Bob Marley vs. Led Zeppelin

[Guest Len B'stard]

So you think Bob Marley was some kind of genius that foresaw the influence he might have and then, though his extraordinarily gifted (some would say 'godlike talents') very meticulously crafted out his artistic output to provide the best politicl outcomes, and best influence and make friends with the general average joe in the communities touched by his, again extraordinary, musicianship and sounds, Len?

Yes to parts, no to other parts. Was he a genius, yes, prodigiously so. Foresaw the influence? Uh, no, not immediately but i do think he knew he was something special and as time wore on became more and more aware of his role and his importance. I mean, when political entitys contrive to have you assasinated (he was only wounded in the end) certain things about what you're doing probably become clear.

[Iron MikeyJ]

Lenny,

I mean this with the most up most respect towards Bob (I personally love the man and his music) but their are probably more Zeppelin fans (old and young) in America than Marley fans in the whole world. To my knowledge his music never reached India or China (other countries with big populations). There are what 350 million people in the US? It's not unrealistic (considering the baby boom generation) that at least 100 million Americans like Led Zeppelin. Probably even more. I think sometimes Our European friends forget how big America is. I wouldn't say 100 million American "love" Zeppelin, but I bet they at least like them and many of their songs. While I'm not convinced Bob Marley has 100 million fans world wide. Led Zeppelin is still played daily on many American radio stations, the same can't not be said for Bob.

This has nothing to do with their social or political impact, I'm just talking about pure popularity. Bob's political influnece was much greater, no doubt about it.

Edited January 8, 2014 by Mike420

[Guest Len B'stard]

On the flipside though, theres a lot more to the rest of the world. I can guarantee you that the entire continent of Africa has a bigger pro Marley populus than just about any other artist spread over anywhere else.

On the flipside though, theres a lot more to the rest of the world. I can guarantee you that the entire continent of Africa has a bigger pro Marley populus than just about any other artist spread over anywhere else. Bob is extremely well known in India and especially China.

[moreblack]

Bob is good summer music. it's always summer in most of those parts. I don't think his work would resonate as well in the Yukon or Iceland.

Edited January 8, 2014 by moreblack

[Guest Len B'stard]

Honestly moreblack, you aint talking about Chaka Demus and Pliers here there's a profound universal social message to his music that transcends the weather report, you know how HUGE reggae is in Europe? Massive. The designer whiteboy dread posse are still in full force over there.

Bob and reggae were massive in England, the only continuously popular music in England from the 60s to this day, always in fashion. And its freezing here.

Edited January 8, 2014 by sugaraylen

[moreblack]

They got some riffs, maybe song ideas, not whole songs and turned them into masterpieces. What they did was revolutionary by all means and they helped to introduce a genre that's got some of the biggest and well known names in music history.

Hate them all you want, but they're huge and for a reason.

That's the thing, Zeppelin had a huge impact in the evolution of a genre. You take all the hard rock that came after and distill it, it all boils down to Zeppelin at one point.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Bob had a huge influence on an entire genre (reggae) which led to the creation of its offshoot, hip hop, which is about the biggest musical genre since rock n roll and its been the popular music of the day for about 20 years now.

Not to mention all the dance music variations that reggae influenced, pretty much anything with dub in the name (also Jungle) comes from Dub Reggae...ergo, the scope covers huge all encompassing genres like hip hop as well as fads and offshoot sub genres in other fields like dance music.

Also, really and truly speaking, the blueprint of hard rock is the construct of Chuck Berry, literally all the elements, the framework is there, it doesnt deviate far enough to be playing the credit at Zeps door. The Who could also lay claim to some of that shit.

Edited January 8, 2014 by sugaraylen

[Iron MikeyJ]

What is the population of the UK?

Sorry I have to disagree with ya about Chuck Berry and The Who. Neither were much of an influence on Zeppelin, especially The Who. Zeppelin were influenced by the same blues artists that influenced Chuck. And The Who are sort of the forefathers of punk, if you really look at them. They were a power chord band, not really much of a riff band.

But beyond all that Zeppelin were the first real "hard rock" band. So I agree with others, all hard rock bands can be traced back to Zeppelin.

Edited January 8, 2014 by Mike420

[moreblack]

Also, really and truly speaking, the blueprint of hard rock is the construct of Chuck Berry, literally all the elements, the framework is there, it doesnt deviate far enough to be playing the credit at Zeps door. The Who could also lay claim to some of that shit.

But there's big amount of difference from what Chuck was doing and what people did after Chuck, and what hard rock became after people heard Zeppelin. The Who were't really hard rock though, not in the way that Sabbath or Deep Purple took it to, after hearing Zeppelin.

