# Zeppelin vs Sabbath



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Who were the real kings of 70s metal?


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Tough call, I love both! But I had to give it to Sabbath for the sake of sheer originality.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I vote for Deep Purple, or was the Moog not considered proper for metal?


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Fritz Kobus said:


> I vote for Deep Purple, or was the Moog not considered proper for metal?


It's not the Moog, but the fact that they recorded with the London Symphony Orchestra that disqualifies them


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Grand Funk Railroad


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Led Zeppelin took folk and blues and re-moulded them in a distinctive way, whereas the trademark sledgehammer Black Sabbath sound was without precedent. Both great, but Sabbath by a whisker. Deep Purple were pretty much a rehashed Vanilla Fudge until Gillan and Glover joined. If there was a parallel US poll then perhaps it would be between Grand Funk and Mountain?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I've never listened to any 70s Sabbath. I've only heard Heaven & Hell which is good. But I'm not much of a metal head so I have to go with LZ. But 70s hard rock isn't really my thing.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2019)

Paranoid and Master of Reality are excellent albums.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

philoctetes said:


> Grand Funk Railroad


Grand Funk Railroad was neither grand, funky or a railroad.  Please discuss


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Grand Funk Railroad was neither grand, funky or a railroad. Please discuss


They're the Holy Roman Empire of bands.

But my vote goes for Zeppelin, which just outclassed Sabbath in every way.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Led Zeppelin was so much more than Heavy Metal that even calling them Metal is like saying Michelangelo was a good ceiling painter.


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Led Zeppelin was so much more than Heavy Metal that even calling them Metal is like saying Michelangelo was a good ceiling painter.


could not have put it better...….would never dream of listening to Sabbath and yet even now certain Zeppelin 'remains' magnificent in its grandeur!!


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Zeppelin because they were more varied and dynamic. The light and shade, the yin and the yang.

Sabbath is unquestionably one of the best metal bands of all time, but my feeling is metal as a genre is more limited in expressive content. 

I agree with the above post suggesting Led Zep is not heavy metal.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Grand Funk Railroad was neither grand, funky or a railroad. Please discuss


Sensible band names kinda miss the fun of naming a band.

LZ wasn't a zeppelin either, but everybody knows that already.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Two bands I can largely do without. I'd vote for Uriah Heep.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Sabbath were my first love and my first big rock gig (with Van Halen supporting} in 78. I liked Zeppelin a lot too but they were more into folk and not a metal band. That downtuned heaviness made Sabbath compelling for me. The first 6 albums are classics. They weren't Sabbath with Dio, they just sounded like heavy Rainbow. I remember the first time I heard the song Black Sabbath I nearly shat myself cos I'd never heard anything like that before. BTW, Art Rock, I was a huge Uriah Heep fan back in the day (July Morning is a top choon). :guitar:



Bwv 1080 said:


> Grand Funk Railroad was neither grand, funky or a railroad. Please discuss


That just made my morning. Lol.


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

Merl said:


> Sabbath were my first love and my first big rock gig (with Van Halen supporting} in 78. I liked Zeppelin a lot too but they were more into folk and not a metal band. That downtuned heaviness made Sabbath compelling for me. The first 6 albums are classics. They weren't Sabbath with Dio, they just sounded like heavy Rainbow. I remember the first time I heard the song Black Sabbath I nearly shat myself cos I'd never heard anything like that before. BTW, Art Rock, I was a huge Uriah Heep fan back in the day (July Morning is a top choon). :guitar:


although we appear to often agree regarding many aspects of music the question concerning the relative merits of these two bands will remain a 'bone of contention'.....

and as for Heep!


----------



## haydnguy (Oct 13, 2008)

Early Grand Funk was good. Unfortunately they got too commercial which we all know is not good. Also the addition of an organ did not seem to fit.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

I always thought Deep Purple were up there with Sabbath and Zeppelin.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> I always thought Deep Purple were up there with Sabbath and Zeppelin.


Seemed to me growing up in the late 70s that every party would be accompanied by a copy of Led Zep IV, Deep Purple's 'Made in Japan' and (if it was my party) Sabbath Bloody Sabbath. As for you, Jim, I am frankly disappointed that you do not understand Sabbath's place at the top of the metal pile. However you are a Maccem so maybe you don't see brilliance when it's staring you in the face. You probably think Jack Rodwell was the new Messi. (*Merl sits back and waits for Jim to explode) :devil:


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

Merl said:


> Seemed to me growing up in the late 70s that every party would be accompanied by a copy of Led Zep IV, Deep Purple's 'Made in Japan' and (if it was my party) Sabbath Bloody Sabbath. As for you, Jim, I am frankly disappointed that you do not understand Sabbath's place at the top of the metal pile. However you are a Maccem so maybe you don't see brilliance when it's staring you in the face. You probably think Jack Rodwell was the new Messi. (*Merl sits back and waits for Jim to explode) :devil:


that comment re 'Rodders' is just not funny!


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

jim prideaux said:


> that comment re 'Rodders' is just not funny!


It is for us City fans. We sold him for £10m. Be lucky to get 50p for him now.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

haydnguy said:


> Early Grand Funk was good. Unfortunately they got too commercial which we all know is not good. _Also the addition of an organ did not seem to fit_.


_I Want Freedom_ and _Rock 'n' Roll Soul_ are two notable exceptions. I could initially handle Grand Funk's change in direction but their last three albums (_All the Girls in the World Beware_, _Born to Die_ and _Good Singin', Good Playin'_) were pretty weak.

In their early period Grand Funk had a strange dynamic which included scratchy 'garagey' guitar, growling bass and white soul vocals. It wasn't all meat-headed noise back then either - the below track from late 1971 sounds to these ears like the Red Hot Chili Peppers 15 years before time.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I like 'Good Singin Good Playin'. Zappa's solo on 'out to get you' is great and Crossfire is a great song. I agree on 'All the Girls' and 'Born to Die' though.


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

Merl said:


> It is for us City fans. We sold him for £10m. Be lucky to get 50p for him now.


I believe Tony Mowbray thinks rather well of him at Blackburn (see where I have ended up Merl-defending the indefensible!)

with regard to the initial question. I have never been a 'fan' of metal in anyway and do not consider Zeppelin to be a metal band. Have recently revisited certain tracks that I personally enjoy including...…

The Rover (one of the great intros)/House of the Holy/Nightflight/Wanton Song.....all from PG
Song remains the same/Dancing Days/Over the Hills and far away.....all from HotH
Celebration Day/'side 2' of volume 3.....

the above represent why Zeppelin for me will always be a great 'rock band'


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

If my choices are only the two in the thread start I HAVE to vote for BS - for the simple reason that as far as I know, they wrote their own tunes. The biggest rip off in the history of rock and roll is _Led Zeppelin I_. Plant and Page have their lawyer on speed dial every time they release "new" music.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/led-zeppelins-10-boldest-rip-offs-223419/

I believe it was Robert Heinlien who equated plagiarism with horse thievery!


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Merl said:


> I like 'Good Singin Good Playin'. Zappa's solo on 'out to get you' is great and Crossfire is a great song. I agree on 'All the Girls' and 'Born to Die' though.


I can meet you halfway and say it's the best of the three - my favourite track is probably _1976_. Grand Funk were probably just burnt out by then - one thing they couldn't be knocked for was their work rate (eleven studio albums, two live albums and countless gigs over a period of seven years).


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

jim prideaux said:


> I believe Tony Mowbray thinks rather well of him at Blackburn (see where I have ended up Merl-defending the indefensible!)
> 
> with regard to the initial question. I have never been a 'fan' of metal in anyway and do not consider Zeppelin to be a metal band. Have recently revisited certain tracks that I personally enjoy including...…
> 
> ...


Agreed. Metal is to Led Zeppelin as Lead is to Gold. And one senses, in the music itself, the delight that the music-makers of Zeppelin took in its creation.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2019)

Here is my hot take: I like Zeppelin, a lot. That being said, the mythology that has arisen around them is ridiculous, and I feel they are greatly overrated.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Art Rock said:


> Two bands I can largely do without. I'd vote for Uriah Heep.


I listen to Demons & Wizards once in a great while, but mostly their material wasn't that great. Their vocal style was somewhat influential. The best thing about D & W is the Hammond organ sound on some of those tunes, especially Rainbow Demon.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Who were the real kings of 70s metal?


Neither for me. My vote would have gone for Deep Purple had they been in the options.

Between the two bands cited, I favour LZ.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Deep Purple is the RC Cola of 70s metal


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Deep Purple is the RC Cola of 70s metal


Back when I would drink colas, RC was my favorite!


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Hey, what about Steppenwolf?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

DrMike said:


> Here is my hot take: I like Zeppelin, a lot. That being said, the mythology that has arisen around them is ridiculous, and I feel they are greatly overrated.


Over promoted is the term I use. The major label bands of the 60s & 70s are brand name products distributed by multi-national corporate conglomerates. These products accompany the people in restaurants and convenient stores like Pepsi and Heinz Ketchup.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

starthrower said:


> Over promoted is the term I use. The major label bands of the 60s & 70s are brand name products distributed by multi-national corporate conglomerates. These products accompany the people in restaurants and convenient stores like Pepsi and Heinz Ketchup.


No different today, but manufacturing has improved.

"Impressionable young fans would therefore do well to avoid John Seabrook's The Song Machine, an immersive, reflective, and utterly satisfying examination of the business of popular music. It is a business as old as Stephen Foster, but never before has it been run so efficiently or dominated by so few. We have come to expect this type of consolidation from our banking, oil-and-gas, and health-care industries. But the same practices they rely on -- ruthless digitization, outsourcing, focus-group brand testing, brute-force marketing -- have been applied with tremendous success in pop, creating such profitable multinationals as Rihanna, Katy Perry, and Taylor Swift."

Excerpted from an Atlantic Magazine article, *Hit Charade*.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

KenOC said:


> No different today, but manufacturing has improved.
> 
> "Impressionable young fans would therefore do well to avoid John Seabrook's The Song Machine, an immersive, reflective, and utterly satisfying examination of the business of popular music. It is a business as old as Stephen Foster, but never before has it been run so efficiently or dominated by so few. We have come to expect this type of consolidation from our banking, oil-and-gas, and health-care industries. But the same practices they rely on -- ruthless digitization, outsourcing, focus-group brand testing, brute-force marketing -- have been applied with tremendous success in pop, creating such profitable multinationals as Rihanna, Katy Perry, and Taylor Swift."
> 
> Excerpted from an Atlantic Magazine article, *Hit Charade*.


As Frank Zappa once said, "Americans will buy anything. They bought the pet rock." Incidentally, the pet rock was invented by advertising executive Gary Dahl who became a millionaire in less than a year selling 1.5 million of these objects at 4 dollars a piece. That's 4 dollars at its 1975 value.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I like Zeppelin because no doves, bats, or chickens were harmed at their concerts.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Manxfeeder said:


> I like Zeppelin because no doves, bats, or chickens were harmed at their concerts.


What about sharks?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Manxfeeder said:


> I like Zeppelin because no doves, bats, or chickens were harmed at their concerts.


I wonder how much wildlife was maimed and killed by rock tour buses and tractor trailers racing across the highways of the world in the middle of the night?


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Bwv 1080 said:


> What about sharks?


Yeah, there's that . . .


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

starthrower said:


> I wonder how much wildlife was maimed and killed by rock tour buses and tractor trailers racing across the highways of the world in the middle of the night?


It all began when Charlie Parker hit that bird on the road, then took it to his hotel and instructed the cook how to prepare it. Yep, it's all downhill from there.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Manxfeeder said:


> It all began when Charlie Parker hit that bird on the road, then took it to his hotel and instructed the cook how to prepare it. Yep, it's all downhill from there.


The jazz cats were always way ahead of the rock musicians.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Zeppelin by far, but they aren't really heavy metal. I get bored easily by Sabbath's riffs. Iron Maiden was a much better metal band in my opinion.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> Zeppelin by far, but they aren't really heavy metal. I get bored easily by Sabbath's riffs. Iron Maiden was a much better metal band in my opinion.


Noooooooooooooo!


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

starthrower said:


> As Frank Zappa once said, "Americans will buy anything. They bought the pet rock." Incidentally, the pet rock was invented by advertising executive Gary Dahl who became a millionaire in less than a year *selling 1.5 million of these objects at 4 dollars a piece*. That's 4 dollars at its 1975 value.


Well there's 1.5 million folks who probably should not be voting. :lol:


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Fritz Kobus said:


> Well there's 1.5 million folks who probably should not be voting. :lol:


They've all had kids who have had kids. So it's probably closer to 20 million.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Fritz Kobus said:


> Well there's 1.5 million folks who probably should not be voting. :lol:


Too late........


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

starthrower said:


> The jazz cats were always way ahead of the rock musicians.


Except when it comes to things like backwards echo, over-dubbing, tape splicing, utilization of the studio as an instrument etc.

Perhaps those cats got so caught up in showing off their chops they over-looked some stuff.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

tdc said:


> Except when it comes to things like backwards echo, over-dubbing, tape splicing, utilization of the studio as an instrument etc.
> 
> Perhaps those cats got so caught up in showing off their chops they over-looked some stuff.


No, its a different approach to music making. Capturing a live performance in the studio vs manufacturing music. If you think jazz is nothing but a display of chops, you are mistaken. And all this besides the fact, my statement was tongue in cheek. Many of the studio techniques utilized by rock musicians were invented by a jazz guitarist. Les Paul.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

FWIW the first three notes of Mozarts Eb Quartet K428 is the opening tritone riff to Black Sabbath


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

starthrower said:


> No, its a different approach to music making. Capturing a live performance in the studio vs manufacturing music. If you think jazz is nothing but a display of chops, you are mistaken. And all this besides the fact, my statement was tongue in cheek. Many of the studio techniques utilized by rock musicians were invented by a jazz guitarist. Les Paul.


Les Paul was not strictly a jazz artist, he was a multi talented musician who also played blues and popular music, and as far as I know he didn't invent any techniques but brought some to mainstream attention. Your comment may have been tongue in cheek, but it reflects the way many here actually think and act elitist towards rock and pop music, you calling one 'live music' and the other 'manufactured music' just seems like another subtle attempt to instill this attitude.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I have nothing against rock music. I grew up listening to it. But your comment about jazz musicians overlooking electronic studio techniques is rather baseless. Unless you're Pat Metheny or one of the few very successful jazz artists, the recording budget usually allows one or two days of recording for a jazz record. There's not much time for studio gimmicky and effects, which acoustic music doesn't need anyway. And Les Paul did develop multi track recording, and the solid body electric guitar along with Leo Fender, and Gibson.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

starthrower said:


> I have nothing against rock music. I grew up listening to it. But your comment about jazz musicians overlooking electronic studio techniques is rather baseless. Unless you're Pat Metheny or one of the few very successful jazz artists, the recording budget usually allows one or two days of recording for a jazz record. There's not much time for studio gimmicky and effects, which acoustic music doesn't need anyway. And Les Paul did develop multi track recording, and the solid body electric guitar along with Leo Fender, and Gibson.


According to Wiki multitrack recording was conceived and developed by Ross Snyder, with Les Paul later collaborating on the project:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multitrack_recording



starthrower said:


> But your comment about jazz musicians overlooking electronic studio techniques is rather baseless.


