Jump to content

Led Zeppelin is one of the worst rock bands in history.


arnold layne

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Len B'stard

If it was a choice between Zep and Pink Floyd, Zep, hands down, no argument.

But it's not.

Oh leave me alone and get back to trying to figure out ways to mask your latent homosexuality, you boring cunt :lol:

Edited by sugaraylen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it was a choice between Zep and Pink Floyd, Zep, hands down, no argument.

But it's not.

Oh leave me alone and get back to trying to figure out ways to mask your latent homosexuality, you boring cunt :lol:

You're such a one trick pony aren't you? Going around calling people gay all the time.

Maybe you're gay. Didn't think about that did you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Len B'stard

If it was a choice between Zep and Pink Floyd, Zep, hands down, no argument.

But it's not.

Oh leave me alone and get back to trying to figure out ways to mask your latent homosexuality, you boring cunt :lol:

You're such a one trick pony aren't you? Going around calling people gay all the time.

No, i'm not any trick pony, i'm a person on a website that likes discussing music, not watching the neuroses of little boys that can't get laid unfold on website when they're drunk, so, as per my previous post, just leave me alone man, simple ;) And why the fuck you keep going on about i called you gay, when the fuck was it me that called you gay, did you not come on this site saying you thought about boys when you drunk, i mean, you been pinning this on me man but did you or did you not say that? Since the one time until just now, i ain't fuckin' mentioned it, it's you going around making threads trying to tell everybody how gay you're not, i don't give a shit if your gay, you could get sexually aroused by an electrical socket for all i care, just leave me alone, go ahead, do your thing, whys it Lenny this, Lenny that in every other post, relax yourself kid, you'll live longer :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Len B'stard

I didn't take what you said in any context, i just straight said it like you said it, i didn't add no fuckin' backstory to it or try to contextualise it in any way whatsoever, i just took it on the merit of what it said as a sentence but OK, look right, if it makes you happy i apologise, you're not gay, you're a great big un-gay person, you're as un-gay as they come, you're a beacon of good ol' fashioned straight, short back and sides, plaid shirt and Wranglers wearin' heterosexuality. You're straight as Adam and Eve, OK, happy, can you stop going on about it now? Thank you ;)

Edited by sugaraylen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't get into Led Zepellin. I'm aware of the fact they're really skilled musicians but their music is so dull, IMO. It's like they're always trying to sound fancy and complex and demonstrate how superior they are with every single song. I get the feeling they were like a 70's Radiohead. They go with The Who, The Cult and Deep Purple in my "Huge bands I can't really get into" list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't get into Led Zepellin. I'm aware of the fact they're really skilled musicians but their music is so dull, IMO. It's like they're always trying to sound fancy and complex and demonstrate how superior they are with every single song. I get the feeling they were like a 70's Radiohead. They go with The Who, The Cult and Deep Purple in my "Huge bands I can't really get into" list.

Try out their first two albums, along with Presence. No complexity or technical superiority there, just very straight forward Rock N' Roll.

Edited by Indigo Miser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't get into Led Zepellin. I'm aware of the fact they're really skilled musicians but their music is so dull, IMO. It's like they're always trying to sound fancy and complex and demonstrate how superior they are with every single song. I get the feeling they were like a 70's Radiohead. They go with The Who, The Cult and Deep Purple in my "Huge bands I can't really get into" list.

LOL if you feel that way then you really don't get their music..and if you don't like The Cult, Who and Deep Purple then maybe classic rock is not your bag...too each his own............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't get into Led Zepellin. I'm aware of the fact they're really skilled musicians but their music is so dull, IMO. It's like they're always trying to sound fancy and complex and demonstrate how superior they are with every single song. I get the feeling they were like a 70's Radiohead. They go with The Who, The Cult and Deep Purple in my "Huge bands I can't really get into" list.

I really don't hear anything complex in Zeppelin's songwriting. A lot of their really good songs are fairly simplistic.

Edited by Zeppelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like they're always trying to sound fancy and complex and demonstrate how superior they are with every single song.

They weren't trying..they just were.

Putting their skills to use came quite naturally to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Len B'stard

It's like they're always trying to sound fancy and complex and demonstrate how superior they are with every single song.

They weren't trying..they just were.

Putting their skills to use came quite naturally to them.

But it never really ever came out sounding that good? I guess thats up to your ears but, to me, it always seemed like...replication and not innovation...i mean honestly, listen to D'yer Maker, how fuckin' wishy washy and weak does that sound compared to the reggae it's taking on? I don't think it's even a case of them trying to sound fancy and complex cuz they weren't, not really, they just sort of showed an ability to cover a lot of basis but it never really did anything except look like a slightly off kilter version of what they're replicating. Also, when they covered a thing, they just always Led Zeppelinised it if that makes sense? They created a very specific sound and it just kinda suffocated any take they had on something a little out there. It just sounds really limp cluttered and sort of ill concieved.

It was never a thing of, OK, i hear elements of possibly this and this and this and the result is a kind of new...sound, it was just like, oh look, they're aware of such and such so they did a take on it, that sort of smacks of willy measuring to me.

