Led Zeppelin Reuniting

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Table 5

eh, never been a fan of grampas in leather pants reuniting for stunts like this. I think it tarnishes their legacy for many people. I'd rather live with the lore of their awesomness, then be faced with an often dissapointing reality.

What if they just completely rock out? And their new material is just as good the rest?

Granted, you do have a valid point about the leather pants thing.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Muta

What if they just completely rock out? And their new material is just as good the rest?

Can any 50/60 year old ever rock out in comparison to when they were in their 20's, coked up, and living in the absolute hey day of rock and roll? there's a reason that era is called Classic rock....because hell, it is damn hard to replicate all the great things that came together in those years.

I don't mind watching old musicians, but I'd rather it be someone who is fit for their age....like Neil Young, who adapted to his growing years and I think is better than ever (saw the man last year, and it was one of, if not the best, concerts i've ever been to).

When i see these old rockers trying to replicate their youth, it just feels a little pathetic.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Can any 50/60 year old ever rock out in comparison to when they were in their 20's, coked up, and living in the absolute hey day of rock and roll? there's a reason that era is called Classic rock....because hell, it is damn hard to replicate all the great things that came together in those years.

I don't mind watching old musicians, but I'd rather it be someone who is fit for their age....like Neil Young, who adapted to his growing years and I think is better than ever (saw the man last year, and it was one of, if not the best, concerts i've ever been to).

When i see these old rockers trying to replicate their youth, it just feels a little pathetic.

Maybe, but what if they still completely rock out? Then what are you going to say?

[habernac]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Can any 50/60 year old ever rock out in comparison to when they were in their 20's, coked up, and living in the absolute hey day of rock and roll? there's a reason that era is called Classic rock....because hell, it is damn hard to replicate all the great things that came together in those years.

I don't mind watching old musicians, but I'd rather it be someone who is fit for their age....like Neil Young, who adapted to his growing years and I think is better than ever (saw the man last year, and it was one of, if not the best, concerts i've ever been to).

When i see these old rockers trying to replicate their youth, it just feels a little pathetic.

I saw McCartney two years ago and he rocked for just under 3 hours. Not bad for a then 63 year old. Robert Plant, John Fogerty, heck, even Aerosmith were good their last jaunts through town. AC/DC is going to come through town again and they will rock, too.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by habernac

Not bad for a then 63 year old.

sure, not bad for a senior citizen, but that's sort of the point....

I'm not saying these guys weren't great (well except maybe Aerosmith who I always thought was a rock band for the Lite96 crowd), but I think it sort of sullies their legacy when you see them on the downhill. I do enjoy the guys who's music matures with age (ie Young, Fogerty etc), but for a band like Led Zepp who was all about rocking out...eh, I'm not a big believer in trying to re-live past glory.

But hey, if you guys are into it, crank it to 11 and have at 'er.

[habernac]

no, I mean at 63 he still rocked. Not a geriatric rock, he was as good as any 30 year old I've seen on stage. Are there some that can't pull it off? You bet. (and yeah, not a big fan of the newer crap Aerosmith does, but they still can "rock" when performing their 70's stuff)

[Saint Troy]

Originally Posted by JimmytheT

Now I admitedly enjoy Led Zeppelin's music, however both of these statements are very erroneous:

Led Zeppelin ripped off more American Black Music than any other rock band of that era and gave no writing credit to the original writers. At least bands likeCream gave writing credit for a song like I'm So Glad, to the original writer, Skip James.

Many of their songs should have writing credit given to Willie Dixon, Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, Robert Johnson, and Blind Lemon Jefferson to name a few. They just cranked up the distortion on old Blues riffs, and Plante sang the lyrics of old blues songs in his trademark voice.

To say they were top notch song-writers is false; Led Zeppelin were top notch cover-writers for the most part, sans maybe stairway to heaven (even that's disputed -- It may have been performed by a local British band and they stole it).

They made excellent cover songs to help build a new genre of rock, however it disgusts me that they never gave any credit to original authors, until they were sued in some cases.

in your opinion of course

[Cawz]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Can any 50/60 year old ever rock out in comparison to when they were in their 20's, coked up, and living in the absolute hey day of rock and roll? there's a reason that era is called Classic rock....because hell, it is damn hard to replicate all the great things that came together in those years.