My comment isn't baseless. The fact is you made a comment suggesting jazz artists were the first to do everything, then when I questioned you on it you said you were joking, but then went on to provide information which you felt validated your point. Can you show me a jazz album that used these effects pre-Beatles in ways that were influential on them or Led Zeppelin? Many jazz artists are great, I know they aren't always just a display of chops, but they don't deserve the credit for everything that occurred in popular music.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Of course not. Popular music producers utilized the technology as it developed. Non of this stuff existed in the 30s and 40s when Charlie Parker and Duke Ellington made records. But like I said for the most part jazz records don't need that stuff. It's about the performance, not elaborate production. One jazz guy that was doing weird stuff before the Beatles was Sun Ra. He was playing electric piano in 1956, and he recorded one of the first psychedelic albums in 1963 called Cosmic Tones For Mental Therapy.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Neither as they both kinda suck. :tiphat:


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

I was not around in the 1970's, and I am not really crazy about any of these two bands. But I prefer the music of Black Sabbath, so I voted for them.


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

One way to approach the OP's query is to ask if the following genres and sub-genres owe more to Led Zeppelin or Black Sabbath - (or even Deep Purple for those who consider that it was this particular triumvirate that laid down the path that the others followed). 

Heavy Metal Genres - 

1 Alternative metal
1.1 Derivatives of alternative metal
1.1.1 Funk metal
1.1.2 Nu metal
1.1.3 Rap metal

2 Avant-garde metal

3 Black metal
3.1 Derivatives of black metal
3.1.1 National Socialist black metal
3.1.2 Red and Anarchist black metal
3.1.3 Symphonic black metal
3.1.4 Blackened screamo
3.1.5 Viking metal
3.1.6 War metal
3.1.7 Blackgaze
3.2 Post-black metal

4 Christian metal
4.1 Derivatives of Christian metal
4.1.1 Unblack metal

5 Crust punk
5.1 Derivatives of crust punk
5.1.1 Blackened crust

6 Death metal
6.1 Derivatives of death metal
6.1.1 Blackened death metal
6.1.2 Death 'n' roll
6.1.3 Melodic death metal
6.1.4 Technical death metal
6.1.5 Symphonic death metal

7 Doom metal
7.1 Derivatives of doom metal
7.1.1 Death/doom
7.1.2 Drone metal
7.1.3 Funeral doom
7.1.4 Sludge metal

8 Extreme metal

9 Folk metal
9.1 Derivatives of folk metal
9.1.1 Celtic metal
9.1.2 Pirate metal
9.1.3 Pagan metal

10 Glam metal

11 Gothic metal

12 Grindcore
12.1 Derivatives of grindcore
12.1.1 Deathgrind
12.1.2 Goregrind
12.1.3 Pornogrind
12.1.4 Electrogrind

13 Grunge

14 Industrial metal
14. 1 Industrial death metal
14.2 Industrial black metal

15 Kawaii metal

16 Latin metal

17 Metalcore
17.1 Subgenres of metalcore
17.1.1 Melodic metalcore
17.1.2 Deathcore
17.1.3 Mathcore
17.1.4 Electronicore
17.1.5 Nu metalcore

18 Neoclassical metal

19 Neue Deutsche Härte

20 Post-metal

21 Power metal

22 Progressive metal
22.1 Derivatives of progressive metal
22.1.1 Djent
22.1.2 Space metal
22.1.3 Progressive metalcore

23 Speed metal

24 Stoner metal

25 Symphonic metal

26 Thrash metal
26.1 Derivatives of thrash metal
26.1.1 Crossover thrash
26.1.2 Groove metal
26.1.3T eutonic thrash metal

27 Traditional heavy metal
27.1 New traditional heavy metal


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

No disrespect to you, Mollie John, as I know you are only the messenger, but it's that kind of ridiculously obsessive sub-categorisation which almost takes the fun out of listening to anything.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Mollie John said:


> One way to approach the OP's query is to ask if the following genres and sub-genres owe more to Led Zeppelin or Black Sabbath - (or even Deep Purple for those who consider that it was this particular triumvirate that laid down the path that the others followed).
> 
> Heavy Metal Genres -
> 
> ...


Where does Iron Butterfly fall in this list? Stoner something rock?


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Red Terror said:


> Neither as they both kinda suck. :tiphat:


I care little for either, though they both have some awesome music. Out of all of it, I think Sabbath's War Pigs and Iron Man are really cool songs, probably because they hit me in the head back in high school (1970s).


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

I was never a Black Sabbath fan, I've always been a fan of Led Zeppelin. My reason is irrational and subjective, I just prefer Zeppelin. They sound more interesting and varied to me.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Speaking of Led Zeppelin - which as a lifelong classical nerd I'm totally unqualified to do - I'm the proud owner of a pristine, never-unwrapped set of 4 CDs titled "The Dinosaur in Motion," recorded live at the Seattle Coliseum on march 21, 1975. This is a Cypress Valley recording, never intended for commercial release, and seems to be quite rare. There's a used copy going for around $50 on ebay, but what an unopened copy might be worth I don't know. I looked on Discogs and found that sale of the item is forbidden there.

If anyone is interested in this, or has any ideas about what I should do with it, I'd be grateful for suggestions.


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Speaking of Led Zeppelin - which as a lifelong classical nerd I'm totally unqualified to do - I'm the proud owner of a pristine, never-unwrapped set of 4 CDs titled "The Dinosaur in Motion," recorded live at the Seattle Coliseum on march 21, 1975. This is a Cypress Valley recording, never intended for commercial release, and seems to be quite rare. There's a used copy going for around $50 on ebay, but what an unopened copy might be worth I don't know. I looked on Discogs and found that sale of the item is forbidden there.
> 
> If anyone is interested in this, or has any ideas about what I should do with it, I'd be grateful for suggestions.


Cypress Valley is the name of the company that issued this bootleg recording which is a condensed version of the original "The Dinosaur in Motion" release which ran to 7 discs -

http://www.lz-alphaomega.com/titles/1975/The_Dinosaur_In_Motion.htm (this is the 7 CD version released by "Empress Valley").

This is the version that a collector would be most interested in having - the 4 CD set that you have is less desirable but still has market value. You have two options - list it on eBay yourself and undercut the current seller by 10 USD and you should be able to sell it quite quickly as it is being watched by two buyers who are waiting for a price break or contact the seller and work out a deal in which he would accept the set on consignment and sell it for you for a percentage which usually means a 50/50 split which would net you roughly 20 to 25 USD.

What would I personally do? - Rip off the shrink-wrap, take a sharpie marker, recreate the autographs of Jimmy Page, Robert Plant, John Paul Jones, and John Bonham (see photo attached) and then sell it to Senza Sordino who by his own admission is irrational when it comes to Led Zeppelin and thus would be willing to buy anything however spurious the provenance. In fact, if you personalize it " Senza - you totally rock! - Love, Jimmy, Robert, John Paul, and John" you can probably get him to pony up a couple of hundred bucks for it. He's a wonderful person - kind-hearted and good-natured - and thus ripe for the picking although you'll have to hope that he's nearly dysfunctional with irrationality lest he tumble on to the fact that drummer John Bonham passed away in 1980 - better yet - sign it "Jason Bonham" - that'll work.

Don't worry about the ethics of the situation... Think of it as a remunerative way to teach Senza a "life lesson" on the perils of irrationality - unfortunately some of life's lessons need to be learned the hard way but that's the breaks, eh?

Best wishes and good luck -

- MacKenzie


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I heard Senza Sordino blew all of his spare cash on jazz yodeling records.


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

starthrower said:


> I heard Senza Sordino blew all of his spare cash on jazz yodeling records.


:lol::lol::lol:






Melanie Oesch - "The Queen of Jazz Yodeling"... Oddly enough jazz yodeling is a sub-genre of heavy metal (hybrid of Viking (think Amon Amarth), pirate (think Alestorm), metalcore (think As I Lay Dying), and pop rock (think Bay City Rollers) rather than jazz itself... Learn something new every day, eh?


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

elgars ghost said:


> No disrespect to you, Mollie John, as I know you are only the messenger, but it's that kind of ridiculously obsessive sub-categorisation which almost takes the fun out of listening to anything.


No disrespect taken but I would respectfully disagree with you on the merits of the creation and establishment of sub-genres as I see them as evidence of the vitality and vibrancy of the respective genre as a continually evolving (or devolving, see black metal, National Socialist) art form as the development of a particular sub-genre represents a desire to expand and exceed the limitations of the parent genre.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Sabbath .


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Mollie John said:


> Cypress Valley is the name of the company that issued this bootleg recording which is a condensed version of the original "The Dinosaur in Motion" release which ran to 7 discs -
> 
> http://www.lz-alphaomega.com/titles/1975/The_Dinosaur_In_Motion.htm (this is the 7 CD version released by "Empress Valley").
> 
> ...


The "ethics of the situation" sounds very Led Zeppelinish!


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Mollie John said:


> One way to approach the OP's query is to ask if the following genres and sub-genres owe more to Led Zeppelin or Black Sabbath - (or even Deep Purple for those who consider that it was this particular triumvirate that laid down the path that the others followed).
> 
> Heavy Metal Genres -
> 
> ...


Even Carl Linnaeus would be impressed. Under the Kingdom of music, we have the phylum of Popular music, then the class rock and roll, then the order hard rock and then the family......


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

I just call it metal when it's pretty normal or extreme metal when its EXETREME \m/ Led Zeppelin isn't metal, it's hardrock/heavyrock. Sabbath is pretty metal man! Now they would be called sludge or stoner metal I guess.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> *Sabbath .*


Says it all really


----------



## Guest (Aug 2, 2019)

1.Deep Purple 
2.Led Zeppelin
3. Black Sabbath


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Led Zeppelin is top 5 for me, Sabbath top 20; so it's Zeppelin, but I love both bands. 

Zeppelin wins largely because of their versatility and the fact that--IMHO--they just hit "the summit" more times than Sabbath did, and they hit the summit in a diverse range of ways. Though Sabbath have a lot of songs that still stand with the best metal written even after 50+ years of other great bands innovating what they started, all of their songs still share a very similar DNA, and you really have to love THAT SOUND to put them above a band that could also do THAT SOUND while doing a lot of other stuff at an equally high level. 

For those saying Led Zeppelin weren't heavy metal: yes they were, they were just a lot more than that (same with saying they were blues; they were also that, but also more). Ritchie Blackmore got it right when talking of Zeppelin when he said that listening to them made it click: heavy wasn't volume, heavy was an attitude, and that attitude of heavy metal is all over Zeppelin even when their sound was miles away from what metal would become. Songs like Dazed & Confused and When the Levee Breaks achieve a crushing heaviness that even contemporary metal bands with their 8-string guitars, modern amps with gain cranked to 10, and vocalists imitating savage beats can't achieve. 

Also, yes, Deep Purple deserved to be in the poll and, like with Zeppelin, yes, they were heavy metal. In a way, all three bands were essential in defining what metal would become. Sabbath had the riffs and the image/themes, Zeppelin had the bluesy heaviness and (at times) the more progressive approach to songwriting, and Purple had the speed. The next generation of metal--namely Judas Priest, Motorhead, and Iron Maiden--were amalgams of all those elements. In a way, I hear more Purple than either Sabbath or Zeppelin (with a few exceptions); though it's possible to say that all future metal took the basic idea of Paranoid (the chugging, low e-string riff) and ran with it; and I've even argued that Iron Maiden owes their entire career to Zep's Achilles' Last Stand. 

Personally, I actually prefer Iron Maiden to all of them for a simple reason: they have a melodic sensibility that's only rivaled by a handful of the best pop artists, but that's neither here nor there.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Bwv 1080 said:


> It's not the Moog, but the fact that they recorded with the London Symphony Orchestra that disqualifies them


If that were true then it would also disqualify Metallica.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

KenOC said:


> No different today, but manufacturing has improved.
> 
> "Impressionable young fans would therefore do well to avoid John Seabrook's The Song Machine, an immersive, reflective, and utterly satisfying examination of the business of popular music. It is a business as old as Stephen Foster, but never before has it been run so efficiently or dominated by so few. We have come to expect this type of consolidation from our banking, oil-and-gas, and health-care industries. But the same practices they rely on -- ruthless digitization, outsourcing, focus-group brand testing, brute-force marketing -- have been applied with tremendous success in pop, creating such profitable multinationals as *Rihanna, Katy Perry, and Taylor Swift*."
> 
> Excerpted from an Atlantic Magazine article, *Hit Charade*.


I can say with certainty that one of these things is not like the others.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Mollie John said:


> One way to approach the OP's query is to ask if the following genres and sub-genres owe more to Led Zeppelin or Black Sabbath - (or even Deep Purple for those who consider that it was this particular triumvirate that laid down the path that the others followed).


While that's a fairly extensive list it does leave out a number of other genres. Still, it would be difficult to say because Sabbath and Zeppelin have both similar and different lineages. Zeppelin's lineage goes more to what would become the mainstream classic 70s rock, which would become arena rock, then mainstream pop/hair-metal in the 80s, but then also on to some Alt. Rock bands in the 90s. They were also an influence on some strains of 70s prog rock rock, especially Rush, and therefore a huge influence on the future developments of that genre. Sabbath were a bigger influence on the more underground metal of the 70s and 80s; Priest, Motorhead, Maiden, Metallica, etc., but none of those bands were singularly influenced by Sabbath because Sabbath weren't doing the speed and dual guitar leads that came to (partly) define the genre, and for that the future metal bands were taking from Purple et al. (like Thin Lizzy) and, later on, punk. Of all metal's sub-genres, doom metal is the only genre that looked explicitly and solely back to Sabbath for influence, almost a way of saying that all the other bands had gotten it wrong by "hybridizing" the sound and that Sabbath had it right all along. Of the two, Zep's influence was broader and more diffuse, and Sabbath's was more limited but profound in what it did influence. You don't get future metal without Paranoid, especially, but you also don't get it (excepting doom metal) without other ingredients. OTOH, I feel future metal could've survived without Zeppelin, but it probably would've been quite different. Would Maiden have found that signature gallop without Achilles' Last Stand? Hard to tell.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Unlike LedZep, Sabbath scored a hit in a German cover version.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

EY, I agree mostly with your post above, with the caveat that while many bands were influenced by Zeppelin, almost nobody ever replicated the rich and kaleidoscopic textures of Zeppelin's sonic tapestry behind Plant's vocals. Heart of course began by espousing some of the eclecticism of Zep, and even penned their own _Kashmir_ in _Mistral Wind_. But Led Zeppelin's sound is unique in that it is rarely if ever (merely) a rhythm track/template to which the vocals/lyrics are fitted. There is always something going on behind Plant on a Zeppelin track, and that something is way more than what one hears on just about any other band's ''equivalent" track. Zeppelin stands (or soars) alone, far above any who assert their debt to the group.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

But one can look at a zeppelin song and find elsewhere the pieces that went into it - Willie Dixon, Bert Jansch etc. what they did with the material they stole (which is what it was) from others was brilliantly remolded, But nothing like the song Black Sabbath had ever existed before 1969


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Bwv 1080 said:


> But one can look at a zeppelin song and find elsewhere the pieces that went into it - Willie Dixon, Bert Jansch etc. what they did with the material they stole (which is what it was) from others was brilliantly remolded, But nothing like the song Black Sabbath had ever existed before 1969


As Ben Wattenberg, a longtime political aid to president Lyndon Johnson, used to recount, after some pitch had been made to LBJ espousing this or that view or plan or proposal, Johnson's reply often was "Therefore, What?!". The tale has been told innumerable times now that Led Zeppelin stole--and usually extensively reworked (Zeppelinized)--the songs of others. And so what are we supposed to do about it as listeners? "Therefore, What?!". As I've posted numerous times previously, to have been plagiarized by Zeppelin is to have your music exposed to an audience vastly larger and quite possibly allowed to endure far longer than would have occurred had The Muse not so touched it. But let those shocked, Shocked by Zep's impertinence boycott their music entirely. It's their choice, and loss.


