Talk:Led Zeppelin

Archives:

Archive 1 – All discussions prior to 2006
Archive 2 – Discussions January - April 2006

Zeppelin is uncategorizable

Zepplin: Heavymetal-Country-Hardrock-Blues

I have had this argument with my various friends countless times. What it all comes down to is that zepplin has no genre. They draw the best sounds and feelings from every musical category there is. Take zepplin 4, or ZOSO. It has such rock ballads such as The Battle of Evermore. Blues-Heavy metal song "When the Levee Breaks" The most poetic song ever "Going to California"

(If you have the same opinion I do I would appreciate it if you would expand upon my rambalings as this is one of my first posts I hope you absorbed my short message. Rock On)

• They're no more genre-less than the Beatles, the Rolling Stones or The Who. They're basically a hard rock band. Just because they absorbed elements of other genres doesn't change the fact that most of their music is hard rock, both electric and acoustic. None of their albums are any more diverse than The Beatles (white album) or The Who's A Quick One or the Stones' Aftermath. Obviously, you're a huge Zeppelin fan, and, like many Led Zeppelin fans, are very given to hyperbole. Calling "Going to California" the "most poetic song ever" given the existance of Bob Dylan is quite silly. It would be lucky to be considered as poetic as "Wish You Were Here" or "Behind Blue Eyes".

• Led Zeppelin is far more diverse than the Beatles because the Beatles never had ANY truly heavy songs, ever--not one. On the other hand, Zeppelin has upbeat light songs AND songs of the more heavy style, which they invented BTW. If you think Ringo Star is a better drummer than John 'hammer of the gods' Bonham, or that George Harrison is a better guitarist than the much more dextrous Jimmy Page, or that John Lennon could out-sing Robert Plant, you are out of your mind. The Beatles could write songs, yes, but their ability as performing musicians does not even approach Zeppelin. Bob Dylan, the Beatles, even the Stones to an extent--those are great composers, not great performers. They make blueprints of great songs, but they never flesh them out on stage or in the studio. Hendrix, Zeppelin, and Pink Floyd could take most of their songs and make them into something twice as great. Heck, listen to Hendrix's version of Dylan's 'All Along the Watchtower' for example. Dylan himself said his version was crap by comparison. 71.76.212.61 22:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Diverse does not mean "includes 'truly' (whatever that means) heavy songs", but in the White Album the Beatles had Helter Skelter. Anyhow, you seem to misunderstand the fact that people have different tastes, I enjoy all of your mentioned bands, but some people - as incredible as it may seem to you - enjoy Bob Dylan's, the Beatles' and the Rolling Stones' music. Some strongly dislike Hendrix's, Led Zep's and Floyd's music. You're just being silly, there's no point in saing "X > Y" for the arts. I'm sure I could sculpt a marshmellow stick with a few designs and, if I tried hard enough, I'd be able to find someone who found it more beautiful than the Pietà, and the person wouldn't be 'wrong' to feel more emotion from the Marshemellow Stick than the Pietà. --A Sunshade Lust 19:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I enjoy all of the aforementioned bands as well, but I feel, along with many other people, that Led Zeppelin is the greatest popular music band of the 20th Century. Deal with it. If you want to make an argument for why I am wrong, do so. I would be happy to discuss.71.76.212.61 22:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• You must not have listened to much of the Beatles, because "Sgt. Pepper Reprise", "Helter Skelter" and "(I Want You) She's So Heavy" are all "truly heavy songs". Led Zeppelin is extremely far from inventing a "heavy" style of rock. They were beaten to that development by The Who, Cream, Jimi Hendrix Experience, Blue Cheer, the Amboy Dukes, Steppenwolf, the Jeff Beck Group and Iron Butterfly. No one ever said the Beatles approach Led Zeppelin as performing musicians. Very few bands are extraordinary both on the concert stage and in the studio. At the top of that list is The Who. Hendrix is up there, as well. Pink Floyd don't stray much from their studio sound when performing live, which some view as a negative.