Edited by sugaraylen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It did really come out sounding that good. The way they played could not result in anything else.

And that's the thing though, they did a lot of styles and tried TONS of things musically, but NEVER at the cost of their own sonic identity. They weren't a blues tribute act, or a reggae/folk/country tribute act, they were Led Zeppelin, and they played with balls. On everything. It was never about kilter, because they could play on kilter, off kilter, with kilter, without kilter, with kilter hanging out the window of a speeding bus hanging on for dear life.

You put those guys on anything, and it was madness, here's JP, Jones, and Bonzo backing Screaming Lord Sutch, and on the songs they played, they sound worlds different from the rest of the songs on the album.

Edited by moreblack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like they're always trying to sound fancy and complex and demonstrate how superior they are with every single song.

They weren't trying..they just were.

Putting their skills to use came quite naturally to them.

But it never really ever came out sounding that good?

No offense, but does punk?

Zeppelin has tons of great sounding tunes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like they're always trying to sound fancy and complex and demonstrate how superior they are with every single song.

They weren't trying..they just were.

Putting their skills to use came quite naturally to them.

But it never really ever came out sounding that good?

No offense, but does punk?

Zeppelin has tons of great sounding tunes.

No, they don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like they're always trying to sound fancy and complex and demonstrate how superior they are with every single song.

They weren't trying..they just were.

Putting their skills to use came quite naturally to them.

But it never really ever came out sounding that good? I guess thats up to your ears but, to me, it always seemed like...replication and not innovation...i mean honestly, listen to D'yer Maker, how fuckin' wishy washy and weak does that sound compared to the reggae it's taking on? I don't think it's even a case of them trying to sound fancy and complex cuz they weren't, not really, they just sort of showed an ability to cover a lot of basis but it never really did anything except look like a slightly off kilter version of what they're replicating. Also, when they covered a thing, they just always Led Zeppelinised it if that makes sense? They created a very specific sound and it just kinda suffocated any take they had on something a little out there. It just sounds really limp cluttered and sort of ill concieved.

It was never a thing of, OK, i hear elements of possibly this and this and this and the result is a kind of new...sound, it was just like, oh look, they're aware of such and such so they did a take on it, that sort of smacks of willy measuring to me.

Yeah, but it wasn't just noise, aimless sort of "Fuck everybody" noise on every single song. If they didn't innovate, why do most rock bands--even the greats--consider LZ an inspiration? Zeppelin is at times credited with helping create Heavy Metal or at the very least very Heavy Rock, which paved the way for stuff like Aerosmith, GN'R and tons of other bands. Even bands in the Seattle "Grunge"/Alternative movement were inspired by Zeppelin. D'yer Maker isn't even meant to be pure reggae dude. It's not supposed to be "Led Zeppelin does Reggae" or anything serious; it's simply a dabble; It's a hybrid; 50s Doo Wop meets Reggae meets Led Zeppelin's own sound. Just in their case a bit of mindless fun, indulging in nostalgia and a tribute to two genres the band enjoyed...Not dick measuring. Just sort of "Ok, cool, we love reggae, we love Doo Wop. It's 1973 and people are pining for 50s style music, let's do something fun that's a mix of both."

As far as "Led Zeppelinised" their covers...Doesn't every band tend to lend their own sound to songs they cover? When the Stones covered "Walkin' the Dog", they added their own twist, their own feel, to the song. They made it a Stones song. Same with GN'R and their covers. When Nirvana covered "Where Did You Sleep Last Night", same thing, they put their own spin, their own sound in it...The nature of covers, a band puts it's own unique sound on a cover and makes it it's own.

It's something that can be said for any band...Bands can dabble in any genre but are mostly known for one particular style or sound...That sound, that mindset, colors everything a band does.

And their whole sound was a mix of the blues which the band loved and the heavier sounding rock which was coming out in '67, '68...They took it, put their own spin on it, amped it up a bunch of notches, practically created the whole "guitar hero" thing in the process....There's a reason why almost every group after them, even groups like Nirvana who would've hated Led Zeppelin's aesthetics, considered them a musical influence. They pretty much defined the late '60s to the late 70s with tons of bands trying to be Led Zeppelin in their sound...And their influence still resonated in the 90s with GN'R, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains, Nirvana and still resonates today.

And like someone said above, they weren't an overly commercial band in the sense that unlike say, the Stones, they didn't court the media, they shied away from it. Their music and concerts were sold on word of mouth, they didn't use a big press and PR machine to sell them. Perhaps people's problem with Led Zeppelin is the myths that built up around them, the mystique sort of bogs them down into this one peg, sort of like the mystique surrounding Jim Morrison locks The Doors in with it...And also the preconception that all their songs about Lord of the Rings harms LZ. Just stuff that the media built up about Led Zeppelin after they decided they liked them. But the media and critics didn't like LZ for most of it's existence, but then again, the critics and media thrashed the Stones' Exile on Main St. when it was released...So what do they really know?

Edited by Indigo Miser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Len B'stard
It did really come out sounding that good. The way they played could not result in anything else.