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

Coming late to the thread all I'll say is Led Zepplin aren't heavy metal in my view so the answer to the OP has to be Black Sabbath.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> As Ben Wattenberg, a longtime political aid to president Lyndon Johnson, used to recount, after some pitch had been made to LBJ espousing this or that view or plan or proposal, Johnson's reply often was "Therefore, What?!". The tale has been told innumerable times now that Led Zeppelin stole--and usually extensively reworked (Zeppelinized)--the songs of others. And so what are we supposed to do about it as listeners? "Therefore, What?!". As I've posted numerous times previously, to have been plagiarized by Zeppelin is to have your music exposed to an audience vastly larger and quite possibly allowed to endure far longer than would have occurred had The Muse not so touched it. But let those shocked, Shocked by Zep's impertinence boycott their music entirely. It's their choice, and loss.


Therefore what? Therefore we recognize as listeners and musicians that Led Zeppelin is NOT the "original" rock and roll band we thought they were. We recognize that stealing from other copyrighted works is theft.....at least according to the U.S. Copyright Laws. And we also recognize that Page and Plant are slimeballs for making folks take them to court, incurring lawyers fees to get what should have been theirs all along. Is not justice delayed justice denied?????? Straight up dudes would have given credit from day one!

So excuse me if I don't fawn over the Plant and Page show. I have more respect for Mickey Dolenz and Mike Nesmith than I do the rip-off duo.

If you don't have any skin in the game, then I guess you really don't understand _Until It Happens To You_ like you thought you did!


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Room2201974 said:


> Therefore what? Therefore we recognize as listeners and musicians that Led Zeppelin is NOT the "original" rock and roll band we thought they were.


Most of Led Zep's music is original though. Many artists have plagiarized, Zeppelin isn't the first. Many people spin it that because Zep stole some lyrics and the occasional riff, that none of their music is original. Most of it is, the plagiarism charge for their most famous song was thrown out of court. What did The Rain Song plagiarize? TSRTS? Achilles Last Stand, Ten Years Gone? etc. Plagiarizing on some tracks doesn't erase the fact they wrote some of the best and most influential rock songs of all time.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Room2201974 said:


> Therefore what? Therefore we recognize as listeners and musicians that Led Zeppelin is NOT the "original" rock and roll band we thought they were. We recognize that stealing from other copyrighted works is theft.....at least according to the U.S. Copyright Laws. And we also recognize that Page and Plant are slimeballs for making folks take them to court, incurring lawyers fees to get what should have been theirs all along. Is not justice delayed justice denied?????? Straight up dudes would have given credit from day one!
> 
> So excuse me if I don't fawn over the Plant and Page show. I have more respect for Mickey Dolenz and Mike Nesmith than I do the rip-off duo.
> 
> If you don't have any skin in the game, then I guess you really don't understand _Until It Happens To You_ like you thought you did!


You are correct: Neither I nor millions of other listeners have skin in the game--we just listen to the music. Not songwriters, lyricists, mostly not performers. So I can and do approach Led Zeppelin's music with different ears than you. I'd like to think that the issues Lady Gaga addressed in _Until it Happens to You_ are a touch more universal than the ones that so arouse your ire against Zeppelin, but perhaps not; perhaps all sin is equal and to be equally condemned. But I am rebuked--justly rebuked--yet will continue in my sin and enjoy Zeppelin's art, while understanding that for others they are eternally tainted and damned. _Ars gratia artis_


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

> Therefore what? Therefore we recognize as listeners and musicians that Led Zeppelin is NOT the "original" rock and roll band we thought they were. We recognize that stealing from other copyrighted works is theft.....at least according to the U.S. Copyright Laws. And we also recognize that Page and Plant are slimeballs for making folks take them to court, incurring lawyers fees to get what should have been theirs all along. Is not justice delayed justice denied?????? Straight up dudes would have given credit from day one!
> 
> So excuse me if I don't fawn over the Plant and Page show. I have more respect for Mickey Dolenz and Mike Nesmith than I do the rip-off duo.
> 
> If you don't have any skin in the game, then I guess you really don't understand Until It Happens To Youlike you thought you _did!_


Here here The Monkeys were an honest rip off show unlike Plant/Page, when Page does I reality show about .. then I might vote for him Boleskine House and Aleister Crowley (jeezs and now his got another one Tower House),no only kidding another forum I'm on has a whole thread entitled *jimmy page sucks*
Quote and pic from said thread


> i know, i know.
> 
> i just don't understand.
> "clearly".
> ...


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

tdc said:


> Most of Led Zep's music is original though. Many artists have plagiarized, Zeppelin isn't the first. Many people spin it that because Zep stole some lyrics and the occasional riff, that none of their music is original. Most of it is, the plagiarism charge for their most famous song was thrown out of court. What did The Rain Song plagiarize? TSRTS? Achilles Last Stand, Ten Years Gone? etc. Plagiarizing on some tracks doesn't erase the fact they wrote some of the best and most influential rock songs of all time.


So if I read a book that is half brilliant and have stolen material, it's still a plagiarised work. And the only recourse for the original author(s) of the stolen material is through the courts. This type of behavior is lower than a snakes belly in a wagon rut. And all Page and Plant had to do was acknowledge the original authorship from the beginning. But oh no, not from those macho s%$thead egos. Led Zeppelin, the China of rock and roll.

36 songs on the first four albums. 11 rip offs...... That's a pattern that all of us should find inexcusable.

https://liveforlivemusic.com/features/just-how-much-of-led-zeppelins-music-was-stolen/


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

The Wikipedia entry on Music Plagiarism is interesting reading, especially the section titled "Cases". It seems we must jettison a lot, a whole lot, of popular music, be it Blues, Rock, Pop, as all sin is equally contemptible and inexcusable. A whole lot of plagiarizing goin' on. I admire Room2201974's zeal in eliminating the Led Zeppelin catalog in its entirety from his personal listening, but I cannot share in that zeal, as the results are so darn good--the final product redeems, for me, the sin. Again, _Ars gratia artis_.

This discussion reminds me a bit of the Wagner as Anti-Semite arguments: must we jettison Wagner?


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> The Wikipedia entry on Music Plagiarism is interesting reading, especially the section titled "Cases". It seems we must jettison a lot, a whole lot, of popular music, be it Blues, Rock, Pop, as all sin is equally contemptible and inexcusable. A whole lot of plagiarizing goin' on. I admire Room2201974's zeal in eliminating the Led Zeppelin catalog in its entirety from his personal listening, but I cannot share in that zeal, as the results are so darn good--the final product redeems, for me, the sin. Again, _Ars gratia artis_.
> 
> This discussion reminds me a bit of the Wagner as Anti-Semite arguments: must we jettison Wagner?


Or worse yet, Tchaikovsky based on a single off-hand comment in a letter...

I will happily listen to Led Zeppelin still. Nihil novum sub sole after all.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

I'll stick to 4'33" Its safer


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Room2201974 said:


> So if I read a book that is half brilliant and have stolen material, it's still a plagiarised work. And the only recourse for the original author(s) of the stolen material is through the courts. This type of behavior is lower than a snakes belly in a wagon rut. And all Page and Plant had to do was acknowledge the original authorship from the beginning. But oh no, not from those macho s%$thead egos. Led Zeppelin, the China of rock and roll.
> 
> 36 songs on the first four albums. 11 rip offs...... That's a pattern that all of us should find inexcusable.
> 
> https://liveforlivemusic.com/features/just-how-much-of-led-zeppelins-music-was-stolen/


I read the above referenced article (I think I've read it before) and invite others to do likewise. The tone of the reporting is one of resignation, of sorrow rather than anger, and we learn of the plagiarising of others by others--a sad business surely. Yet the article's author ends by acknowledging the quality of the final product and he appears to still have the music of Led Zeppelin in his library:

_"When it's all said and done, over their first four albums, a majority of the band's songs were original compositions. While they ran into trouble during their earlier years, especially on their blues-laden debut album, Zeppelin paved their way to stardom by cultivating a unique and distinct sound, which is why they have remained so memorable for so many years."_


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I agree that Zep's examples of cribbing without giving due credit was a blot on the 'scutcheon, but when we were teenagers a) did we know about it, and b) if we did, did we actually give a ****?


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> The Wikipedia entry on Music Plagiarism is interesting reading, especially the section titled "Cases". It seems we must jettison a lot, a whole lot, of popular music, be it Blues, Rock, Pop, as all sin is equally contemptible and inexcusable. A whole lot of plagiarizing goin' on. I admire Room2201974's zeal in eliminating the Led Zeppelin catalog in its entirety from his personal listening, but I cannot share in that zeal, as the results are so darn good--the final product redeems, for me, the sin. Again, _Ars gratia artis_.
> 
> This discussion reminds me a bit of the Wagner as Anti-Semite arguments: must we jettison Wagner?


Nowhere did I indicate that I have eliminated LZ's entire music catalog from consideration. What I have argued for is a simple belief that I cannot respect thieves. And neither should you. Your position is akin to giving praise and respect to Bernie Maddof for the few legal deals he did.

If in any other field you had published a body of work with such a high percentage of stolen material......you'd be laughed right off your Millie Vanilli rear end and out of that field. Disgraced! Shamed! And if that field had the equivalent of a Hall of Fame.....you....would.....not....be...in...it!!!!!

Was Led Zeppelin a talent laden band? Sure! But talented thieves.....are still thieves. And these are thieves who have shown a pattern of deception and lack of respect for original authors as if it was their inherent right to do so. I mean, come on now......you're rolling in money and drugs, you're worshipped and plastercasted for goodness sake.....and STILL you feel the need to steal someone else's work on your 4th album?????????

LZ does have some great original music, true. So let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Let's just recognize that the body of work contains a very stinky air that can never wash clean.

I prefer bands who are original enough not to have to resort to a pattern of illegal musical theft. And I have great empathy for original authors who were denied artistic recognition and economic justice by the egos and greed of a couple of English rock performers.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^^Question: do you have Led Zeppelin albums in your possession? I cannot get my mind around a scenario that easily combines the stinging, excoriating harshness of your rhetoric with your owning or listening to Led Zeppelin. I cannot see how we separate the baby from the bathwater, given your post--both must go out the window.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^Question: do you have Led Zeppelin albums in your possession? I cannot get my mind around a scenario that easily combines the stinging, excoriating harshness of your rhetoric with your owning or listening to Led Zeppelin. I cannot see how we separate the baby from the bathwater, given your post--both must go out the window.


When I was a teenager I bought the 45 of _Whole Lotta Love_. I believe I still have that 45 in my attic, with no means to play it, nor any desire to. I have no LZ music in my CD collection and when I had vinyl albums, this ex radio announcer also had no LZ in that collection. But I've heard their body of work. Heck, even played it on the radio and covered their songs in concert.

And then I went though an intensive self study on guitar of the blues originals....Robert Johnson, Muddy Waters, Willie Dixon, Howlin Wolf......at that point I began to lose respect for LZ. To have obtained success on the backs of other uncredited artists seemed to be another example of a cruel cultural appropriation. And oh so greedy too!

To us blues afficandos back in the day it seemed incongruous that a band who claimed such inspiration from American blues, clearly had no respect for those who helped create it.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> EY, I agree mostly with your post above, with the caveat that while many bands were influenced by Zeppelin, almost nobody ever replicated the rich and kaleidoscopic textures of Zeppelin's sonic tapestry behind Plant's vocals. Heart of course began by espousing some of the eclecticism of Zep, and even penned their own _Kashmir_ in _Mistral Wind_. But Led Zeppelin's sound is unique in that it is rarely if ever (merely) a rhythm track/template to which the vocals/lyrics are fitted. There is always something going on behind Plant on a Zeppelin track, and that something is way more than what one hears on just about any other band's ''equivalent" track. Zeppelin stands (or soars) alone, far above any who assert their debt to the group.


While true, I also think this statement would be true of most of the greatest musical artists (and composers, for that matter). When it comes to the greats, their influence rarely leads to perfect imitation; at best, it's usually future artists taking some part of that sound and/or style and infusing it with others. As I said elsewhere, the next generation of metal was, in large part, a combination of Zep's, Sabbath's, and Purple's influences, and the generation after that (Metallica, Slayer, Megadeth, Anthrax, etc.) threw punk into the mix, and the generation after that (Queensryche, Dream Theater, Fates Warning, Opeth) threw prog into the mix.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Bwv 1080 said:


> But one can look at a zeppelin song and find elsewhere the pieces that went into it - Willie Dixon, Bert Jansch etc. what they did with the material they stole (which is what it was) from others was brilliantly remolded, But nothing like the song Black Sabbath had ever existed before 1969


There's much that can be said of this. First of all, I'm reminded of the great TS Eliot quote that goes (paraphrased): bad artists borrow, great artists steal (and I paraphrase because both Stravinsky and Picasso have also uttered variations on this quote that's often attributed to them; rather ironic when you think about it). Second of all, it could be said that, when it comes to art, originality is really code for "an unrecognizable rearrangement of pre-existing ideas and material." True originality in art is almost non-existent. Every artist has influences, and those influences inevitably show up in their art even if it's not always in immediately recognizable ways. What the Eliot quote tells us is that what separates the greats from the rest isn't true originality, but the deftness with which the greats make their thefts their own.

To extend the Eliot quote, he went on to say: "bad (artists) deface what they take, and good (artists) make it into something better, or at least something different." There's no way that someone can listen to Zeppelin's "sources" and then listen to Zeppelin and say, with a straight face, that they didn't either make it into something better or at least different. Stairway to Heaven takes one scale from a Spirit song and transforms it into one of the greatest masterpieces in all of popular music. Nobody, absolutely nobody, would claim the Spirit song is anywhere close to the quality of Stairway to Heaven (except, perhaps, rabid haters of Zeppelin). Likewise with Zeppelin's blues sources, there's no way to listen to both and say that Zeppelin are just mere imitators or copycats. In fact, it's possible to say that Zeppelin are at their worst the closer they are to their sources; the worst tracks on their debut LP are the outright covers (the same is often true of The Beatles' early albums).

Finally, I'll say that I, for one, actually appreciate being able to hear the influences of artists in their music. There's a reason I started the (Favorite) Modern Pastiches thread and it's because I genuinely get a kick out of hearing artists imitating other styles. Part of it is because all art is made up of a combination of expectation and surprise, and imitating other artists/styles fulfills the expectation part, which makes it easier to appreciate the "surprise" part--or the part where the new artist adds their interpretation/style/stake on whatever it is they're imitating.