'Helter Skelter' strikes me as weird rather than heavy, much like 'A Day in the Life'. The others are pure pop. When I speak of heavy music, I'm talking about the cultivation of the modern rock, metal-esque sound. Not like the proto-punk Who, or simply amplified blues (Cream) or funk with Guitar feedback (Hendrix). Listen to a song like 'Dazed or Confuzed'--that song is conpeletly non-derivative--it's not blues, it's not folk, or classically based--and it was, at the time of its release, probably the heaviest song ever released by a major record label. Not only that, the way Zeppelin performed on stage formed the archetype of a rock band performance, much more so than the Who or the Beatles, both of which were often stiff and inactive in their earlier shows (the instrument smashing came later), and each repective member of the band provided a template of how each role should be filled in terms of hand gestures and stage movement, etc. You don't see anybody around today who wants to drum like Ringo Star, or play guitar like George Harrision--they want to drum like Bonham, and solo like Page. To be fair, the Beatles, as composers, are kings; but as performers, they don't cut it.71.76.212.61 22:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• You're really showing your ignorance now, because The Who were smashing their gear as early as 1964. That's just basic rock knowledge. Live at Leeds was recorded in February of 1970, but it was the same set-list they had been performing since mid-1969 and much of it goes back to 1968. It certainly qualifies as a "modern rock, metal-esque" sound and its roots come from the influence of Jimi Hendrix on The Who's already aggressive style of rock music. Led Zeppelin are certainly very important in helping to develop and especially popularize that sound, but the groundwork was already laid by all of the aforementioned bands before Led Zeppelin had released a record. As for The Who being "stiff" or "inactive" at their earlier shows, I have no idea how you could possibly come to that conclusion. Watch The Kids Are Alright and then tell me how "stiff" and "inactive" The Who were at the Monterey Pop Festival in 1967 or at the Rolling Stones' Rock 'n' Roll Circus in 1968. If any band "formed the archetype" or set the standard for the live rock show it is The Who. But don't take my word for it. Watch The Kids Are Alright. You're in for a surprise. Not for nothing did John Paul Jones say that after seeing The Who, "We felt positively tame."

They first smashed their instruments in 1965, but only started doing it regularly in the early 70s, when Zep was well established. The whole point is that the idea of smashing one's own property is not metal, it's a very punkish idea--that whole 'I hate myself thing'. Zeppelin's musical philosophy, and later the hard rock genre that they spawned, glorifies the self to the point of arrogance and narcissism, which is why they developed a reputation as snobs. Also, Townshend's rythym guitar (he was always better suited to rythym guitar moreso than lead) is very proto-punk, whereas Page with his solos really formed the archetype of the 'Guitar God'--something Hendrix would have done had he made better studio recordings (even someone who hates Zeppelin much give props to Page's studio wizardry), and not died before his prime; and even Van Halen once remarked that Hendrix's compositions are quite unpolished in the way of organization and musical themes. His talent lied in physical prowess: speed on the fretboard and manipulation of the strings and various effects, rather than compositional skills. To me Page represents a near perfect balance of those physical abilities, and the technical and compositional skills. 71.76.212.61 03:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• You really need to bone up on your Who history, because you're dead wrong. The Who began smashing their instruments July 14th 1964 at the Railway Hotel in Harrow & Wealdstone. It's one of the most important moments in rock history. Rolling Stone Magazine ranked it in the first ten when they counted down the 50 most important moments in Rock 'n' Roll for one of their 50th Anniversary of Rock issues. VH1 ranked The Who smahing their gear on the Smothers Brothers Show in 1967 as one of the Top Ten greatest Rock 'n' Roll moments on television. The Who's instrument smashing finale at the Monterey Pop Festival in 1967 is legendary. The Who smashed their gear regularly through the sixties. By the time Led Zeppelin appeared the smashing was tapering off. I don't know where you're getting this idea that they only started smashing gear regularly in the early seventies, because it's the complete opposite of that. You really need to see The Kids Are Alright. There's a whole guitar smashing montage in it that is full of nothing but mid-sixties footage. You'll also see clips of The Who performing at Woodstock in 1969 that will show you that Led Zeppelin brought very little to the live rock show that The Who hadn't already done. Watch the movie. Then you'll be better informed and then we can talk.