And that's the thing though, they did a lot of styles and tried TONS of things musically, but NEVER at the cost of their own sonic identity. They weren't a blues tribute act, or a reggae/folk/country tribute act, they were Led Zeppelin, and they played with balls.

Perhaps everything doesn't require 'balls' then because, OK, i understand the idea of not being a tribute act but i mean, going back to the D'yer Maker example, it just sounds like...muzak reggae, thats the best description i can give it, it doesn't do justice to that style, it isn't in-tune with what made that style effective, i'm not talking about faithful representation but an instinctive musical understanding of what made that style exceptional. It's one thing to understand how something works and being able to replicate it, it's another thing altogether to understand WHY something works and i just don't believe Zeppelin have that, it's why they were so hit and miss to me, you got the sense of exceptional musicians that could do anything but weren't particularly driven by anything so it's just the fattys at the banquet with like, OK we'll have some of that and some of that and some of that but...quite honestly i don't think they had a clear idea of what they were doing...perhaps they weren't doing anything.

Y'know, like, OK, you got The Who, they're tryna do something with Tommy, they're tryna do something with Quadrophenia, they were tryna do something with the mod thing and...i dunno, purpose kind of gives bands that spark, that drive, that extra fuckin' gear, something the individual players are trying to do with each album with their musical marriage which i don't see or hear anything of in Zeppelin, it's just like hogs in the fat house, eating for the sake of shitting it back out.

And hey, why not, i'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, it's just for me you end up with a band capable of a lot that don't really end up doing shit. Maybe everything doesn't need some elaborate manifesto y'know but thats not really what i'm getting at.

No offense, but does punk?

Zeppelin has tons of great sounding tunes.

Oh definitely, i wouldn't disagree with you but for me they're not quite the great band, do love a lot of their songs though.

if they didn't innovate, why do most rock bands--even the greats--consider LZ an inspiration?

Cuz they liked em as a band? Influential and innovative are not the same thing.

D'yer Maker isn't even meant to be pure reggae dude. It's not supposed to be "Led Zeppelin does Reggae" or anything serious; it's simply a dabble; It's a hybrid; 50s Doo Wop meets Reggae meets Led Zeppelin's own sound. Just in their case a bit of mindless fun, indulging in nostalgia and a tribute to two genres the band enjoyed...Not really dick measuring. Just sort of "Ok, cool, we love reggae, we love Doo Wop. It's 1973 and people are pining for 50s style music, let's do something fun that's a mix of both."

I think you misunderstood what i was trying to say somewhat, i'm not saying it should be a faithful replication, i'm not saying it SHOULD particularly be anything but i don't think what they did with it leaves you with much. Thats all. I'm glad you used the word dabbling because it hits the Zeppelin nail on the head for me, they were dilletantes, very talented ones but dilletantes nonetheless. And also Miser, with respect, you can't really speak on someones behalf with what their musical intention was, unless this is something you've gleaned from an interview or whatever.

As far as "Led Zeppelinised" their covers...Doesn't every band tend to lend their own sound to songs they cover? When the Stones covered "Walkin' the Dog", they added their own twist, their own feel, to the song. They made it a Stones song. Same with GN'R and their covers. When Nirvana covered "Where Did You Sleep Last Night", same thing, they put their own spin, their own sound in it...The nature of covers, a band puts it's own unique sound on a cover and makes it it's own.

Again, i think you've misunderstood me in that i wasn't saying it's a band thing to make a song your own i mean that the specific things that Led Zeppelin did didn't lend themselves well to a lot of the music they did a take on, in my opinion, i wasn't trying to say having their own sound was bad or anything i was saying that what their sound offered to the songs or styles rather they chose to take on didn't lend anything to em, whereas The Stones did hugely. Guns suffer from this too i think and it shows on things like the Spaghetti Incident where they try some shit on and don't really have an idea of how their sound doesn't lend itself well to some of the styles/songs they were taking on.

Edited by sugaraylen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was never a thing of, OK, i hear elements of possibly this and this and this and the result is a kind of new...sound, it was just like, oh look, they're aware of such and such so they did a take on it, that sort of smacks of willy measuring to me.

In hindsight perhaps,when you have the internet at your disposal to use as a measuring stick.

Zep tapping reggae on the shoulders in the early 70's was quite uncommon,for a rock band.

So,in a sense,it might not have been groundbreaking but it was innovative on their part.

And for that matter,the masses at that time had no fuckin clue anyway,they just dug it for it was.

There was no internet to tear down and point out six degrees of seperation shit.

At some point it comes down to personal taste.

I dig it. :shrugs:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In hindsight perhaps,when you have the internet at your disposal to use as a measuring stick.

Zep tapping reggae on the shoulders in the early 70's was quite uncommon,for a rock band.

So,in a sense,it might not have been groundbreaking but it was innovative on their part.

And for that matter,the masses at that time had no fuckin clue anyway,they just dug it for it was.

There was no internet to tear down and point out six degrees of seperation shit.

The songs stood on their own, without baggage, without agenda, without pretense, and the songs were good. Simple as that. This'd be why people today still listen to 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...