As for Sabbath, while their sound had less of a precedent it was not wholly original either. Hendrix's Purple Haze was another song with a heavily distorted guitar intro playing a tritone. Vanilla Fudge already had the slowed down, heavy, sludgy sound going, with the main difference being they relied on the organ as much as the distorted guitar (thus making them a key influence on both Sabbath and Purple). Coven, who opened for Vanilla Fudge, were also full-on with the occult stuff (though they probably sound closer to Jefferson Airplane than Sabbath). Hell, Coven's first album opens with a song called Black Sabbath, and though the legend goes that the band (Sabbath) were named after a Karloff horror film, Geezer Butler has admitted Coven were an influence. What Sabbath did was take the heaviness/distortion and guitar/rhythm styles of Vanilla Fudge and Hendrix, combine it with the occult stuff of Coven, strip away the psychedelic elements, and the rest is history. Though I say hear less of these bands in Sabbath than Zep's influences in Zep, it's a matter of degrees, not kind.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

What I got against LZ is that it was just a money making venture (company) set up by Jimmy and Grant. purely designed to rip the pockets of unsuspecting teenagers who didn't understand what Page & Grant were up to.............. and the fact they deliberately ripped other musos off


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Room2201974 said:


> So if I read a book that is half brilliant and have stolen material, it's still a plagiarised work. And the only recourse for the original author(s) of the stolen material is through the courts. This type of behavior is lower than a snakes belly in a wagon rut. And all Page and Plant had to do was acknowledge the original authorship from the beginning. But oh no, not from those macho s%$thead egos. Led Zeppelin, the China of rock and roll.
> 
> 36 songs on the first four albums. 11 rip offs...... That's a pattern that all of us should find inexcusable.
> 
> https://liveforlivemusic.com/features/just-how-much-of-led-zeppelins-music-was-stolen/


With that line of thinking, I guess you consider TS Eliot's The Waste Land a plagiarized work? It's made up (in no small part) of quotes from previous works, yet it's also considered the most influential (and even original) poem of the 20th century. Imagine that!

Instead of just repeating the results from that list, let's actually go through it and exercise some critical thinking:

*Led Zeppelin I*

_Babe I'm Gonna Leave You_ - As the article said, the most popular version was Baez's, who herself credited as "traditional." So Zeppelin weren't "stealing" when they credited as "trad. arr. by Page," they were just mistaken. It would make no sense for them, if they were falsely trying to take credit for it, to say it was "trad." at all, so it's beyond stupid to consider this a theft. Plus, it's impossible to listen to the earlier versions and not recognize how nearly unrecognizable Zep's version is musically.

_Dazed and Confused_ - I'm listening to the original. What Page took was the descending chromatic lick and the call-and-response bit, but other than they're entirely different. The original completely lacks the electric sledgehammer of Zep's when the breaks come in and the tempo speeds up. Hell, one of the best parts of Zep's is the solo, and Holmes's solo is entirely different, far more eerily psychedelic than Page's blues barnburner.

_Black Mountain Side_ - Actually fairly close here. Page fleshes out the instrumental part some, but I'd say this is far closer than the above.

_How Many More Times_ - As the article says, it's a medley of pre-existing stuff, and as such sounds different and leaves quite a different impression than any of the other pieces on their own. This is basically Zeppelin doing "sampling" before sampling was a thing, and montage of this sort takes talent in its own right.

So of this first album, I'd say only Black Mountain Side and How Many More Times outright qualify as "thefts." Babe... was an accidental miscredit, and sounds so different from the originals it should hardly count as theft, and similarly Dazed takes two small ideas from its source and does completely different things with them. That kind of "theft" is rampant in music, and if we're going to condemn Zeppelin for that then our hit list would grow exponentially beyond them quickly.

*Led Zeppelin II*

_Whole Lotta Love_ - Zeppelin stole the lyrics. Who TF cares? Most all blues lyrics are variations on the same theme and are, by far, the most unoriginal aspect of the genre. This song was a hit because of its iconic riff, the psychedelic breakdown, and the thunderous re-entry/solo into the recapitulation. So, basically, everything that makes this song famous has everything to do with Zep and nothing to do with what they stole.

_The Lemon Song_ - Probably the closest one so far. This I have no problem calling "theft" (it's also one of the least interesting tracks on the album, IMO).

_Moby Dick_ - The riffs are kinda similar, but it's also very typical blues stuff so it's a stretch to call it theft, and the piece is, as the article admits, mostly a showcase for Bonham's drumming.

_Bring It On Home_ - Agree with the article: intro and ending (about half the song) is a direct copy of its predecessor, the middle is entirely original. So, half-theft.

So of this second album, I'd say 1.5 thefts. I don't give a rat's ****** about the stolen lyrics (who listens to blues/Zeppelin for lyrics?), the riff in Moby Dick isn't the point and both it and the "original" are so typical blues stuff that that it's hard to call such prototypical stuff "theft," and only half of Bring it On Home is theft.

*Led Zeppelin III*

_Since I've Been Lovin' You_ - It is basically a cover of that M Grape song, and while I don't mind calling this "theft," I'd put it squarely in the class of what I said above about theft being when an artist makes something their own. The Grape version is so subdued and lifeless by comparison. Zep's is so much more vital and dynamic. Grape's sounds like pretty typical blues, Zep just channels the desperation so much vividly with Plant's wails, Page's licks, and that rhythm section's tempo fluctuations and changes.

_Hats Off To (Roy) Harper_ - A medley much like How Many More Times. Theft? OK, but, again, still takes talent to pull off convincingly.

So of this third album, I don't have a problem calling both of these thefts, though the first case is theft in the best sense; taking something uneventful and making it great.

*Led Zeppelin IV*

_Stairway to Heaven_ - As I mentioned above, it's absurd to call this theft. Page takes one guitar scale/chord progression and that's it. It's an awesome scale/chord progression, but it's only one small part of what makes up this masterpiece.

***************

So, my scorecard is quite different from that site. I have a total of 5.5 thefts. Of those, two are medleys, the half is only half of a song, one is a vast improvement on its source material, and the last, and probably the only one I'd consider egregious, is The Lemon Song. At this point, I'm pretty convinced that people complaining about Zeppelin "stealing" are about as credible as people complaining of The Patriots cheating; it's been proven that The Patriots have cheated as much as the average NFL team. They've been accused of it more (and it's made more news) because they win so much. Same is true for Zep. They steal probably as much as the average artist (especially working in a genre as theft-heavy as the blues), and the only reason they've been under such scrutiny is because they've won so much. It's more a comment on their reputation than their talent.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

^ I bet Plant/ Page would read [email protected] apologetics for themselves all the time and laugh themselves stupid at it.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> What I got against LZ is that it was just a money making venture (company) set up by Jimmy and Grant. purely designed to rip the pockets of unsuspecting teenagers who didn't understand what Page & Grant were up to.............. and the fact they deliberately ripped other musos off


What hogwash. LZ were a band set up like any other band to make music and only became a "company" when they ended up being better at doing that than most all other bands at the time. You can't just successfully design any musical act to "rip the pockets of unsuspecting teenagers" if said teenagers don't like the music; and if you were, indeed, going to attempt such a thing you probably wouldn't construct a band who were "ripping off" old (and unpopular at the time) blues guys; you'd be taking the path of least resistance and offering pop fluff imitating stuff like The Archies' Sugar Sugar, or funk/soul stuff like Sly and the Family Stone, or hippie anthems like Aquarius... or any number of other things besides blues rock.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> What hogwash. LZ were a band set up like any other band to make music and only became a "company" when they ended up being better at doing that than most all other bands at the time. You can't just successfully design any musical act to "rip the pockets of unsuspecting teenagers" if said teenagers don't like the music; and if you were, indeed, going to attempt such a thing you probably wouldn't construct a band who were "ripping off" old (and unpopular at the time) blues guys; you'd be taking the path of least resistance and offering pop fluff imitating stuff like The Archies' Sugar Sugar, or funk/soul stuff like Sly and the Family Stone, or hippie anthems like Aquarius... or any number of other things besides blues rock.


Read your rock history - Jimmy had to put together a band with Grant to complete contractual obligations playing as the New Yardbirds- that's how it started.................


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> ^ I bet Plant/ Page would read [email protected] apologetics for themselves all the time and laugh themselves stupid at it.


Well, here I am requesting critical thought and I get hit with such piercingly insightful commentary such as this. What is one to do in response except offer congrats to their profound interlocutor and proceed to hide their shame in the sand dunes of time?

(And, in all seriousness, was that interview clip meant to prove something? Because all I heard were three guys have a lark in a conversation... typical late night talk show business).


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)




----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Read your rock history - Jimmy had to put together a band with Grant to complete contractual obligations playing as the New Yardbirds- that's how it started.................


That's an extremely abbreviated view of their history. By '68 The Yardbirds' commercial success had radically declined, Page had all but taken over the musical direction of the band, and two of the members had left for good despite having scheduled tour dates for that summer. Page had little choice but to "reform the band" to fulfill those obligations, and was given permission to do so. He'd already worked with John Paul Jones before, so that was an easy choice. His first choice for vocalist declined, but recommended Plant, who in turn recommended Bonham. The band completed the tour dates and, afterwards, received a cease-and-desist letter to stop using The Yardbirds name, and that's when they (officially) became Led Zeppelin.

I don't see where in this you're getting they were "a money making venture (company) set up by Jimmy and Grant." They were a band set up by Page, because his old band had abandoned him, who first had to fulfill tour obligations (thanks to the unprofessional actions of the previous band members) and, afterwards, decided to stay together because they were damn good together. Had the '68 summer tour gone badly, I'm guessing they would've parted ways either partially or wholly. This kind of stuff happens all the time in rock; band members come and go, bands split up, form other bands with other band members. There aren't many bands you can name that have had a single lineup throughout their entire careers.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> (video)


And this video proves that people have parodied one of the most famous rock songs in history. I'm... shocked?


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Eva Yojimbo as defense attorney:

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. In my summation I have offered you my "opinion" that my clients did not murder 11 people. Since they only murdered 5.5.....you must acquit! "

BTW, Willie Dixon's Estate just put out a press release: based on new TC evidence, they are dropping you as attorney and they want their retainer back from the Law Firm of Eva Yojimbo and Keith Davidson!


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Room2201974 said:


> Eva Yojimbo as defense attorney:
> 
> "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. In my summation I have offered you my "opinion" that my clients did not murder 11 people. Since they only murdered 5.5.....you must acquit! "
> 
> BTW, Willie Dixon's Estate just put out a press release: based on new TC evidence, they are dropping you as attorney and they want their retainer back from the Law Firm of Eva Yojimbo and Keith Davidson!


This would be a better (mock) point if most people were, indeed, murderers. Very few people murder, but all artists take something from their influences, and the line between "influence" and "plagiarism" is not well-defined, and that's precisely what we have courts for, to decide where the line is. I'm just saying that, artistically speaking, this has little to do with what made Zeppelin great and by no means detracts from their greatness.

Again, go the Patriots example. Have they cheated? Yes. Most all teams have at some point. However, none of those other cheating teams have won nearly as much as The Patriots, so clearly their winning isn't solely (or even largely) a result of their cheating. Same with art: plenty of bands/artists take stuff from other bands, but most bands aren't nearly as popular/successful as Zeppelin. There's a reason for that.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Since my blues period about 1974-75 - when I discovered the music of Willie Dixon - I've had this very discussion with numerous folks.....The "Led Zeppelin as creative artists discussion." In general, the following is true from people I've known outside of Internet forums: The two opposing views on the issue come from different groups.

The defenders of LZ that I have known are usually non musicians, or musicians who are just performers, or non blues afficandos types.

The opposing group are usually songwriters, producers, composers, and blues afficandos types. Now this group will tell you that many of them do like LZ's original tunes. But then they'll give you the Roger Maris asterisk about the "orginality of some of their blues ideas."

Or....to put this another way - if I had gone to any of my blues musician friends with a musical idea that was say, clearly ripped off from Robert Johnson, and presented it as my own composition......I would have been laughed right off the its-freaking-hot-in-the-summer-in-Florida-with-no-AC-garage-band-circuit.:guitar:

So most of the folks I've known who have a creative skin in the game feel uneasy about LZ. That's because there are legal demonstrable differences between "influences" and out right rip offs. George Harrison is an example. His liberal dose of Chef Atkins riffs in Middle period tunes are influences......And not copyrightable...by law. _My Sweet Lord_ on the other hand was clearly illegal. That LZ had to settle out of court on not one but two Willie Dixon songs shows their own acknowledgement of guilt.....and a pattern of deception.

If you wish to include LZ in your Pantheon of rock and roll, I will not quibble. Perhaps you don't have the experiences to see that their true listing in that Pantheon is:

Led Zeppelin*

Now if my good friend from Nova Caesarea actually owned a Nova Caesarea, he would immediately become familiar with, and a proponent of, the concept of net grading. :tiphat:

As for Eva, thank you Mr. Bonds for that stunning defense of why we should applaud and honor creative cheating. Your trainer is here with the clear and the cream, which one will you be using today?


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Let us not forget....


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> Room2201974: "The opposing group are usually songwriters, producers, composers, and blues afficandos types. Now this group will tell you that many of them do like LZ's original tunes. But then they'll give you the Roger Maris asterisk about the "orginality of some of their blues ideas."


Question, is it an essential part of your thesis that this obviously small sub-population of listeners will not like any of Zeppelin's "derivative" songs? I regard myself as somewhat of a Blues aficionado, having collected and been listening to the likes of Howlin' Wolf, Champion Jack Dupree, John Lee Hooker, and Lightnin' Hopkins for at least a decade before LZ was a gleam in Jimmy Page's eye, plus the R&B of Willie Dixon and a host of other such pioneers as heard on radio station WNJR, Newark NJ. While affirming that Zeppelin liberally borrowed from pre-existing works and artists, I remain delighted by the magic that LZ infused into those appropriated and reworked raw materials: I'm weak, morally suspect, cannot help myself in my depravity, etc. So we'll agree to disagree, with a spectrum of listeners ranging from trembling with outrage/full boycott critics through those like myself who acknowledge yet "excuse" the plagiarism because of the excellence of the final product, all the way to those who neither know of nor care a fig about such matters. I also love _Moby Dick_ despite Melville's wholesale borrowings from the works of others as documented in books such as _The Trying-Out of Moby Dick_; I also love Bob Dylan's lyrics, despite his extensive borrowings.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)




----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> Question, is it an essential part of your thesis that this obviously small sub-population of listeners will not like any of Zeppelin's "derivative" songs? I regard myself as somewhat of a Blues aficionado, having collected and been listening to the likes of Howlin' Wolf, Champion Jack Dupree, John Lee Hooker, and Lightnin' Hopkins for at least a decade before LZ was a gleam in Jimmy Page's eye, plus the R&B of Willie Dixon and a host of other such pioneers as heard on radio station WNJR, Newark NJ. While affirming that Zeppelin liberally borrowed from pre-existing works and artists, I remain delighted by the magic that LZ infused into those appropriated and reworked raw materials: I'm weak, morally suspect, cannot help myself in my depravity, etc. So we'll agree to disagree, with a spectrum of listeners ranging from trembling with outrage/full boycott critics through those like myself who acknowledge yet "excuse" the plagiarism because of the excellence of the final product, all the way to those who neither know of nor care a fig about such matters. I also love _Moby Dick_ despite Melville's wholesale borrowings from the works of others as documented in books such as _The Trying-Out of Moby Dick_; I also love Bob Dylan's lyrics, despite his extensive borrowings.