That's incorrect right there. Townshend first smashed his guitar by accident in 1965 at a small london club and then they began doing regularly later because it went so well with the crowd. But as I said, it's a moot point, and instrument smashing is a very trivial part of a modern rock performance, and it's seldom done by non-punks these days, which only reinforces my argument. If you want to pull silly TV rankings out of your hat, fine; but in a different program VH1 ranked Zeppelin as number 1, not the Who, or Cream, or Hendrix. This is because Zeppelin refined and polished all of these aspects were talking about here and created something superior. They were the first band in history to have six albums on the billboards charts at once, the first to record a bow-guitar, the first to use backward echos--you get the idea. I've seen the Who's movies and the are quite good, but they just aren't as skilled, IMO in the vocal and guitar departments. 71.76.212.61 21:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• "In the summer of 1964, Pete Townshend accidentally broke his guitar on a small ceiling, but made it look intentional and carried on smashing it completely. He had brought a twelve string guitar with him, so he could carry on playing as if nothing had happened." -- http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=10203

If you had ever seen The Kids Are Alright you wouldn't have made so many erroneous statements. Does anyone really care about who was the first to record bow-guitar? You say instrument smashing is "seldom done"? How about bowing a guitar? The Who were responsible for the invention of the Marshall Stack. Now that's something that matters.

• "While performing at a London club one evening in 1965, The Who's Pete Townshend whirled around and accidentally slammed his guitar against the low ceiling. When he realized that he had broken the instrument's neck, he smashed it against the ground and rammed the remnants into an amp. The crowd went wild and instrument-smashing promptly became a standard part of their act." --

http://anecdotage.com/index.php?aid=12692

As I recall, Jim Marshall was the inventor of the Marshall Stack. That's like saying B. B. King invented the Gibson Les Paul. Ridiculous. As for bowing guitar, listen to any psychedelic, gothic, disco, or prog music today and your bound to hear those very distinctive bow effects. The guy might a well have invented a whole knew instument with that combination. Of course smashing stuff isn't a musical device, it's an amusing stage ploy, like Hendrix setting his guitar on fire, or having a miniature stone henge on stage like in Spinal Tap, lol. 71.76.212.61 23:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• You're dead wrong and so is your link. I have a book called The Who Concert File by Joe McMichael and 'Irish' Jack Lyons and it nails down the date of the first guitar smashing to July 14th 1964. Dave Marsh's book corroborates that and so does Rolling Stone Magazine. Just admit you're wrong. The more obstinate you are the more foolish you look. Jim Marshall invented the Marshall Stack because of Pete Townshend: http://www.peteatkin.com/d6a.htm

"'Marshall stack' refers to the classic configuration of two square Marshall speaker cabinets, one on top of the other, each containing four twelve inch speakers (known as a “four by twelve”), with a (usually) 100 watt Marshall amp on top of the lot. Its invention is credited to Pete Townshend of the Who, for whom Jim Marshall had created a massive eight by twelve cabinet. Loving the sound but finding it too unwieldy to transport, Townshend suggested that it be cut into two, thus creating the classic Marshall stack."

I have many more links corroborating my dates, so there. I know what a Marshall Stack is and I know that Townshend did not make it; what I don't know is why you're so obsessed with these trivial details and not the basic topic, which is musical diversity. 71.76.212.61 00:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• "So there"? How old are you? Yes, let's get back to musical diversity. Is Led Zeppelin a very diverse band? Of course. Are they any more diverse than the Beatles, the Rolling Stones or The Who? No, as anyone who has listened to the catalogues of these four bands could tell you. The Beatles went from "She Loves You" to "Tomorrow Never Knows". The Rolling Stones from "Ruby Tuesday" to "Country Honk" and The Who from "The Kids Are Alright" to "Eminence Front". That's diversity. But, it's clear that you're an enormously biased and misinformed Led Zeppelin fan. You have a lot to learn. The world of rock 'n' roll is too big, too extraordinary and too diverse for you to be so focussed on one band and to praise them above all others. One day you'll look back on what you said about "Going to California" and laugh.