I don't mind watching old musicians, but I'd rather it be someone who is fit for their age....like Neil Young, who adapted to his growing years and I think is better than ever (saw the man last year, and it was one of, if not the best, concerts i've ever been to).

When i see these old rockers trying to replicate their youth, it just feels a little pathetic.

Tom Petty was great on his latest tour, but his music is more mellow and suited for an old rocker.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Cawz

Tom Petty was great on his latest tour, but his music is more mellow and suited for an old rocker.

Yep, big fan of Tom Petty. Perfect example of a guy who has matured with his music in a way that feels natural and right. Did you happen to see the 4 hour documentary of his a few months ago? Great stuff.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Saint Troy

in your opinion of course

Its actually pretty well documented. Make no mistake I would definitely do what I could to get tickets to a show and love the music! Unfortunately though a lot of their stuff was rather blatantly stolen (I say stolen because no credit was given to the original artist).

When I heard the "original" Babe I'm Gonna Leave You and then the LZ version immediately after it was both eye-opening and disappointing to me. There are a lot of the big songs in the list to...dazed and confused is another that springs to mind.

Like I say, I still love the music and still listen...I just wish that they gave credit where its due.

[Saint Troy]

Originally Posted by Slava

Its actually pretty well documented. Make no mistake I would definitely do what I could to get tickets to a show and love the music! Unfortunately though a lot of their stuff was rather blatantly stolen (I say stolen because no credit was given to the original artist).

When I heard the "original" Babe I'm Gonna Leave You and then the LZ version immediately after it was both eye-opening and disappointing to me. There are a lot of the big songs in the list to...dazed and confused is another that springs to mind.

Like I say, I still love the music and still listen...I just wish that they gave credit where its due.

Really? I guess I knew it was a Joan Baez song, what I didn't know was that it was a folk song from the 50's. I have heard all of the trademark issues, and yes Plant did scoop blues lyrics, which is a tradition, but still should have been credited, but to call them a cover band is ridiculous. This is a quote from Page from wikipedia:

In an interview he gave to Guitar World magazine in 1993, Page commented on the band's use of classic blues songs:
“ [A]s far as my end of it goes, I always tried to bring something fresh to anything that I used. I always made sure to come up with some variation. In fact, I think in most cases, you would never know what the original source could be. Maybe not in every case -- but in most cases. So most of the comparisons rest on the lyrics. And Robert was supposed to change the lyrics, and he didn't always do that -- which is what brought on most of the grief. They couldn't get us on the guitar parts of the music, but they nailed us on the lyrics. We did, however, take some liberties, I must say [laughs]. But never mind; we did try to do the right thing

[Cawz]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Yep, big fan of Tom Petty. Perfect example of a guy who has matured with his music in a way that feels natural and right. Did you happen to see the 4 hour documentary of his a few months ago? Great stuff.

No, I never caught that.

I saw him in Pemberton. He was amazing.

[habernac]

Originally Posted by Saint Troy

Really? I guess I knew it was a Joan Baez song, what I didn't know was that it was a folk song from the 50's. I have heard all of the trademark issues, and yes Plant did scoop blues lyrics, which is a tradition, but still should have been credited, but to call them a cover band is ridiculous. This is a quote from Page from wikipedia:

In an interview he gave to Guitar World magazine in 1993, Page commented on the band's use of classic blues songs:
“ [A]s far as my end of it goes, I always tried to bring something fresh to anything that I used. I always made sure to come up with some variation. In fact, I think in most cases, you would never know what the original source could be. Maybe not in every case -- but in most cases. So most of the comparisons rest on the lyrics. And Robert was supposed to change the lyrics, and he didn't always do that -- which is what brought on most of the grief. They couldn't get us on the guitar parts of the music, but they nailed us on the lyrics. We did, however, take some liberties, I must say [laughs]. But never mind; we did try to do the right thing

Show me a band that does all original material and I'll show you a band with very few songs. The entire blues genre rips itself off.

[A_3]

Originally Posted by Slava

Its actually pretty well documented. Make no mistake I would definitely do what I could to get tickets to a show and love the music! Unfortunately though a lot of their stuff was rather blatantly stolen (I say stolen because no credit was given to the original artist).