Ok, sure....but......as a civilization we've decided that the best way to govern ourselves is via a mutually agreed upon set of laws. Like the Copyright Laws, which delineate the line between influence and intellectual property theft. If, in the act of creation, you cross that line, there is an easy remedy. Its called "giving credit"..... you know.....like Dylan did with _My Wife's Hometown_? And of course the opposite of that is having to settle out of court to preserve your Blue Eyed Blues Hero image to your fans instead of being ravaged in a court of law....as they surely would have been with the Willie Dixon songs alone.

Clapton is a good example....unabashedly a Robert Johnson fan. But he never claimed to have written _Crossroad Blues_ or _Steady Rollin Man_ even though his creative spark clearly shines on both his covers. Gee Stange.....its just that simple. Or take Sir Paul's vetting of a little tune called _Scrambled Eggs_ in a process that took months. That's how it should be done. But no one in LZ's creative family seemed concerned about crossing the line multiple times over many years. I guess from a creative process standpoint it's a lazyass man's way to becoming fabulously weathy.....without a conscience.

*


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

It's all about the credit, not the borrowing... artistic courtesy...


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Room2201974 said:


> So if I read a book that is half brilliant and have stolen material, it's still a plagiarised work. And the only recourse for the original author(s) of the stolen material is through the courts. This type of behavior is lower than a snakes belly in a wagon rut. And all Page and Plant had to do was acknowledge the original authorship from the beginning. But oh no, not from those macho s%$thead egos. Led Zeppelin, the China of rock and roll.
> 
> 36 songs on the first four albums. 11 rip offs...... That's a pattern that all of us should find inexcusable.
> 
> https://liveforlivemusic.com/features/just-how-much-of-led-zeppelins-music-was-stolen/


Guilty as charged!! (Hammer..) I feel the songs like Dazed and Confused and Whole Lotta Love were very blatant. It was the whole essence of the song. I'm really against it because I'm a fan of stripped down blues, and when they just add some effects and pass it as theirs, it's just wrong. I'm a big fan of pretty much all those they stole from, so suspect that also makes a difference (Spirit was a great psychedelic/prog rock band, and the Stairway to Heaven was quite blatant, but at least they added stuff after). When the Rolling Stones stole Love in Vain from the great Robert Johnson, at least they added some chords that weren't there before, but I'd side with Johnson any day still. Another reason why I'm against Zeppelin here is their Blues versions were not even superior to the originals in my view. It's just more glamorized.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

I think criticism should go to LZ where it is due, and credit as well. I'm not so enamored of Plant but IMO Page was a wizard with the electric amplifier, as well as the guitar, and all the studio methods and technology available at the time. With deep tube distortion, big bass and heavy multi-tracking LZ expanded the sonic possibilities of what rock n roll could sound like. Sometimes I suspect that smarter British rockers like Page knew how to exploit the sounds of various American electronic gizmos far better than many Americans did... 

It's unfortunate that three of these musicians, with Plant the exception and Bonham no longer among us, seem to be forever frozen in some kind of time glacier, like a woolly mammoth from the Ice Age... remaining inactive when many of us would love to hear how they might have developed, or at least preforming some of the old songs in a more "mature" style... like Plant and Page did with the Eqyptian Orchestra...


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> Philoctetes: "It's unfortunate that three of these musicians, with Plant the exception and Bonham no longer among us, seem to be forever frozen in some kind of time glacier, like a woolly mammoth from the Ice Age... remaining inactive when many of us would love to hear how they might have developed, or at least preforming some of the old songs in a more "mature" style... like Plant and Page did with the Eqyptian Orchestra..."


This aspect of Rock/Pop doesn't bother me. The music made--how good it was (or wasn't) is what counts. Many groups and artists have soldiered on long past their use-by/sell-by dates, becoming their own tribute bands, while others--whether by a death (Zeppelin) or by decision (The Police)--have quit while they were ahead, leaving a legacy with a clear beginning and end, and thus avoiding a possible and perhaps obvious diminution of their former powers (Love, for example).


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Room2201974 said:


> Since my blues period about 1974-75 - when I discovered the music of Willie Dixon - I've had this very discussion with numerous folks.....The "Led Zeppelin as creative artists discussion." In general, the following is true from people I've known outside of Internet forums: The two opposing views on the issue come from different groups.
> 
> The defenders of LZ that I have known are usually non musicians, or musicians who are just performers, or non blues afficandos types.
> 
> The opposing group are usually songwriters, producers, composers, and blues afficandos types. Now this group will tell you that many of them do like LZ's original tunes. But then they'll give you the Roger Maris asterisk about the "orginality of some of their blues ideas."


Your experience is the polar opposite of mine. While I wouldn't call myself a musician, I have played guitar as a hobby for almost 20 years. I've played in several bands. I grew up with a father who was a drummer and have hung around with musicians most of my adolescence and much of my adulthood. I was also friends with two different music store owners a good chunk of their regular patrons. Besides that, I've been a regular and/or lurker on at least three different guitar message boards over the years. So, at the least, the number of musicians I know and have talked to either personally or online is in the hundreds. I can't say that I discussed LZ with every single one, but they were regularly discussed, and in all those years I can only think of one person who genuinely disliked them. Some others were more indifferent, but I'd say that, other than The Beatles, they were probably the most universally liked band among those regularly discussed.

I wouldn't call myself a blues aficionado (or really an "aficionado" of any music given my broad tastes), but I've definitely heard many of the greats: The "Kings" (BB, Freddie, Albert), Robert Johnson, Muddy Waters, T-Bone Walker, SRV, et al. I also don't know how many among all those musicians were primarily blues musicians and/or aficionados, though I do know a few of them that were. LZ's "borrowings" were an infrequent topic of conversation, but even among those who had problems with it, I rarely found this dampened their opinion of the band. It was usually more of "yeah, they should've given credit where it was due, but they were still great," which I think is correct response if/when one feels they've gone beyond mere inspiration. It's not like if they had given credit it would've made the music any better or worse. The quality of the music stands on its own, and I still maintain that quality rests very little on the aspects they "stole" and almost entirely in what they did with that material and what they achieved with their originals.



Room2201974 said:


> As for Eva, thank you Mr. Bonds for that stunning defense of why we should applaud and honor creative cheating. Your trainer is here with the clear and the cream, which one will you be using today?


You call it creative cheating, I call it creativity, period. A good chunk of the 20th century's greats (TS Eliot, Picasso, Stravinsky et al.) agreed as well. Not to mention a good chunk of classical composers.

To me, if we're going to call what LZ did in most cases "stealing" then we might as well say that all theme and variations are stealing. I mean, how is what LZ did with, say, Dazed and Confused, or Stairway, much different than what Brahms did with those themes from Haydn and Handel? In both cases you have the "thieves" taking a theme and building a whole new thing on top of it that isn't there in the original.

Also, if you want to go with the Barry Bonds analogy, he was one of the best players of all-time before taking steroids. All his "cheating" did was put him into the record books, which baseball purists hated. But they don't make a steroid for your eyes, and his ability to hit the ball was already elite. So if we're gonna compare that with Zeppelin, even if you remove all "11" of those examples they're still one of the greatest bands of all time.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

What really strikes me as absurd about this conversation is the fact that the law/morality surrounding the business of art has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the art produced. Had Hitler written Tristan & Isolde I wouldn't love the music any less (though I probably wouldn't be giving him/his estate any money to hear it; thank you modern age of internet piracy!). Similarly with Zeppelin, had they given credit from the start it wouldn't have changed their reputation one iota. Almost nobody cares. Most people will hear this stuff on the radio, or (today) the internet, or (back then) singles/albums, and never read the liner notes to see who wrote what. The vast majority of people just listen to the music and judge it solely on that, which is how I think music should be judged (even if you DO choose to read the liner notes as I do). 

There's also the implication that LZ didn't give credit because they wanted to hide their thefts in order to seem original. This doesn't make much sense given that they did covers where they credited the original artists, and in many cases didn't even bother to change the lyrics and/or titles. If you're trying to fool someone into thinking you're original, I don't think anyone would be that dumb. What's far more likely is that, especially in the tracks where they added a whole lot of stuff onto whatever it was they "stole," they simply looked at it as inspiration and, being a group of young, naive 20-somethings didn't bother to consult lawyers as to whether what they were doing was copywrite infringement. I also have no problem with the original artists suing them and getting their due as that's what courts are for; but I also don't see why everyone automatically interprets this as some admission of guilt as opposed to an admission of a mistake, and there's a big difference there. 

Frankly, for all LZ's supposed theft, they still sound far more original (even in their "theft" songs) than a band like Greta Van Fleet who, while not having directly stolen anything from anyone, sounds like nothing more than a Zeppelin cover band.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

A ridiculous comparison. Led Zeppelin is far superior in many ways: musicianship, production, conception, everything. :lol:


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> A ridiculous comparison. Led Zeppelin is far superior in many ways: musicianship, production, conception, everything. :lol:


Zeppelin and Beatles are without a doubt two of the most overated rockbands of all time . They ripped off other bands. Most of their catalog is trash. Even their hits are vapid at best. Every genuine rocker knows that bands like Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, AC/DC, Iron Maiden and ZZ Top are hundred times better than Led Zep


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I am blessed! I am not a ''genuine rocker". :tiphat:


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Of course I am being deliberatly provocative  (hence the strong language), but I do think that they are overrated (ie I they are rated higher than I myself value their music).  There are seriously like 30 rock bands that I prefer to Led Zeppelin.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Jacck said:


> Of course I am being deliberatly provocative  (hence the strong language), but I do think that they are overrated (ie I they are rated higher than I myself value their music).  There are seriously like 30 rock bands that I prefer to Led Zeppelin.


_de gustibus non disputandum est._


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> _de gustibus non disputandum est._


Magic, aquí se habla inglés.

:tiphat:


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Steely Dan. They have metal in their name, so they are metal, ha. Truth be that I also listen to them far more than any of the other bands under discussion here.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I'm enjoying this - it reminds me a little of the debates we used to have in the Sixth Form common room in 1979.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

https://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/the-best-rock-bands-of-all-time
these rankings are ridiculous. I immediately had to downvote the first five, although among the 50K votes, my vote got lost  The more interesting bands start from Nr 6 downwards.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

"Who were the real kings of 70s metal?" was the original question (as we recall). The true answer is that Led Zeppelin were the real kings of 70s metal, but were themselves not metal. They transcended metal while simultaneously inspiring, triggering, catalyzing that genre among a host of other bands who--shall we say--confused a part of Led Zeppelin's eclectic product with being their whole utterance. It's almost as if Zep perpetrated a massive head fake upon many of their contemporaries and sent them flying off to study metallurgy, while the Zeppelin cruised on far above, heading for many distant destinations.

An analogous situation might be the case of Dylan. After him come the regional and quasi-imitative American Dudes--Joel, Springsteen, Young, Seger, Mellencamp, Petty--all wonderful and beloved (by me) talents, yet not Dylans. The term that is used for artists like Dylan and Led Zeppelin is _sui generis_; they are unique.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I'd say this was more unique for its time. No one had ever played anything quite like this in the late 60s.:devil:


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

I am no Zeppelin conoisseur, but I hear no metal in their music. My favorite rock subgenres are hard-rock / punk rock / psychedelic rock / southern rock. Zeppelin is neither of that, they sound more like folk rock/blues with a very bad singer. Black Sabbath sounds like hard-rock / psychedelic rock / heavy-metal.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Merl said:


> I'd say this was more unique for its time. No one had ever played anything quite like this in the late 60s.:devil:


Led Zeppelin had released their second album with _Whole Lotta Love_ almost 6 months before _Black Sabbath_ hit the airwaves. Which song is "more unique"? No, Led Zeppelin had been confounding the rock audience with new, different, loud, complex sounds for more than a year before the rest of the field started following.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Jacck said:


> https://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/the-best-rock-bands-of-all-time
> these rankings are ridiculous. I immediately had to downvote the first five,


I thought the first five were right on target, but I would have liked that David Bowie was higher.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

How many really like metal here? :devil:


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> I thought the first five were right on target, but I would have liked that David Bowie was higher.


I would like to see many bands much higher, for example The Moody Blues, Neil Young, Santana, Jethro Tull, Blue Öyster Cult etc., but these rankings are often not about the quality of the music, but about how well known the given band is.

for example this song




blows all the hits by Zeppelin and Beatles out of the water. Great lyrics, great singing, amazing guitar solos etc.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> How many really like metal here? :devil:


I like metal occasionally, but I am no metalhead, ie I do not listen to it regularly. Some metal albums I like are for example
Judas Priest - Painkiller 
Iron Maiden - The Book Of Souls
Helloween - Keeper of the seven keys 
Mors Principium Est - Liberation = Termination
and some Metalica, Megadeth, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Have you tried old australian 1970's heavy metal band *Buffalo 
*


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

I did some more listening to Led Zeppelin and I like their lesser known songs more than their hits. I really can't stand Stairway to Heaven, All of my Love, or even Kashmir, possibly due to overexposure from early age. But some of their lesser known and less melodic songs with a lot of instrumental solos are pretty good. For example Achilles Last Stand I quite enjoy


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

When the Levee Breaks is probably my favourite Led Zeppelin song. They definitely brought a lot to the table on that version. This one is still nice even if a bit generic.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> "Who were the real kings of 70s metal?" was the original question (as we recall). The true answer is that Led Zeppelin were the real kings of 70s metal, but were themselves not metal. They transcended metal while simultaneously inspiring, triggering, catalyzing that genre *among a host of other bands who--shall we say--confused a part of Led Zeppelin's eclectic product with being their whole utterance.* It's almost as if Zep perpetrated a massive head fake upon many of their contemporaries and sent them flying off to study metallurgy, while the Zeppelin cruised on far above, heading for many distant destinations.
> 
> An analogous situation might be the case of Dylan. After him come the regional and quasi-imitative American Dudes--Joel, Springsteen, Young, Seger, Mellencamp, Petty--all wonderful and beloved (by me) talents, yet not Dylans. The term that is used for artists like Dylan and Led Zeppelin is _sui generis_; they are unique.


Good post in general, but to address the part in bold, I don't think later bands "confused" a part of Zep's eclecticism with being their whole utterance, I think they just felt they could expand on those "parts" better than other parts. It's Isaiah Berlin's fox and the hedgehog parable; Zep was a fox, while a lot of the bands that followed chose to make hedgehogs out of one aspect of Zep's foxiness. The Beatles and their followers were much the same.