• For one thing, I never said anything about "Going to California"--that was somebody else, although it is a great song. Notice that I sign all of my posts so people know who they're talking to, unlike you. I own albums from all of these bands, and I see more range in Zeppelin than in any other, from music that scared people when it came out (Communication Breakdown) to classical ballads (Rain Song), to straight up folk music. I don't recall the Beatles making people's ears bleed at concerts and then segwaying into acoustic honky tonk--Zeppelin did that, and no other has that kind of artistic range. The Who might be able to do both acoustic and electric music, but the point is that the don't do it as well, or with as much contrast. Plant is one of the greatest rock voices of all time, Page is routinely ranked with Hendrix as the greatest pop guitarist ever, Bonham is the greatest drummer ever, hands down, and John Paul Jones plays something like a dozen different instruments. No other group has a lineup that begins to approach that; it's really no contest. 71.76.212.61 17:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Uh, yeah, it is a contest. Your idea that The Who don't do acoustic and electric as well as Led Zeppelin is pure opinion. John Bonham faces stiff competition from Keith Moon when it comes to rock drumming greatness. As for Led Zeppelin's line-up, no rock band has three live performers of the calibre of Roger Daltrey, Keith Moon and Pete Townshend. That's something that's not even close. And I own the entire catalogues of all four bands, not just a few albums. Trust me, Led Zeppelin isn't any more diverse than they are. In fact, they're probably the least diverse of the four. The Beatles' white album alone is more diverse than Led Zeppelin's entire career.

• Everything is an opinion, especially in art. That's the purpose of this kind of artistic criticism. I guess you come from a place where people aren't allowed to to argue in favor of their tastes. Your bragging about the Who's live performances represents an opinion, but I haven't bothered to point it out, because I recognize that this entire discussion is composed of opinions, whereas you like to say 'that's pure opinion' only when someone disagrees with you. Back to the topic: Keith Moon is slower, weaker, and sloppier than Bonham--just look at the size of Bonham's biceps. If the two were put side by side on stage in competition, Moon would be laughed off stage. He has nothing to approach the likes of Achilles Last Stand. I will not 'trust' you about any band's diversity. Townshend simply does not have the chops to compete with Page, and any guitarist will tell you the same. Smashing things does not make one a great musician. Going back to the White Album is really pathetic because it's already been addressed. Plus that album is more the work of four disgruntled band members than a unified band, so the comparison isn't even valid; Besides, the album is filled with very similar songs, the same existential alternative pop, over and over again. Occasionally they were able to lace this with failed experiments in eastern and blues sounds, but they were never able to break away from that narrow mold of mellow pop. The Beatles have a painful lack of southern blues, choral, latin, reggae, punk, and metal songs. They might have one song in some of these categories, but generally their catalogue is missing them.