Edited January 8, 2014 by moreblack

[Guest Len B'stard]

I meant The Who and Berry in terms of influence on the blueprint of Hard Rock as moreblack was asserting Zeps influence on the creation and evolution of hard rock.

And the England thing wasnt to assert dominance in terms of numbers, Africa and the aforementioned discussion covered that aspect, the England comment was addressing moreblacks i imagine slightly tongue in cheek comment regarding the love for Marleys music having something to do with the local weather

[Iron MikeyJ]

I was asking out of curiosity. I suppose I can just google it.

Edited January 8, 2014 by Mike420

[Guest Len B'stard]

Also, really and truly speaking, the blueprint of hard rock is the construct of Chuck Berry, literally all the elements, the framework is there, it doesnt deviate far enough to be playing the credit at Zeps door. The Who could also lay claim to some of that shit.

But there's big amount of difference from what Chuck was doing and what people did after Chuck, and what hard rock became after people heard Zeppelin. The Who were't really hard rock though, not in the way that Sabbath or Deep Purple took it to, after hearing Zeppelin.

A difference in volume maybe, other than that the riff reliance, the solo, licks and fills, drum solos, what am i missing? Most of these, the structure, are apparent in Berry with drum solos, the heavyness, the solos, whether drum or guitar were there in The Who as much as Zep.

I was asking out of curiosity. I suppose I can just google it.

I wouldnt know to be honest, what i do know is Reggae and its permutations are consistently the true sound of the streets of England, going from reggae, dub to the ragga of the 80s to the jungle and drum and bass of the 90s, the garage of the 00s and the dubstep of this era. All this comes from Reggae. Edited January 8, 2014 by sugaraylen

[moreblack]

For one thing I don't think Chuck Berry had the vocal chops, that's where predecessors like Cream, The Stones, The Experience, and Page's old band The Yardbirds fell short. But once bands started putting guys that could wail like Little Richard in front of power trios, like Jeff Beck did with Rod Stewart, and Zeppelin did with Plant. It's a whole new proposition. Suddenly guys like Steven Tyler and Ian Gillan have an outlet.

[Iron MikeyJ]

"Heavy is not a volume it's an attitude" ~Robert Plant

[moreblack]

"Heavy is not a volume it's an attitude" ~Robert Plant

It gets confusing though when one factors that "heavy" meant something completely different to the people of that era. To the hippies and the stoners, heavy didn't necessarily have anything to do with hard rock or metal.

[Iron MikeyJ]

"Heavy is not a volume it's an attitude" ~Robert Plant

It gets confusing though when one factors that "heavy" meant something completely different to the people of that era. To the hippies and the stoners, heavy didn't necessarily have anything to do with hard rock or metal.

I agree. It's like the difference between metal and hard rock. Both are "heavy", but quite different really. That's why I always break it down into two catagories.

Metal acts all come from Sabbath, while hard rock acts come from Zeppelin. They are both the forefathers of their genres. Historically speaking Deep Purple deserves some sort of credit also.

Edited January 8, 2014 by Mike420

[Guest Len B'stard]

For one thing I don't think Chuck Berry had the vocal chops, that's where predecessors like Cream, The Stones, The Experience, and Page's old band The Yardbirds fell short. But once bands started putting guys that could wail like Little Richard in front of power trios, like Jeff Beck did with Rod Stewart, and Zeppelin did with Plant. It's a whole new proposition. Suddenly guys like Steven Tyler and Ian Gillan have an outlet.

Thats my point though, the musical template, the blueprint, the framework was pre-existing and what you've cited here is the accentuation of a particular element, which is to some degree an evolution but not much of one, its not really very revolutionary, its not like you've affected or altered a key element here, better vocal chops doesnt amount to anything thats worthy of that amount of kudos, its not a nothing by any means but it certainly isn't a bold alteration to the point of saying that it altered the core blueprint.

[John Bonham]

If it's good, it's called Hard Rock.

If it sucks, it's Heavy Metal.

[Guest Len B'stard]

"Heavy is not a volume it's an attitude" ~Robert Plant

It gets confusing though when one factors that "heavy" meant something completely different to the people of that era. To the hippies and the stoners, heavy didn't necessarily have anything to do with hard rock or metal.

I agree. It's like the difference between metal and hard rock. Both are "heavy", but quite different really. That's why I always break it down into two catagories.

Metal acts all come from Sabbath, while hard rock acts come from Zeppelin. They are both the forefathers of their genres. Historically speaking Deep Purple deserves some sort of credit also.

Personally i think Zep on their own are of more value than any of the hard rock that followed and all of the heavy metal Despite my dislike for Zep, they had a certain flair that put them above the aforementioned. I think they suffer from the weight of those they influenced than benefit, simply cuz they're so much better and so much more clever than 99% of them.