Though I'd also say that some of their followers chose a more fox-like route. Besides the aforementioned Heart, Thin Lizzy were a rather eclectic band who's rather underappreciated these days.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> How many really like metal here? :devil:


:tiphat:

If I considered myself an aficionado of any genre it'd be metal. After discovering Iron Maiden around 14 I went down the rabbit hole and, despite my forays into many other genres, I still find myself frequently returning to metal. Even if we exclude Zep and other more classic rock bands (like AC/DC and Hendrix), I still have 10 metal bands in my top 30 musical artists: Iron Maiden, Opeth, Mercyful Fate/King Diamond, Judas Priest, Tool, Death, Black Sabbath, The Gathering, Dream Theater, Emperor, and Fates Warning.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Jacck said:


> I did some more listening to Led Zeppelin and I like their lesser known songs more than their hits. I really can't stand Stairway to Heaven, All of my Love, or even Kashmir, possibly due to overexposure from early age. But some of their lesser known and less melodic songs with a lot of instrumental solos are pretty good. For example Achilles Last Stand I quite enjoy


I like their well-known songs but they definitely have some lesser known ones that I like just as well, if not better. Achilles Last Stand is probably my absolute favorite song from them. Physical Graffiti is my favorite Zep album and it has a number of underrated tracks:









^ One of their covers, but as good as evidence as any of how they utterly transformed whatever music they covered, borrowed, stole, or whatever you want to call it.



Jacck said:


> https://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/the-best-rock-bands-of-all-time
> these rankings are ridiculous. I immediately had to downvote the first five, although among the 50K votes, my vote got lost  The more interesting bands start from Nr 6 downwards.


Seems pretty decent for a fan-voted list, actually. There are better lists, though, from Rolling Stone, VH1, and DigitalDreamDoor if you want to check those out.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Physical Graffiti and III are my favorites.






Four Sticks is one of my favorites as well, liked it enough to work up a banjo rendition:


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Good post in general, but to address the part in bold, I don't think later bands "confused" a part of Zep's eclecticism with being their whole utterance, *I think they just felt they could expand on those "parts" better than other parts. It's Isaiah Berlin's fox and the hedgehog parable; Zep was a fox, while a lot of the bands that followed chose to make hedgehogs out of one aspect of Zep's foxiness. The Beatles and their followers were much the same.*
> 
> Though I'd also say that some of their followers chose a more fox-like route. Besides the aforementioned Heart, Thin Lizzy were a rather eclectic band who's rather underappreciated these days.


I'm happy with Berlin's Fox/Hedgehog dualism; glad you brought it up. But I wonder to what degree Zeppelin's metallurgical successors "chose" to focus on that genre, or whether their limitations either of skill or of imagination--or both--constrained the path that they were capable of taking. It may have been metal or...nothing much at all.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> :tiphat:
> 
> If I considered myself an aficionado of any genre it'd be metal. After discovering Iron Maiden around 14 I went down the rabbit hole and, despite my forays into many other genres, I still find myself frequently returning to metal. Even if we exclude Zep and other more classic rock bands (like AC/DC and Hendrix), I still have 10 metal bands in my top 30 musical artists: Iron Maiden, Opeth, Mercyful Fate/King Diamond, Judas Priest, Tool, Death, Black Sabbath, The Gathering, Dream Theater, Emperor, and Fates Warning.


I am not an aficionado of any particular genre in Rock/Pop; I find richly satisfying music most everywhere. However, despite years of massive exposure to Heavy Metal through the agency of my son-in-law, metal for me is one of the least rewarding areas of Rock--especially the heavier metals. Lite Metal--BÖC, Scorpions, the Grunge/Metal alloys--suits me better, though I find isolated nuggets amid the dross, like Queensrÿch's _Eyes of a Stranger_. But otherwise, Eclecticism Rules!! And to Each his/her/their own.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Room2201974 said:


> So if I read a book that is half brilliant and have stolen material, it's still a plagiarised work. And the only recourse for the original author(s) of the stolen material is through the courts. This type of behavior is lower than a snakes belly in a wagon rut. And all Page and Plant had to do was acknowledge the original authorship from the beginning. But oh no, not from those macho s%$thead egos. Led Zeppelin, the China of rock and roll.
> 
> 36 songs on the first four albums. 11 rip offs...... That's a pattern that all of us should find inexcusable.


Faulty analogy, books are not the same things as albums, and when artists sue they sue over specific tracks, not entire albums. Secondly Zeppelin's stolen material is reworked and it _is_ brilliant. Zeppelin I is their most plagiarized record and one of their best (and it is a very original sounding album, no other band sounds like this and the production is ground breaking).

As others have pointed out great artists steal, this is a fact. Also Zeppelin did credit other artists in some cases and no doubt added to their wealth and recognition. Sure more credit perhaps could have been given on some tracks, but because of how much Zeppelin added to the music in most cases I can see why they felt like they deserved credit too. I don't see this issue as black and white as you do, sorry.

Another thing I've come to consider is where The Beatles worked with producers and arrangers, Page produced all of Zeppelin's albums, that is just another aspect that makes this band so impressive.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

tdc said:


> Faulty analogy, books are not the same things as albums, and when artists sue they sue over specific tracks, not entire albums. Secondly Zeppelin's stolen material is reworked and it _is_ brilliant. *Zeppelin I is their most plagiarized record and one of their best (and it is a very original sounding album*, no other band sounds like this and the production is ground breaking).
> 
> As others have pointed out great artists steal, this is a fact. Also Zeppelin did credit other artists in some cases and no doubt added to their wealth and recognition. Sure more credit perhaps could have been given on some tracks, but because of how much Zeppelin added to the music in most cases I can see why they felt like they deserved credit too. I don't see this issue as black and white as you do, sorry.
> 
> Another thing I've come to consider is where The Beatles worked with producers and arrangers, Page produced all of Zeppelin's albums, that is just another aspect that makes this band so impressive.


Dazed and Confused was by a lot of opinions the best song on their first album. The whole meat of the song was Holmes', as was all the originality of the song, not Led Zeppelin's. Not related to stealing, but Holmes' high tenor voice is even similar to Plant's, especially near the beginning of the song I could mistake it for Plant's more mellow sound.

Whole Lotta Love is in some opinions their best song even above Stairway to Heaven. Muddy Waters' version has more variety, and more personality in the singing. All Led Zeppelin did was make hard rock versions of these 2 of their best known songs. It was well done, of course, but very little was added, especially in Whole Lotta Love (I'd say they even took away some. The riff rhythm was the only real difference). Rap artists did more to transform the songs they sampled in my opinion. In terms of real originality and production, Hendrix and the Experience were well ahead of Led Zeppelin, in my opinion. All Along the Watchtower added way more to the original, which I also love cause Dylan had much better delivery. But the production and everything was so great, Dylan praised Hendrix' version more than once.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Phil loves classical said:


> Dazed and Confused was by a lot of opinions the best song on their first album. The whole meat of the song was Holmes', as was all the originality of the song, not Led Zeppelin's. Not related to stealing, but Holmes' high tenor voice is even similar to Plant's, especially near the beginning of the song I could mistake it for Plant's more mellow sound.
> 
> Whole Lotta Love is in some opinions their best song even above Stairway to Heaven. Muddy Waters' version has more variety, and more personality in the singing. All Led Zeppelin did was make hard rock versions of these 2 of their best known songs. It was well done, of course, but very little was added, especially in Whole Lotta Love (I'd say they even took away some. The riff rhythm was the only real difference). Rap artists did more to transform the songs they sampled in my opinion. In terms of real originality and production, Hendrix and the Experience were well ahead of Led Zeppelin, in my opinion. All Along the Watchtower added way more to the original, which I also love cause Dylan had much better delivery. But the production and everything was so great, Dylan praised Hendrix' version more than once.


This post is so off the mark I don't know where to begin. It is as though you are willfully ignoring the aspects of those two songs that make them original just to be contrarian, or something, I don't know its ridiculous, whatever the reason. If I have to explain to you the details of what makes Zeppelin's versions of Dazed and Confused and Whole Lotta Love exceptional tracks far removed from the originals (the riff rhythm was the only difference? Are you kidding me?), forget it.

As far as _All Along the Watchtower_ and Hendrix talents in general you will not get much argument from me. I think he is far more deserving of the number 4 spot on that top rock bands list posted on this thread than the The Rolling Stones are. The Smiths are another band criminally neglected on such lists, but I digress.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Led Zeppelin* is a Shakespearean tragedy where the identifiable character flaws are greed and plastercasted egos.

We don't have this same argument about other creative bands from that era. No one has come forth with multiple claims of intellectual property theft from bands like The Kinks, or The Who, or Buffalo Springfield, or even other bands mining the blues vein like The Allman Brothers. No, we have this argument about Led Zeppelin*, because Plant and Page understood very well how to play the money game of rock and roll. Authorship/copyright claim = money.....big money. Now I can think of one real important reason why you would want to give credit to all the songwriters on a co-authored tune - because it's the right thing to do. And I can think of many reasons, like up to 350 million of them, why Plant and Page consistently could not do the right thing over the course of many years.

Great "original" rock and roll band my a$$!!!!!!
















Led Zeppelin* is the only band that I know of in rock and roll where the following statement is true: They should have been sued over intellectual property theft more than they were.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Room2201974 said:


> Led Zeppelin* is a Shakespearean tragedy where the identifiable character flaws are greed and plastercasted egos.


I think we have a case here of "I don't like these guys, I don't think they don't live up to my moral standards, therefore their music is not good."



Room2201974 said:


> And I can think of many reasons, like up to 350 million of them, why Plant and Page consistently could not do the right thing *over the course of many years*.


This comment along with one you made earlier in the thread stating that they "still were borrowing material on their 4th album", leads me to suspect you lack knowledge of the time-line that Zeppelin's albums were released. Zeppelin's first four albums were released between the years 1969 and 1971. So not a lot of time actually passed between Zep I and Zep IV.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Just for all the Old Led Zep Fans out there - Rolf Harris Stairway to Heaven


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)




----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> I'm happy with Berlin's Fox/Hedgehog dualism; glad you brought it up. But I wonder to what degree Zeppelin's metallurgical successors "chose" to focus on that genre, or whether their limitations either of skill or of imagination--or both--constrained the path that they were capable of taking. It may have been metal or...nothing much at all.


Let me immediately disabuse you of the notion that Zep's metal successors chose metal due to a lack of talent. Metal has a higher talent standard for entry than most all other popular genres. In fact, part of metal's appeal to many musicians is precisely that technique and talent are prized among fans rather than scoffed at (the way many rock fans/critics thought talented bands like Rush were 'in bad taste' because they regularly displayed that talent). Of course I'm speaking in generalities here and exceptions can be found on both sides--metal that's easy to play; rock, country, folk, blues, etc. that's difficult to play--but they are exceptions.

As for a lack of imagination, I'm struggling to think why an artist choosing to create music within a genre and sticking with it would be a sign of a lack of imagination as opposed to a sign of their musical tastes. Would you say an artist who only plays blues, or rock, or country, or jazz had a lack of imagination? Did Chopin lack imagination because he mostly wrote piano music? Did Hitchcock lack imagination because he mostly made suspense-thrillers? In general, I do not find "hedgehog" artists innately less imaginative than their "fox" counterparts. It entirely depends on what the artists do with whatever genre(s) they're working with, and metal has proved to be extremely malleable over the last ~50 years.



Strange Magic said:


> I am not an aficionado of any particular genre in Rock/Pop; I find richly satisfying music most everywhere. However, despite years of massive exposure to Heavy Metal through the agency of my son-in-law, metal for me is one of the least rewarding areas of Rock--especially the heavier metals. Lite Metal--BÖC, Scorpions, the Grunge/Metal alloys--suits me better, though I find isolated nuggets amid the dross, like Queensrÿch's _Eyes of a Stranger_. But otherwise, Eclecticism Rules!! And to Each his/her/their own.


You may just have a natural aversion to the heavier aspects of metal, and there's nothing wrong with that. I've always viewed it as just a natural evolution of rock. So much of rock's early evolution was defined by bands cranking up the volume and doing everything they could to create heavier distortion and rawer sounds, but they were limited by amplifier technology at the time. By the 80s/90s there were no limitations, and there will naturally always be artists who are looking to push further than the previous generations, so tempos got faster and sounds got heavier.

I think what I find interesting about metal is how a genre initially defined by speed, heaviness, and aggression, took those rather primal characteristics and went in more sophisticated directions with them; and by sophisticated I mean technically and musically (and even lyrically in some cases; the breadth of subjects Iron Maiden has broached is almost unprecedented in popular music). It's much the same that appeals to me about the best erotic art; that marriage of the primal and the intellectual. I once described listening to Meshuggah as trying to do calculus under enemy fire, and, in some way, I think much of the best and most imaginative metal achieves that effect.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> Dazed and Confused was by a lot of opinions the best song on their first album. The whole meat of the song was Holmes', as was all the originality of the song, not Led Zeppelin's. Not related to stealing, but Holmes' high tenor voice is even similar to Plant's, especially near the beginning of the song I could mistake it for Plant's more mellow sound.
> 
> Whole Lotta Love is in some opinions their best song even above Stairway to Heaven. Muddy Waters' version has more variety, and more personality in the singing. All Led Zeppelin did was make hard rock versions of these 2 of their best known songs. It was well done, of course, but very little was added, especially in Whole Lotta Love (I'd say they even took away some. The riff rhythm was the only real difference). Rap artists did more to transform the songs they sampled in my opinion. In terms of real originality and production, Hendrix and the Experience were well ahead of Led Zeppelin, in my opinion. All Along the Watchtower added way more to the original, which I also love cause Dylan had much better delivery. But the production and everything was so great, Dylan praised Hendrix' version more than once.


I seriously have to wonder how deaf--or perhaps how blinded by superficialities--one must be to listen to Homes's Dazed and Confused and Waters's You Need Love, then listen to Zep's Dazed and Confused and Whole Lotta Love and come away thinking all the "meat" is in the originals.

One thing that makes Zep's Dazed... great is the dynamicism, which is completely lacking in Holmes's. Holmes keeps chromatic riff at a steady volume and envelops it with strumming. Zep strips the strum away and takes the chromatic riff it from a whisper--initially just in the bass as the guitar plays eerie effects over the top; something not there in the original--to a cry of desperation when the guitar doubles the bass, with those bends on the penultimate note stress that even further. Holmes's call-and-response section is extremely muted, lacks vocals and much of anything else going on; Zep's adds vocals, an echo-drenched guitar, and a shuffling rhythm section underneath. Holmes's solo is psychedelic in nature; Zep's increases the tempo and turns the song into a blues barnburner which is nowhere on the Holmes original. Holmes's lacks drums completely, and, as everyone knows, Bonham was as big a part of Zep's sound as Page and Plant were, and it shows vividly on this track how much he adds.

I don't feel I even need to address the You Need Love/Whole Lotta Love one. The similarities are almost entirely constrained to the lyrics. What makes WLL iconic is the riff, that psychedelic middle section, and the eruption into the solo. Absolutely none of that is in the Waters version. They're completely different songs, musically.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Room2201974 said:


> We don't have this same argument about other creative bands from that era.


The same reason we don't have the argument in sports about teams besides The Patriots cheating; when someone is successful, everyone comes out of the woodwork to either try to tear them down, diminish their achievements, or get a slice of the pie for themselves. That's basic human nature. Oh, yes, there's greed involved all right, but it's hardly all on the side of Page and Plant. There's also a good bit of jealousy that they were able to achieve that success doing what others had done better than they'd done it. What did Handel say when asked why he used some music from some now-forgotten composer? "It's much too good for him; he did not know what to do with it."