In addition, neither the Beatles, nor the the Stones ever had the ability to to play with soft delicacy AND the fury of metal, let alone could they do it well. The Zeppelin could do blues, reggae, metal, choral, country, punk, honky tonk, psychedelic, jazz, pop, flamenco, soul, Celtic, funk, folk, Indian, Middle Eastern, and classically influenced songs, all of which are executed and intregrated with masterful musicianship, both on stage and in studio. Of course, Zeppelin is also the most hated band of all time, for a variety of reasons: they have inspired more bad, cheesy rock bands (Poison (band), Bon Jovi, Guns and Roses, Kiss, Van Halen, Iron Maiden, Skid Row, Ratt, Motley Crue, etc.) and wannabe musicians than any other group in history, their constant radio airplay, and their forging of heavy metal--a genre that would later become overblown and nearly destroy itself by trying to emulate them in the way they dressed, acted, everything. I can't blame people for wanting to be like them, but it's sad to see how inferior they are to their inspiration. But anyway, how much more diverse can a band get? Not much. You're arguing a logically impossible point--there simply aren't a lot of other genres to cover. Saying a band is more diverse than Zeppelin is almost like saying you can break the laws of physics. 71.76.212.61 16:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin were a rock band. There. Catergorized. It doesn't matter who broke a guitar first. This is an encyclopedia. Please take the pointless conversation to a forum. TheMadBaron 17:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Though they were first and foremost a rock band, that's a vague and uninformative categorization that doesn't acknowledge their ability to perform dozens of other types of drastically different music. Another thing--I don't see how this conversation is bothering anyone, and technically this is a forum within an encyclopedia. 71.76.212.61 17:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

71.76.212.61, please review WP:TALK#Wikipedia-specific_information. It very clearly states that talk pages are here to talk about the article, not about the subject. This rather lengthy conversation is completely irrelevant to what we're trying to accomplish at Wikipedia, and you are kindly encouraged to stick to writing an encyclopedia. There are plenty of places on the planet to discuss the merits of Led Zeppelin -- this is not one of them. Warrens 21:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

'Talk about the article and not the subject' is a ridiculously loose statement, not to mention an oxymoron. One cannot begin to improve an article significantly without discussing its subject. Just because you have no interest in a conversation does not mean you should try to destroy or relocate it; and it doesn't make sense why chose to single out this legitimate, civil discussion when there are pointless items on this page such as "name your favorite Zeppelin song". This topic wasn't begun in the most relavent way but that user has seemingly disappeared, and the conversation has become productive. 71.76.212.61 00:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You were, of course, the only one to reply to said "pointless item" regarding favourite songs, but whatever, right? What has this conversation done to improve the quality of the encyclopedia article, anyhow? The only edits you've personally made have either been reverted due to factual inaccuracy, or because you damaged the article by inadverdently removing vast swaths of it. Or mentioned the theremin. Warrens 00:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course I replied to the pointlessness--how else would I know about it? Just because an accursed robot deleted the whole article doesn't mean I did anything, and I've NEVER added anything factually inaccurate--I dare you to name one thing. 71.76.212.61 15:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember, the only goal is improving the encyclopedia. The only discussions that should happen on Wikipedia talk pages should directly serve that goal. If you want to espouse your opinions about how skilled The Who are (or aren't), find a message board to do it on, but this isn't the place for it. Warrens 00:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

When you stop espousing a double standard and address every single person on this page who is not "directly serving the article", I'll listen to you. That should take you a while since there are at least a couple dozen of them. 71.76.212.61 15:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you can't say they were simply "rock". They were heavy metal/hard rock, but also had blues rock and other styles. Reggae is streching it a bit though; even D'yer Mak'er wasn't exactly classic reggae.

I'll give you that, but I was trying to make an issue of their experimentation. 71.76.212.61 00:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm done with this conversation because your ignorance of The Who is nauseating, particularly your insane criticisms of Keith Moon and Pete Townshend.

Here's Jimmy Page on guitar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqyKE5DIFrU

Here's Pete Townshend: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ux27IUhqwzg

Pete Townshend sounds more impressive than Jimmy Page to me. Page may have been better than Townshend in the seventies, but Townshend caught up and blew past him. Have fun arguing with yourself.