[moreblack]

For one thing I don't think Chuck Berry had the vocal chops, that's where predecessors like Cream, The Stones, The Experience, and Page's old band The Yardbirds fell short. But once bands started putting guys that could wail like Little Richard in front of power trios, like Jeff Beck did with Rod Stewart, and Zeppelin did with Plant. It's a whole new proposition. Suddenly guys like Steven Tyler and Ian Gillan have an outlet.

Thats my point though, the musical template, the blueprint, the framework was pre-existing and what you've cited here is the accentuation of a particular element, which is to some degree an evolution but not much of one, its not really very revolutionary, its not like you've affected or altered a key element here, better vocal chops doesnt amount to anything thats worthy of that amount of kudos, its not a nothing by any means but it certainly isn't a bold alteration to the point of saying that it altered the core blueprint.

But when you do something nobody else even thought of. That changes things, sometimes spawns a whole other approach, like in this case.

Edited January 8, 2014 by moreblack

[Guest Len B'stard]

For one thing I don't think Chuck Berry had the vocal chops, that's where predecessors like Cream, The Stones, The Experience, and Page's old band The Yardbirds fell short. But once bands started putting guys that could wail like Little Richard in front of power trios, like Jeff Beck did with Rod Stewart, and Zeppelin did with Plant. It's a whole new proposition. Suddenly guys like Steven Tyler and Ian Gillan have an outlet.

Thats my point though, the musical template, the blueprint, the framework was pre-existing and what you've cited here is the accentuation of a particular element, which is to some degree an evolution but not much of one, its not really very revolutionary, its not like you've affected or altered a key element here, better vocal chops doesnt amount to anything thats worthy of that amount of kudos, its not a nothing by any means but it certainly isn't a bold alteration to the point of saying that it altered the core blueprint.

But when you do something nobody else even thought of. That changes things, sometimes spawns a whole other approach, like in this case.

On the weight of which (as well as their other varied achievements) you could definitely call seminal, easily...but that still doesn't put them on the level of Marley in terms of being musically revolutionary and thats the crux of what i'm getting at here.

It has occured to me I guess that this shit is yous guyses specialist genre so you probably know a shitload more about it and who they influenced than me but i'm riding along here and so far no ones presented me with much food for thought in specific regard to the points of comparison we've established.

[Iron MikeyJ]

But didn't both acts pretty much do the same thing? They took the music further than anyone else had before. All the things you say about Zeppelin, I could say about Marley. He didn't invent anything. He was influenced by the people before him. Was he better than those before him? Yes probably, but so were Zeppelin. But what both acts did was take their love and passion for their music and share it with the world. I completly acknowledge Marley as the king or Reagga, just as Zeppelin are the kings of hard rock. You make valid points about the political side to his life, but if we take that out of the equation, he is just another great musician. A great musician that made some great music, Zeppelin were no different in that reguard. Sure the musical styles are different, and we can go on and on trying to say one is better than the other, but what does it matter? It's all a matter of opinion anyways.

[moreblack]

Certainly neither left things how they found them when they were done.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Of course it's a matter of opinion but we're here in a vs thread over here. Marley didn't invent anything as such, no but he bought to the forefront a genre and a style of play and was at the forefront of the evolution of it in 3 very distinct and very specific phases, he popularised the music and set the play field for the on-coming evolutions and even the births of a number of different musical genre. The key difference is Marley worked with forms that differed drastically from what was the standard.

Actually, if you wanna really go back to the roots of it all, they're both influenced by the same thing, which is Rhythm and Blues. Reggae, the offbeat rhythm, the skank, is basically as a result of Jamaican musicians listening to American RnB off the radio and attempting to emulate it...but being of African persuasion where rhythm is something that they're more finely tuned towards they played their guitars more following the beat and in attempting to cover that and the RnBs guitar led rhythm they accidentally happened upon this like...for want of a more respectful term, backward method of playing it, the reggae skank, that chika-chika-chika-chika rhythm. And hence you have Ska, which sounds incredibly similar to American RnB really, for example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTp1Axm_3mU

Then slow the tempo of the rhythm playing down and you have:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZ3eA5gxiLs

And voila, you have reggae So yeah, the roots of both bands are very similar although Zep err on the bluesy side a bit more.

At any rate the notions that were being pushed in this thread previously 'he only has 3 famous songs' or 'Zep were much more revolutionary musically' etc etc are so far from the truth its ridiculous, Bob was really not getting his dues over here. Or 'Zep went much further musically'...really?!?! At my most charitable there should at least be more of a balance that what that sort of comment is getting at.

Edited January 8, 2014 by sugaraylen

[Iron MikeyJ]

Well he gets his dues from me, I have his complete discography along with a lot of stuff his son did.