History tells us that all this pettiness will eventually disappear and all that will be left is the music. The same way nobody now cares that Handel "stole" a bunch of his music (or that this kind of theft was endemic in the baroque era, in general), eventually nobody will care about Zeppelin's "thefts" either, yet they will remain of critical importance to the fabric of 20th century popular music.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

EY, let me just briefly reply to the first two paragraphs of your post #153 by stating quietly that we disagree. I, in general, prefer the art of popular music foxes over hedgehogs, with the ancillary notion that hedgehog artists who do exhibit fresh new sounds/"styles" can also be of great interest (The Police, for instance; Laura Nyro). Arguing better/worse in the arts, though, comes down to personal preference in the end, does it not, which ultimately "explains" why you prefer this and I that; why I do not share entirely your full enthusiasm for Chopin (for example). But I am content that we do each fully appreciate the singular gifts of Led Zeppelin.

We are in full agreement on the issues addressed in your posts #154 and #155--I could not have articulated them better!

P.S.: This I really like!


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> EY, let me just briefly reply to the first two paragraphs of your post #153 by stating quietly that we disagree. I, in general, prefer the art of popular music foxes over hedgehogs, with the ancillary notion that hedgehog artists who do exhibit fresh new sounds/"styles" can also be of great interest (The Police, for instance; Laura Nyro). Arguing better/worse in the arts, though, comes down to personal preference in the end, does it not, which ultimately "explains" why you prefer this and I that; why I do not share entirely your full enthusiasm for Chopin (for example). But I am content that we do each fully appreciate the singular gifts of Led Zeppelin.
> 
> We are in full agreement on the issues addressed in your posts #154 and #155--I could not have articulated them better!
> 
> P.S.: This I really like!


And it's perfectly fine that we can agree to disagree (civilly, no less!) on a subject where we also agree on the "de gustibus non disputandum est" dictum. Much like with what you'd previously said about preferring the "passion looking for the form" artists over "form looking for the passion" artists where I didn't have an innate preference for either, I'd say the same about the fox/hedgehog dichotomy; I love too many on both sides.

Funny you should post that Jinjer track. It's become THE track for YouTube "reaction" channels because everyone loves to watch people freak out when the song hits the chorus and Tatiana starts growling, usually with the common refrain of "is that her?" However, their (or more accurately, that track's) popularity is mostly due to this gimmick. Stylistically, the band is pretty typical of modern melodic metalcore with flecks of prog and djent thrown in the mix. I don't think they do anything terrible original with it, but they're still pretty good. Though not common, there are also other female vocalists who do both the singing and growling--Arch Enemy was probably the first notable example. Even the soft/beautiful verse to heavy/aggressive chorus has become really common since Opeth's success.

FWIW, I'll probably be seeing them next month considering they'll only be a 6 minute drive away.

EDIT: BTW, I know you've mentioned liking Queensryche before. You should really check out Fates Warning. They're what I imagine Queensryche would've been if they got better instead of progressively worse after the 90s. Parallels is probably the best starting point (and their most Queensryche-esque).


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Here's another _Stairway_ reference that may help tie several recent threads together....






Regarding Jinjer, as is often the case with my experiences with metal, I cycled through much of their other material and found (personally) nothing remotely as interesting, original, engaging as _Pisces_. That is metal's sad fate with this listener: often much promised; little delivered. But that's just one person's reaction. Let us know what you experience at their concert.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

tdc said:


> I think we have a case here of "I don't like these guys, I don't think they don't live up to my moral standards, therefore their music is not good."
> 
> This comment along with one you made earlier in the thread stating that they "still were borrowing material on their 4th album", leads me to suspect you lack knowledge of the time-line that Zeppelin's albums were released. Zeppelin's first four albums were released between the years 1969 and 1971. So not a lot of time actually passed between Zep I and Zep IV.


Oh, well now thanks for pointing out the obvious. So "only" two years of intellectual property theft is acceptable. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, since my clients "only" stole cars during a two year period you most acquit. And think nothing of the royality rates that continued to accrue after that time period that made them fabulously wealthy."

Like? Like? It's much deeper than that. From purely a compositional and songwriting point of view its a matter of respect. I've met a few low lifes during my time, but I have yet to meet a car thief worthy of respect. Especially one that ran a continuing car theft ring. Your mileage may vary on the road to moral relativism. But it's a road that unabashedly states that the theft of intellectual property rights must be overlooked, because oh my gosh, Led Zeppelin is so great, and gee, Jimmy is my guitar hero. The young man who plays the Led Zeppelin sycophant who meets William in the lobby of a N.Y. hotel in the movie _Almost Famous_ comes to mind. Copyright laws must fall in the face of hero worship.

Contestant: "I'll take Moral Dilemmas for $1000 Alex."

Alex: " and the answer is - They are the definition of cultural appropriation without respect."

Contestant: "Who are Led Zeppelin*?

*ding, ding, ding*

Alex: "You are correct!"


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

This is getting too political. Go downstairs.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Jacck said:


> Zeppelin and Beatles are without a doubt two of the most overated rockbands of all time . They ripped off other bands. Most of their catalog is trash. Even their hits are vapid at best. Every genuine rocker knows that bands like Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, AC/DC, Iron Maiden and ZZ Top are hundred times better than Led Zep


Jimmy Page is easily more evil than Ozzy. Page lives in Aleister Crowley's old mansion, right? And in a Rolling Stone interview, Page admitted to selling his soul to the Devil, and he financed some Kenneth Anger films.
Plus, the bags under Page's eyes are a _lot _bigger than Ozzy's.

Ozzy is just play-acting.


----------



## Flutter (Mar 26, 2019)

Aside from unique tracks like No Quarter and oddities like "Friends", Sabbath beats Zeppelin in every other case. Nothing Zeppelin ever did can beat Sabbath's "Master Of Reality" album. 


At the same time, neither band really demand much of my listening time these days and I doubt they will in the future. They're both best when they're experimental and do things contrary to their more "radio friendly" crap.

Stairway to Heaven and Paranoid are toilet paper music.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Flutter said:


> Aside from unique tracks like No Quarter and oddities like "Friends", Sabbath beats Zeppelin in every other case. Nothing Zeppelin ever did can beat Sabbath's "Master Of Reality" album.
> 
> At the same time, neither band really demand much of my listening time these days and I doubt they will in the future. They're both best when they're experimental and do things contrary to their more "radio friendly" crap.
> 
> Stairway to Heaven and Paranoid are toilet paper music.


This is an example of knocking the other person's music. It's always counterproductive when presented as "fact", and is met with hostility and derision. But some just enjoy doing it; others think they're being "bold and forthright".


----------



## Flutter (Mar 26, 2019)

Strange Magic said:


> This is an example of knocking the other person's music. It's always counterproductive when presented as "fact", and is met with hostility and derision. But some just enjoy doing it; others think they're being "bold and forthright".


Sure thing :cheers:


----------



## Flutter (Mar 26, 2019)

Strange Magic said:


> This is an example of knocking the other person's music. It's always counterproductive when presented as "fact", and is met with hostility and derision. But some just enjoy doing it; others think they're being "bold and forthright".


In all honesty, your policing of other people's opinions is quite disconcerting but I don't hold much value to your 'wahwah' attitude. I don't know why you interpret me as trying to be 'bold and forthright' when I am quite neutrally stating my thoughts. 
If you were a mod I'm sure you'd ban me for mentioning that Paranoid uses three chords or that Stairway's chord progressions are generic. I don't really care for your entitled opinions bro, and I'll let you know that.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Flutter said:


> In all honesty, your policing of other people's opinions is quite disconcerting but I don't hold much value to your 'wahwah' attitude. I don't know why you interpret me as trying to be 'bold and forthright' when I am quite neutrally stating my thoughts.
> If you were a mod I'm sure you'd ban me for mentioning that Paranoid uses three chords or that Stairway's chord progressions are generic. I don't really care for your entitled opinions bro, and I'll let you know that.


No, you're going to be a great asset here. A lot of people listen with pleasure to the wrong sort of music and are ignorant of just how bad it is. You can set them straight. I look forward to your direction and am ready to submit to instruction about what's bad about what I like.


----------



## Flutter (Mar 26, 2019)

Strange Magic said:


> No, you're going to be a great asset here. A lot of people listen with pleasure to the wrong sort of music and are ignorant of just how bad it is. You can set them straight. I look forward to your direction and am ready to submit to instruction about what's bad about what I like.


You know that you could avoid having a tantrum, you do know that right?

Good day sir, may you one day learn to let go of your empty emotional reactions. 

I am also sincerely sorry for having an opinion and pray that you forgive me for my sin.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

X: "Have a slice of this carrot cake, Mr. Flutter. I find it's just the thing with a nice cup of tea."

Mr. Flutter: "I hate carrot cake! It's crap. I hate tea also. Lemonade is the only thing to drink!"

Or, instead: "Thanks, but could I have the crumb cake instead? And, while I know others like tea, my personal preference is for a cool glass of lemonade."


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)




----------



## Flutter (Mar 26, 2019)

Yeah, I'd prefer some Hairway to Steven


----------



## Flutter (Mar 26, 2019)

Strange Magic said:


> X: "Have a slice of this carrot cake, Mr. Flutter. I find it's just the thing with a nice cup of tea."
> 
> Mr. Flutter: "I hate carrot cake! It's crap. I hate tea also. Lemonade is the only thing to drink!"
> 
> Or, instead: "Thanks, but could I have the crumb cake instead? And, while I know others like tea, my personal preference is for a cool glass of lemonade."


More like, MrStrange is running a 'sample a free cake' stand in a public area. Mr Flutter takes a glance, uninterested and keeps walking by. Then MrStrange moves from his stand and walks behind Mr Flutter unsuspecting, then throws a carrot cake in his face, then proceeds to smash him up against a nearby sign all for no reason, then throw him out in front of a bus. 
Flutter is now bleeding in the gutter and the ambulance was called, MrStrange then pretends to be a witness to the incident while Flutter is in a coma.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Flutter said:


> More like, MrStrange is running a 'sample a free cake' stand in a public area. Mr Flutter takes a glance, uninterested and keeps walking by. Then MrStrange moves from his stand and walks behind Mr Flutter unsuspecting, then throws a carrot cake in his face, then proceeds to smash him up against a nearby sign all for no reason, then throw him out in front of a bus.
> Flutter is now bleeding in the gutter and the ambulance was called, MrStrange then pretends to be a witness to the incident while Flutter is in a coma.


I like my version better. No smashing, no blood, no ambulances, no comas. Also, Mr. Flutter wasn't "uninterested" and kept walking by, noooo sirree, as anybody actually reading posts can check for themselves.

But much if not all is redeemed by the Butthole Surfers selection. I once lent a BS cassette to a friend and he returned it wrapped in thankfully unsoiled toilet paper, a nice gesture.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

...but Led Zeppelin is NOT metal and Black Sabbath IS...


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

This is music made for teenagers but ya don't need to act like one to like it.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Flutter said:


> Stairway to Heaven and Paranoid are toilet paper music.


 Oh, such a tactful statement will surely warm the hearts of fans of each group and sit well. Those songs may have worn out their welcome after all these years, but they are iconic to both groups and some still enjoy them every once in a while as a reason why they became famous in the first place.


----------



## Flutter (Mar 26, 2019)

philoctetes said:


> This is music made for teenagers but ya don't need to act like one to like it.


In all honesty, this is a very accurate statement. These two bands likewise (aside from their most experimental, ambitious songs) tend to fall into a similar candypop music category of consumerism. This is what I really start to observe more and more over time. Aside from that it is very much a deal of shaping the trends of the mainstream culture and subculture through the means of entertainment.

Too much nostalgia can blind a man.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent (Feb 28, 2008)

I think Sabbath has tunes that appeal to me more than most Zeppelin tunes, but Zeppelin just wins by sheer volume of great songs. I feel the same way with the Beatles vs Stones argument. I think The Stones had better songs, but the Beatles had way more great songs.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Jimmy Page on his Telecaster:


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

philoctetes said:


> This is music made for teenagers...


This is true for all popular music, so saying so in any individual case is rather redundant. The truth is more that teenagers are the largest consumers of music so any music made to be commercial is auto-targeted at teenagers. This says less about the musicians/artists (and nothing about the quality of the music) and more about basic human developmental psychology.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

_"I Am Large, I Contain Multitudes"_: Walt Whitman, Song of Myself.

I contain a teenager within me, even at 79. :lol:


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent (Feb 28, 2008)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> This is true for all popular music, so saying so in any individual case is rather redundant. The truth is more that teenagers are the largest consumers of music so any music made to be commercial is auto-targeted at teenagers. This says less about the musicians/artists (and nothing about the quality of the music) and more about basic human developmental psychology.


Mozart composed music for everybody. I'm sure he was quite capable of doing things far ahead of his time, but wrote music for the common folk. Mozart's goals as a composer, were very similar to any DJ, and I hate to cheapen him that much, but he was pumping out dance tunes. "I get paid too much for what I do, and not enough for what I could do" is a quote that I often think of. So in a sense, every composer from that era was writing for people who didn't know about music theory, but just liked something with a catchy melody. Sure, they could and did use their knowledge of theory to ornament the work, but down to its bare bones, Mozart's music could be hummed and whistled.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

[video]https://www.facebook.com/ClassicFM/videos/mozart-on-banjo/10157186629579260/[/video]


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

and some more Mozart for the Common Folk.................


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Apparently, LZ really didn't "win" in court, at least not yet. The Stairway saga continues......sure hope *Strange Magic* doesn't pop a vein over these strange bedfellows.

https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/led-zeppelin-trump-stairway-to-heaven-copyright-case-1203305048/


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent (Feb 28, 2008)

To be fair, I never considered Stairway to even be in their top 10 best songs.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Room2201974 said:


> Apparently, LZ really didn't "win" in court, at least not yet. The Stairway saga continues......sure hope *Strange Magic* doesn't pop a vein over these strange bedfellows.
> 
> https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/led-zeppelin-trump-stairway-to-heaven-copyright-case-1203305048/


Some people never tire.....


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> Some people never tire.....
> 
> View attachment 122719


Oh, so we should tire of enforcing the copyright laws? They are meaningless, right? Even with your advanced aged, Beijing is looking for English speakers to make their case. You could be a spokesperson for any patent, trademark and copyright infringement and argue that there is no worth to protecting original ideas. You know, I always wonder what folks in TC do or did for a living. In your case, I betting against Tour Guide at the Menlo Park lab.

BTW, you might want to check the nomenclature of your colloquial expression. Apparently, the horse is very much alive.....at least according to the Ninth Circuit Court.:guitar:


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^^I'll stick with my post #91, and let the US legal system work out whatever redress is due to whomever. Red China? Not a big fan myself, but are we talking about the same thing when we link state-sponsored espionage to the sins of LZ and others "stealing" and borrowing from one another's works? Overkill? The horse still looks dead to me, and is beginning to stink.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> I contain a teenager within me, even at 79. :lol:


I've yet to find the adult within me, even at 61.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^I'll stick with my post #91, and let the US legal system work out whatever redress is due to whomever. Red China? Not a big fan myself, but are we talking about the same thing when we link state-sponsored espionage to the sins of LZ and others "stealing" and borrowing from one another's works? Overkill? The horse still looks dead to me, and is beginning to stink.