Jimmy Page stopped playing guitar frequently for over a decade after the demise of Zeppelin, so it would make sense that his skills have dwindled, not to mention that he is in rather poor health from years of heroin abuse. It certainly isn't true that Townshend has improved since the seventies. I feel Page's technical skills are sill far superior, especially in the solo and acoustic departments. But we both know that nobody cares who is better as an old man--they are both novelties of the past now. This is about the real, legendary Zeppelin, not silly renunions of the 80's and 90's; it's about who was better IN THEIR PRIME--and from 1969-1980 Jimmy Page was the best electric guitar player in the world: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC5nZ35_aU4&search=white%20summer 71.76.212.61 14:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC

"This is a bit of an arcane argument. I mean it's like saying that Jimi Hendrix is a terrible guitarist now. The fact that he's dead means that of course this is nonsense. Is Pete better than Jimmy? Not in Jimmy's prime, in my view; he was second only to Hendrix and possibily Clapton in my eyes."

I agree, those are the only two that could rival him. Not to question their skills, but one of the reasons I like Page a bit more than Clapton or Hendrix is because Page had a better grasp of how to play with an ensemble, whereas both Clapton and Hendrix expected everybody to pay attention to them all the time. 71.76.212.61 19:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

And yeah; agreed this isn't the place to discuss this really. We have gone off the original topic; namely can Led Zeppelin be catagorised?

It certainly isn't true that Townshend has improved since the seventies? My God, man, quit making a fool of yourself. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005NFZQ/qid=1149905993/sr=1-8/ref=sr_1_8/002-5526310-3086433?s=dvd&v=glance&n=130

You need to sign your posts. That DVD of a mediocre concert proves nothing--Townshend was a slow, deaf, broken guitarist when he did that concert. Just look at the editorial review right below it:

"By the end of a robust evening, Daltrey's voice is shot and Townshend looks ready for a shot of vitamins..."

It's a good show for sixy year old men, but nothing more. Townshend peaked in the mid seventies; he was never able to match Page--end of story. 71.76.212.61 18:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"Watch the DVD and you'll see what an idiot you're being. I wish I could be there when you do to see the look on your face. Anyone clicking the link can see how disengenuous you're being with your partial quote from that review. It's a rave review. What you quoted just shows that the band gave their all during a truly incredible concert. Pete Townshend is at his peak as a guitarist right now and that concert captures his rebirth in full flight."

I've seen that concert twice. That's a laughable assertion to say Townshend is at his peak now. Ha! The man has arthritis, is almost deaf, and plays slower than Les Paul, who is in his nineties. Unfortunately, giving your all as an old man doesn't necessarily amount to much, which is what the reviewer was saying. Next you'll be telling me that Michael Jordan is a better basketball player now than he was in 1989. Nonsense. 71.76.212.61 18:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that claiming he is at his best now is irrelevant and incorrect. He is not as good as he was in the 1970s. Very few sixty year olds are. He is still a very good guitarist, but I don't think he has the energy that he used to.

As for the actual point; does it matter? It is irrelevant who is better now; it is especially irrelevant in that this is not a dicussion about the Who directly. Comparing two guitarists who were at their prime 30 years ago on their performances now is pointless. As I say, it's a bit like me claiming to be a better guitar player than Hendrix today. Of course I am; he's dead. What I am saying is that really a least discuss each on their merits then, not now.

FrasierC

I agree completely. 71.76.212.61 18:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to post your point of view or argue about it. This applies to an article's talk page as well. Please stick to the purpose of talk pages. From Help:Talk page:

"The purpose of a talk page is to help to improve the contents of the article in question."

"Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject. It's only the habits we encourage that keep Wikipedia from turning into a slanging match. See also: Wikiquette." - Slow Graffiti 03:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

LETS PUT THESE GODS INTO A FEATURED ARTICLE

I MEAN C'MON NOW, MARIAH CAREY? THAT'S LAUGHABLE, AND NOT LED ZEPPELIN? YOU PEOPLE FAIL HORRIBLY Starcaster 19:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)I concur.

I think it's a great idea that such an influential artist be promoted to feature article status. As for "you people fail horribly" - that includes you! Wikipedia is for and by everyone. Take the initiative to improve the article yourself. - Slow Graffiti 03:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Zeppelin were shit, they didnt even have a song which done the charts Arvatov jun13 06