Led Zeppelin poll and discussion thread

which is your favourite Led Zeppelin album ?

  • Total voters
    23
Finding out about Hallowed, and especially that dramatic lengthy piece in The Nomad, I thought that was pretty disappointing.
 
The only reason The Nomad disappoints me is because it's the only interesting part in an otherwise boring song. I still enjoy that part, but it makes me wonder if the song as a whole was filler.
 
That's something else. I really love the rest of the song, but when I found out about the part in question, that diminished my appreciation somewhat.
 
But leaving out this aspect (completely disregarding the measuring of originality) leaves out a big part of being able to criticize music.
LooseCannon said:
In all genres.
Click to expand...
We do care about the rock/metal genre in particular, don't we? And man... Maiden!

Or is that the problem? Because of the love for a band, some people might have some bias in their way? Not for everyone. I remember that SMX didn't like Maiden's stealing either (also in that Beckett topic).
 
Forostar said:
But leaving out this aspect (completely disregarding the measuring of originality) leaves out a big part of being able to criticize music.
Click to expand...
That's not a problem for me. Is it a problem for you to have an area where you can't issue critiques?
 
It's not just about issuing. It's a process inside, having effect on how we (dis)like music. But yeah, I like to "issue" (about) it as well. ;)
 
Forostar said:
It's not just about issuing. It's a process inside, having effect on how we (dis)like music. But yeah, I like to "issue" (about) it as well. ;)
Click to expand...
For me, it's not relevant. I might disapprove of the business aspect of stealing someone's song, like I think it's unfair of Steve to steal music from Beckett, for example. But that doesn't affect how I see the final product.
 
I think some important things are left out in this discussion - things that are needed to assess the issue of Led Zeppelin plagiarising music fairly. Led Zeppelin, in their early days, were not a studio band. They were a live band. What they played live differed significantly, and even dramatically from what they put out on their albums. Dazed and Confused, six and a half minutes long on record, was extended to a musical extravaganza that would be between 10 and 30 minutes long at their gigs. Same with Whole Lotta Love. Moby Dick during their live gigs was essentially a 20-minute drum solo. They weren't songs anymore, they were sonic experiences. And what's more important, no two performances were the same. Sometimes they would just play whatever they felt like. And this is why Led Zep became so famous - they were bloody good at it. They would turn a gig into a jam session and remain so tight and focused that audiences were captivated by it.
However, since they were so focused on playing live, in the early days, they didn't put much effort into composing. They knew that whatever they put on record would just be a starting point for what they would do later onstage, and they recorded and released their early albums to promote their gigs. Their first two albums were written and recorded under immense time pressure, and Led Zeppelin II in fact was recorded while the band was on tour in the US. So yeah, they ripped off a lot of artists, and at least in some cases probably even did so knowingly. And some of their original writing efforts weren't particularly meaningful either. Robert Plant, for instance, is known to have simply improvised the lyrics to some songs during recording, and that's why they make no sense. He just sang whatever popped into his head, and one of their songs is literally called Ramble On. But they didn't care back then, and neither did their audience. And they probably never thought this would have consequences, because they didn't look that far into the future.
Led Zeppelin III was their first record on which they actually devoted quality time to writing, and they gradually began to put more ambition and effort into their compositions. But I think it's not justified to judge their artistic quality as a band by their studio albums - as odd as it admittedly sounds retrospectively and with our present day attitude.

To a lesser extent, what I said also goes for Deep Purple. Many of their studio albums sound very flat, but they released their records so that people would go and witness the tense energy created by Blackmore, Lord and Gillan. People didn't go to the gigs to check off Smoke on the Water and Highway Star on their "heard live" list, but to experience what these people did onstage.
 
Mosh said:
Great artists steal :D
Click to expand...
An entire genre (rap and hip-hop) was based on taking/sampling other songs they thought had cool parts -- including Led Zeppelin songs!!

John Williams stole the "Jaws" theme from Dvorak, so fuck him, just for that I won't watch Star Wars!!
 
Perun said:
To a lesser extent, what I said also goes for Deep Purple. Many of their studio albums sound very flat, but they released their records so that people would go and witness the tense energy created by Blackmore, Lord and Gillan. People didn't go to the gigs to check off Smoke on the Water and Highway Star on their "heard live" list, but to experience what these people did onstage.
Click to expand...

Not to a lesser extent, Purple were more of a live band than Led Zeppelin ever were. In fact Purple always made their living so to speak as a live band ...take Long Beach 1971 show for example....4 songs, 70 min. They were far from a simple rock band....:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top