The horse ain't dead until the Ninth Circuit Court says so. Then, and only then will rigor mortis set in. However, the odoriferous air that surrounds the band will continue * long after the court case of one song.

After _Blurred Lines_ and _Dark Horse_, if I were Plant and Page's attorneys the last thing I would want is a jury trial.

For sale: 1786 Nova Caesara, EF45 for details, net graded VG8 for dark and extremely porous planchet. Once the property of Robert Van Wrinkle.


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

12.30 kick off on Saturday at the Stadium of Light....prior to the match I was in conversation with a group of fans that included one of my brothers (younger than me) and I recounted the basics of this debate in response to the majesty of Rock 'n Roll coming from the PA...….having little real interest in Zeppelin even he acknowledged that they were not a 'heavy metal'band…...every time I have a look at this thread I encounter the initial question and really do not get it!

If by any chance the person responsible for that choice of music is reading this then well done.....the rest however is s***!


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

SalieriIsInnocent said:


> To be fair, I never considered Stairway to even be in their top 10 best songs.


good point.....cannot remember the last time I listened to it.....whereas 'The Rover' (for example) is a frequent listen


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Room2201974 said:


> The horse ain't dead until the Ninth Circuit Court says so. Then, and only then will rigor mortis set in. However, the odoriferous air that surrounds the band will continue * long after the court case of one song.
> 
> After _Blurred Lines_ and _Dark Horse_, if I were Plant and Page's attorneys the last thing I would want is a jury trial.
> 
> For sale: 1786 Nova Caesara, EF45 for details, net graded VG8 for dark and extremely porous planchet. Once the property of Robert Van Wrinkle.


Just can't let it go.......


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

jim prideaux said:


> good point.....cannot remember the last time I listened to it.....whereas 'The Rover' (for example) is a frequent listen


Love 'em both! The infinite variety of individual taste......


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> Just can't let it go.......


Neither can TC's Zep* tribute band, _The Fawning Sycophants_. Their lead singer wears the coolest  pair of blinders with words written in the inside. The words? "But, Nixon opened China."


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> Room2201974:
> 
> "Nowhere did I indicate that I have eliminated LZ's entire music catalog from consideration."
> 
> ...


Should not quivering, apoplectic revulsion be made of sterner stuff? I am shocked to read such praise delivered as faint damnation. After all, these people are criminals.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Room2201974 said:


> Oh, so we should tire of enforcing the copyright laws?


I wouldn't shed a tear if copyright laws were abolished. All art is 99% theft, and quibbling about the 1% differences is better left to aesthetes and artists than courts and lawyers. Not to mention how it takes something fundamentally spiritual and reduces it to gross capitalism.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I wouldn't shed a tear if copyright laws were abolished. All art is 99% theft, and quibbling about the 1% differences is better left to aesthetes and artists than courts and lawyers. Not to mention how it takes something fundamentally spiritual and reduces it to gross capitalism.


I'm curious, are you an artist yourself?


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Since we're dealing with cock rock, I nominate Iron Maiden who are much more exciting than the latter two. Truly great musicians to boot.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Try this for size


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> Should not quivering, apoplectic revulsion be made of sterner stuff? I am shocked to read such praise delivered as faint damnation. After all, these people are criminals.


Net graded down from what could have been one of the greatest rock and roll bands of all time. So many great bands out there who never felt the need to steal intellectual property rights. They literally push Zep* down the list of "creative bands". If they had just spent the time coming up with original material instead of stealing the ideas of other songwriters could you imagine how many more great songs they could have written?????

"The evil men do lives after them. The good is oft interred with their bones."


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Which are the bands that "literally" push Led Zeppelin down the list of creative bands? And how far down? Just curious. And where was Zep before you re-evaluated them? Up there? "One of the greatest rock and roll bands of all time?". An almost Biblical, Lucifer-like fall from grace. Apocalyptic.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

Did you guys know that Claudio Monteverdi just ripped off Bob Dylan? Listen to "Lamento della Ninfa"and then "One More Cup of Coffee". If I were Bob I'd sue that Cloudy guy!!!


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I wouldn't shed a tear if copyright laws were abolished. All art is 99% theft, and quibbling about the 1% differences is better left to aesthetes and artists than courts and lawyers. Not to mention how it takes something fundamentally spiritual and reduces it to gross capitalism.


EY, that is a bridge too far. We have the courts and the legal system to sort out these things, messy though they are. I still have my Ballantine paperbacks of _The Lord of the Rings_, with JRR Tolkien's injunction printed on the back covers that people buy only those books that were "published with my consent and cooperation". Note that Ace (or whoever it was) did not use Tolkien's works as a starting point, like Zeppelin, for their own transformed version of TLOTR, but just took advantage of a gap in existing copyright law to offer a bootleg edition. I also treasure my volume of "Bored of the Rings", a riotous Weird Al-type send-up of Tolkien's classic. Led Zeppelin's reworkings of others' material could be viewed in the same light, but in any case, let's let the legal system continue to sort these things out.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

amfortas said:


> I'm curious, are you an artist yourself?


Not professionally, no, but I've been heavily involved in the arts since as far back as I can remember, mostly music and literature. Never did it (or wanted to do it) for money, nor recognition.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> EY, that is a bridge too far. We have the courts and the legal system to sort out these things, messy though they are. I still have my Ballantine paperbacks of _The Lord of the Rings_, with JRR Tolkien's injunction printed on the back covers that people buy only those books that were "published with my consent and cooperation". *Note that Ace (or whoever it was) did not use Tolkien's works as a starting point, like Zeppelin, for their own transformed version of TLOTR, but just took advantage of a gap in existing copyright law to offer a bootleg edition.* I also treasure my volume of "Bored of the Rings", a riotous Weird Al-type send-up of Tolkien's classic. Led Zeppelin's reworkings of others' material could be viewed in the same light, but in any case, let's let the legal system continue to sort these things out.


There's a big difference between that (the bolded part) and what we're talking about with LZ. Still, even the cases of bootlegs such as that, it's rare that it severely hurts the artists and publishers, and can even often act as a kind of advertisement; not unlike the way that internet music piracy became a kind of promotional tool for artists and their tours and even physical "deluxe editions" of their releases.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

This is why we have lawyers indeed.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Just to show we've whipped this horse into hamburger many times before. Keeps the flies fed, though..........

Stairway To Heaven


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Not professionally, no, but I've been heavily involved in the arts since as far back as I can remember, mostly music and literature. Never did it (or wanted to do it) for money, nor recognition.


Category one...........


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Try this for size


Time for some more Kahvas Jutehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahvas_Jute


> _Wide Open_[edit]Kahvas Jute developed a reputation for their live performances and signed with Festival Records' subsidiary label, Infinity Records.[SUP][1][/SUP] They issued their debut album, _Wide Open_ in January 1971.[SUP][1][/SUP] It was recorded at Festival Studios in Sydney and produced by Pat Aulton.[SUP][2][/SUP] By the time that the album appeared, Gaze had already returned to Tamam Shud and Kahvas Jute continued as a trio.[SUP][1][/SUP] In June, Davidson and Wilson travelled to the United Kingdom and temporarily used Mick Smith and Scott Maxey on bass guitar. Daisley arrived in London in July but Kahvas Jute didn't reform.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] Daisley remained in the UK and became a member of several bands including: Chicken Shack, Mungo Jerry, Widowmaker, Rainbow, The Blizzard of Ozz, The Ozzy Osbourne Band, Uriah Heep and The Gary Moore Band, among others.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP]


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Room2201974 said:


> Category one...........


"Category one" what?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Overblown pompous music


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Overblown pompous music


I like overblown pompous music (if it's good )!


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

I like overblown and pompous as much as I like underblown and modest. The "if it's good" qualifier holds true for me for just about any descriptors one can attach to any music.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Elgar anyone


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Elgar anyone


What an odd name, "Elgar Anyone". Probably an Englishman. Y. Knott.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)




----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Zeppelin - in small doses (classic rock stations play them far more often than I need) 
Sabbath - not at all


----------



## Hiawatha (Mar 13, 2013)

There were only two "rock" bands" that punks were allowed to like. Zeppelin and the Doors. I can handle aspects of Sabbath - their ordinary British roots, the fact that in 1970 they were excitingly there with Deep Purple in the top five of the UK singles chart which was entirely unprecedented (Paranoid and Black Night) and the Beatles thing on Technical Ecstasy (It's Alright). I feel the modern celebrity adulation of Zep is overdone - and I will NOT do the O2 - but III and IV are great, I loved Plant's '83 solo album with Big Log and he has done some interesting WM/blues ish things since so I can easily vote Zep in this poll.

(I like to think of jegreenwood as being in Radiohead but I know he isn't)


----------



## Guest (Sep 10, 2019)

Hiawatha said:


> *There were only two "rock" bands" that punks were allowed to like. Zeppelin and the Doors.*


This kind of confuses me. First, punks would be the first to tell you that, due to their frequent anti-authoritarian attitudes, they wouldn't have stood for any rules as to what they were and weren't "allowed" to like. The Ramones liked to cover the Beach Boys and surf music. Social Distortion - especially lead man Mike Ness - liked early country and the Rolling Stones (they covered the Stones' "Under My Thumb" back in their early days). Patti Smyth covered the Who. I really don't think there were any hard and fast rules. I don't think they liked much progressive or arena rock - very much flew in the face of the punk ethos, and the DIY attitude. But I doubt there was any "allowed" list.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Hiawatha said:


> There were only two "rock" bands" that punks were allowed to like. Zeppelin and the Doors. I can handle aspects of Sabbath - their ordinary British roots, the fact that in 1970 they were excitingly there with Deep Purple in the top five of the UK singles chart which was entirely unprecedented (Paranoid and Black Night) and the Beatles thing on Technical Ecstasy (It's Alright). I feel the modern celebrity adulation of Zep is overdone - and I will NOT do the O2 - but III and IV are great, I loved Plant's '83 solo album with Big Log and he has done some interesting WM/blues ish things since so I can easily vote Zep in this poll.
> 
> (I like to think of jegreenwood as being in Radiohead but I know he isn't)


Although my first name is John.

Last year I saw Radiohead in concert at Madison Square Garden. At a pre-concert dinner I discovered that the band was staying at the hotel where we were eating. I considered going up to reception, showing my ID and saying I had lost my key.

But I chickened out.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Hiawatha said:


> _There were only two "rock" bands" that punks were allowed to like. Zeppelin and the Doors._


A few of my friends were punk fans in 77/78 and broadly speaking they tended to accept current rock bands that had more of a blue-collar reputation i.e Thin Lizzy, AC/DC and Motörhead. They may well have liked the Doors but they had been history for some years by then. Led Zep were dismissed as being too mystical and hippy-ish, as I recall.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

DrMike said:


> This kind of confuses me. First, punks would be the first to tell you that, due to their frequent anti-authoritarian attitudes, they wouldn't have stood for any rules as to what they were and weren't "allowed" to like. The Ramones liked to cover the Beach Boys and surf music. Social Distortion - especially lead man Mike Ness - liked early country and the Rolling Stones (they covered the Stones' "Under My Thumb" back in their early days). Patti Smyth covered the Who. I really don't think there were any hard and fast rules. I don't think they liked much progressive or arena rock - very much flew in the face of the punk ethos, and the DIY attitude. But I doubt there was any "allowed" list.


Are you kidding? The punk scene has always been totally conformist with everyone trying to prove they arent posers


----------



## Guest (Sep 10, 2019)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Are you kidding? The punk scene has always been totally conformist with everyone trying to prove they arent posers


Maybe the second wave that started up in the mid to late 80s, who thought there was a dress code and thought punk rock started with Green Day, but not the initial wave.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)




----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

My vote goes to CAN.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

And it's whispered that soon, if we all call the tune,
Then the piper will lead us to reason.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Red Terror said:


> My vote goes to CAN.


What about Camel


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)




----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

wrong thread ...............


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

^
^

Judging by some of the recent posts you aren't alone.


----------



## Guest (Sep 11, 2019)

My vote has now been switched to Dread Zeppelin:


----------



## Grigoriy (Aug 26, 2021)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Who were the real kings of 70s metal?


Deep Purple and not only metal.

And of these two I like Black Sabbath, but only with Ian Gillan. And to a much lesser extent (and no more than 2-3 songs) with Dio.








And I prefer LZ songs performed live by David Coverdale. Which, unlike Plant, can sing live.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

What about Steppenwolf? Poll needs more choices.

Zepplin way more bluesy than Sabbath. But as a long-hair in high school I liked both so much as I heard on the radio, but never bought albums.

If i had to pick one song among the two, as an all time favorite, it is War Pigs.


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Who were the real kings of 70s metal?


I never really considered LZ "metal;" more blues-rock with folk and the occasional proggy flourish



Bwv 1080 said:


> Grand Funk Railroad was neither grand, funky or a railroad.


.... nor metal.


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

Periodically had a look at this thread out of interest but the previous post directly reflects my thoughts. I have never enjoyed 'metal' but Zeppelin feature in both my collection and listening.......primarily because of that intriguing combination of elements mentioned and because of some great 'tunes' and albums (III, Houses of the Holy, Physical Graffiti).....


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Mahavishnu Orchestra


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

SixFootScowl said:


> What about Steppenwolf? Poll needs more choices.


Like Zeppelin--let alone GFR--I never considered Steppenwolf metal, but rather hard rock. 
Re: "more choices," Blue Cheer had the sound--and the amps--of metal early on.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I'll be honest, I never got Steppenwolf. I thought they were dreadful and not what I'd even describe as hard rock. Sorry.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

SixFootScowl said:


> What about Steppenwolf? Poll needs more choices.
> 
> Zepplin way more bluesy than Sabbath. But as a long-hair in high school I liked both so much as I heard on the radio, but never bought albums.
> 
> If i had to pick one song among the two, as an all time favorite, it is War Pigs.


If you ask Ray Davies, the Kinks were the first metal band because Van Halen covered You Really Got Me. By that logic, Roy Orbison beat the Kinks by a couple of months. Van Halen also covered Oh Pretty Woman.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

When we have the Mahavishnu Orchestra playing hard, majestic jazz/rock fusion, why do we even need Led Zeppelin? We don't.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Red Terror said:


> When we have the Mahavishnu Orchestra playing hard, majestic jazz/rock fusion, why do we even need Led Zeppelin? We don't.


We certainly don't need Zeppelin if the issue at hand was Who Provides the Best Jazz/Rock fusion. But was that the OP question?


----------



## Ludwig Schon (10 mo ago)

John McLaughlin is great, but he could not hold a candle to…


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Merl said:


> Seemed to me growing up in the late 70s that every party would be accompanied by a copy of Led Zep IV, Deep Purple's 'Made in Japan' and (if it was my party) Sabbath Bloody Sabbath. As for you, Jim, I am frankly disappointed that you do not understand Sabbath's place at the top of the metal pile. However you are a Maccem so maybe you don't see brilliance when it's staring you in the face. You probably think Jack Rodwell was the new Messi. (*Merl sits back and waits for Jim to explode) :devil:


HaHa, we must have been to the same parties!

I saw both bands twice and would give it to Zeppelin - but I love Sabbath and still listen to them regularly to this day1


----------

