles. To the haters, you may not like them but if you were honest you would admit there was something to them I think.........

They were different at that time I will give them that, but musically they are awful.

I mean look, Iron Man was one of metal's most famous songs and if that was released today it would be considered to be terrible. It's the same way with Led Zeppelin, they started hard rock and they were something different during the era but really they aren't anything special. They suck.

The same could be said for the Doors or Nirvana mate..I doubt Nirvana would be as popular today if they just released Nevermind as they were in the early 90's...Same could be said of AFD as I doubt it would be popular had it been released in todays music market.......They were in the right place at the right time..

You are entitled to your opinion about Zeppelin but I would say you are in the minority of Music fans..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean look, Iron Man was one of metal's most famous songs and if that was released today it would be considered to be terrible. It's the same way with Led Zeppelin, they started hard rock and they were something different during the era but really they aren't anything special. They suck.

If their music had nothing to offer today's rock fans, they'd be forgotten like Humble Pie, or Bread.

It's because Humble Pie didn't start the hard rock movement. Led Zeppelin started shitty hair metal and shit rock like we still have today, like Buckcherry and Wolfmother.

They aren't special, nor did they lead to anything special.

Then they'd be forgotten, but starting hard rock is kind of a big deal. Every heavy band that came after that owes them along with Sabbath. But considering one third of their material was acoustic, that's only part of the story, then there was all the weird ethnic stuff. And that's why Physical Graffiti stands out in their catalogue, it had a bit of everything.

Edited by moreblack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean look, Iron Man was one of metal's most famous songs and if that was released today it would be considered to be terrible. It's the same way with Led Zeppelin, they started hard rock and they were something different during the era but really they aren't anything special. They suck.

If their music had nothing to offer today's rock fans, they'd be forgotten like Humble Pie, or Bread.

It's because Humble Pie didn't start the hard rock movement. Led Zeppelin started shitty hair metal and shit rock like we still have today, like Buckcherry and Wolfmother.

They aren't special, nor did they lead to anything special.

You can't fault a band if you think they started hair metal, as if they knew that's what their goal was all along. I don't think Jimmy Page's aim in the late 60s was to jump start a hair metal movement. Especially for a band so focused on their blues roots.

Conversely, you can't blame hair metal bands for citing Zeppelin as an influence, and then turn around and call Led Zeppelin out for starting a hair metal movement indirectly. That doesn't make much sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, I don't like Zeppelin after IV. I like I, II and IV, Don't mind one or two songs from III, but after that the songs I like are few and far between. I tried to like Zeppelin, but I just couldn't do it. The live stuff might be what kills it for me. When you turn fuckin' Whole Lotta Love into some 30-minute drug-addled jam session, sorry, but you can fuck off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean look, Iron Man was one of metal's most famous songs and if that was released today it would be considered to be terrible. It's the same way with Led Zeppelin, they started hard rock and they were something different during the era but really they aren't anything special. They suck.

If their music had nothing to offer today's rock fans, they'd be forgotten like Humble Pie, or Bread.

It's because Humble Pie didn't start the hard rock movement. Led Zeppelin started shitty hair metal and shit rock like we still have today, like Buckcherry and Wolfmother.

They aren't special, nor did they lead to anything special.

led zeppelin didnt start hair metal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The live stuff might be what kills it for me. When you turn fuckin' Whole Lotta Love into some 30-minute drug-addled jam session, sorry, but you can fuck off.

On the other hand, that right there, was a huge factor in them getting to legendary status. They didn't just go up and play the album. So many bands do that, that's the EASY thing to do, but with Zeppelin there was a lot of word of mouth about the shows, a case of "you think the album's good, you should see them live!". But the other thing that set them apart from a live POV, is that they didn't just have a "30-minute drug-addled jam session", that statement is fallacy. Comparing a live extended song by Zeppelin to for example The Grateful Dead, Cream, Santana, or the Allman Brothers; these bands would for the most part just hold a rhythm while the guitar solo was going on, the rhythm would not deviate from the original composition for the most part, and the solo would go on forever, and then someone else would take a solo. Whipping Post and Crossroads are probably the best examples of this. Compared to that, Whole Lotta Love live was a journey, it went to several places, improvised but rehearsed, tight but loose, and it was never ever the same show after show. And they would go off on these tangents, hit a key point of the song, and then off again, but it was never the same tangents they would hit. That's why the version from 1970 sounds nothing like the one from 1972, which is not at all like the one from 1973.

Royal Albert Hall 1970:

LA Forum 1972:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skNeD4Sv798

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The live stuff might be what kills it for me. When you turn fuckin' Whole Lotta Love into some 30-minute drug-addled jam session, sorry, but you can fuck off.

On the other hand, that right there, was a huge factor in them getting to legendary status. They didn't just go up and play the album. So many bands do that, that's the EASY thing to do, but with Zeppelin there was a lot of word of mouth about the shows, a case of "you think the album's good, you should see them live!". But the other thing that set them apart from a live POV, is that they didn't just have a "30-minute drug-addled jam session", that statement is fallacy. Comparing a live extended song by Zeppelin to for example The Grateful Dead, Cream, Santana, or the Allman Brothers; these bands would for the most part just hold a rhythm while the guitar solo was going on, the rhythm would not deviate from the original composition for the most part, and the solo would go on forever, and then someone else would take a solo. Whipping Post and Crossroads are probably the best examples of this. Compared to that, Whole Lotta Love live was a journey, it went to several places, improvised but rehearsed, tight but loose, and it was never ever the same show after show. And they would go off on these tangents, hit a key point of the song, and then off again, but it was never the same tangents they would hit. That's why the version from 1970 sounds nothing like the one from 1972, which is not at all like the one from 1973.

Royal Albert Hall 1970:

LA Forum 1972:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skNeD4Sv798

Moreblack...the sugaraylen of Zep. :tongue2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The live stuff might be what kills it for me. When you turn fuckin' Whole Lotta Love into some 30-minute drug-addled jam session, sorry, but you can fuck off.

On the other hand, that right there, was a huge factor in them getting to legendary status. They didn't just go up and play the album. So many bands do that, that's the EASY thing to do, but with Zeppelin there was a lot of word of mouth about the shows, a case of "you think the album's good, you should see them live!". But the other thing that set them apart from a live POV, is that they didn't just have a "30-minute drug-addled jam session", that statement is fallacy. Comparing a live extended song by Zeppelin to for example The Grateful Dead, Cream, Santana, or the Allman Brothers; these bands would for the most part just hold a rhythm while the guitar solo was going on, the rhythm would not deviate from the original composition for the most part, and the solo would go on forever, and then someone else would take a solo. Whipping Post and Crossroads are probably the best examples of this. Compared to that, Whole Lotta Love live was a journey, it went to several places, improvised but rehearsed, tight but loose, and it was never ever the same show after show. And they would go off on these tangents, hit a key point of the song, and then off again, but it was never the same tangents they would hit. That's why the version from 1970 sounds nothing like the one from 1972, which is not at all like the one from 1973.

Royal Albert Hall 1970:

LA Forum 1972:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skNeD4Sv798

I get that they were extending the songs, but turning a 5 minute song into a 25 minute song.... I dunno, maybe it is one of those "you had to be there things" to truly "understand" Zeppelin. It's not really something I can get into though. It's sort of the same with with The Beatles for me; I appreciate what they did and I appreciate the bands they inspired, but I don't like them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...