When I heard the "original" Babe I'm Gonna Leave You and then the LZ version immediately after it was both eye-opening and disappointing to me. There are a lot of the big songs in the list to...dazed and confused is another that springs to mind.

Like I say, I still love the music and still listen...I just wish that they gave credit where its due.

The controversy over Led Zeppelin's lyrical 'inspirations' is well documented. I don't think this is an issue of contention. However, to pass the group off as a mere cover band I feel is completely unwarranted.

The power of Led Zeppelin, more than anything (in my opinion), comes from the musical arrangements of four of the most talented musicians in modern music. Jimmy Page is a virtuoso guitarist who cut his chops as a highly sought after studio guitarist and member of a little band known as The Yardbirds. John Bonham is still regarded as THE drummer in many musical circles. John Paul Jones, a man who was, and still is to this day the premier studio musician. Finally, I shouldn't discredit the vocal abilities of Robert Plant, perhaps the iconic rock voice, the perfect sound at the perfect time. This band was literally it, a super group before super groups.

Yes, many Led Zeppelin songs may share a lyrical heritage with other blues/folk songs, but that's not what made this band great. For example, let us consult youtube on the song 'Babe I'm Gonna Leave You'. This is a song originally written by American folk artist Anne Bredon, and covered by Joan Baez.

Joan's Version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eCNLY7ezJo

Led Zeppelin's Version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umBYTR1-PZY

Alright. Same lyrics. Big difference. You have a band taking a song (mediocre at best) and transforming it into an incredible piece of music. Led Zeppelin was able to harness the power of this particular piece of music and squeeze every last inch of emotion and meaning out of it.


The same can be said for 'Dazed and Confused'.

Jake Holmes Version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTsvs-pAGDc

Led Zeppelin Version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGa3LXyuIXI

Again, generally mundane piece of music (though I kind of like it), that Led Zep was able to completely transform into something new and creative. Though the lyrics do differ between the two versions.

So when we're saying 'stolen', what are we really talking about? If we're saying that the band took lyrics from other bands, then yes, the did steal. But at the same time, this was a group that was able to hear something in generally unknown songs and put it to incredible compositions. Transforming lyrics that would have otherwise been lost forever in mediocrity into something iconic that we still refer to today. So were they stealing others songs, or enhancing others songs? Creating masterpieces out of of finger paintings.

Besides that, if you go back in blues and folk history, you consistently see the recycling of lyrics. When somebody says, 'oh Led Zeppelin stole that lyric from Muddy Waters, or Robert Johnson' it's highly probable that Muddy Waters or Robert Johnson stole those same lyrics from somebody before them, and that person probably stole them from somebody else. Which brings us to the evolution of music. Music constantly builds on itself, using old techniques with new conventions to create something fresh. Which is essentially what Led Zeppelin was doing with many of these 'stolen songs'.

Which is why I feel that we can not play Led Zeppelin off as an oportunistic cover band, but rather a group of musical genius' who took music to a place it had never been before.

And for the record, Led Zeppelin did admit to biting the lyrics of Willie Dixon and other blues artists and did reach agreements with them to credit their contributions to the songs in question.

Finally, I would like to close with one final strong piece of evidence that shows without a doubt that Led Zeppelin, on their own, were one of the most capable, complex, and original bands in music history.

Kashmir:

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

[Matata]

Just to hop on the 'led zeppelin' aren't original bandwagon, they ripped off Black Sabbath alot more than any old timey musician. Zeppelin was certainly more talented and skilled than Sabbath and eventually created a sound broader and more ambitous than Sabbath was capable of, but they still ripped them off.

I'm not excited about a new Zeppelin album, their last couple albums showed signs of stagnation and I can't see how a bunch of old men are going to rediscover a fire they lost in a drug induced haze decades ago. I would love to catch them on a tour, they are still top notch musicians and performers, but creativity does not favour the rich, old and comfortable.

[Slava]

Good post A3. My thoughts are probably the same as yours really. I think that they are/were a great band and had great influence. Its just a little disappointing that they didn't give credit where its clearly due, whether that is the norm or not.