Never was a fan of, my friends got big into classic rock in High School but I never made the transition. The only older rock I enjoy is The Beatles, The Doors, Cream and The Ventures.
Well, they've influenced just about every rock group that's followed them as well as a whole lot of not-rock groups. People can think they suck all they want, but Zeppelin's influence isn't going to magically go away because of it.
Once I found out a ton of their popular songs are covers, I couldn't look at them the same way again. I can't believe they would play blues songs and then act like they came up with it (they never credited the original artists).
@VelvetLore04: Dad Rock is sorta a dumb qualifier for a genre or era of music.
Zeppelin are freakin awesome. Favorite band by far. Yeah Jimmy Page ripped off a lot of blues songs but that wasn't a big deal back then, a lot of bands did it. Probably my favorite Zeppelin song.
Once I found out a ton of their popular songs are covers, I couldn't look at them the same way again. I can't believe they would play blues songs and then act like they came up with it (they never credited the original artists).
If you were in a successful a rock group in the 60s/early 70s then chances are you probably ripped off a blues artist. In fact guys like Clapton and Jeff Beck have been pretty up-front about it.
I don't know how someone can say they suck and actually mean it......I can see someone saying they are overrated but saying they suck is just trolling.
I don't like them because I don't like the style of music they play, and I find them boring and artistically uninteresting.
@Unknown_Pleasures said:
I don't know how someone can say they suck and actually mean it......I can see someone saying they are overrated but saying they suck is just trolling.
Because somebody isn't allowed to have an opinion opposite of your own. Number of records sold =/= musical integrity. I say that because people generally people try to bring the whole, "they sold X records, and they can't be wrong,/suck if they sell that much" argument to the table in favor of a band. As far as I see it, every band is fair game for criticism and dislike. In the end, it comes down to opinions on music.
I don't like them because I don't like the style of music they play, and I find them boring and artistically uninteresting.
@Unknown_Pleasures said:
I don't know how someone can say they suck and actually mean it......I can see someone saying they are overrated but saying they suck is just trolling.
Because somebody isn't allowed to have an opinion opposite of your own. Number of records sold =/= musical integrity. I say that because people generally people try to bring the whole, "they sold X records, and they can't be wrong,/suck if they sell that much" argument to the table in favor of a band. As far as I see it, every band is fair game for criticism and dislike. In the end, it comes down to opinions on music.
I don't think it has so much to do with record sales as it does their influence on other acclaimed artists throughout the years, of which there are many.
@Napalm: I think there is a difference between saying you dislike a band and saying that a band sucks. One just seems more appropriate and takes emotion out of your opinion that others might find agitating. But, semantics, words etc.
I don't listen to Led Zeppelin all the time, but when I'm in the mood for older rock I can't help but listen to "Communication Breakdown".
Led Zeppelin is among my three favorite bands. It's so nice to listen to a singer who doesn't need auto tune, and a band that works so harmoniously. I believe, truly, that I was born in the wrong generation. All my favorite music is pre-1999, my favorite cars are pre-1972, I don't wear homie wannabe clothes, and I wear my Beatles, Rolling Stones, Van Halen, Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix, Deep Purple, Queen, Def Leppard, and INXS shirts with pride!
@MXC361: Totally agree, Robert Plant had an incredible voice. I understand if someone doesn't like it but at the very least you have to appreciate the talent involved in that band. Every one of those guys was an amazing musician in their own right but they didn't try to stand out from one another, they were such a cohesive unit as a band that every part fit together. I really wish I had been around to see them live.
Once I found out a ton of their popular songs are covers, I couldn't look at them the same way again. I can't believe they would play blues songs and then act like they came up with it (they never credited the original artists).
If you were in a successful a rock group in the 60s/early 70s then chances are you probably ripped off a blues artist. In fact guys like Clapton and Jeff Beck have been pretty up-front about it.
And It's not even just in order to be successful. That is just what happened back then. Its not like it is today where if someone isn't credited for something, the originators blow their top in a suit. As far back as increase in popularity of folk music people have been playing covers. They don't consider them covers, they just consider them songs that they play. People weren't concerned about "rights" to music. The most celebrated soul and R&B singers did the same thing. So its not really a big deal to find out that alot of music around that time and prior were mostly all uncredited covers. Its ok to still like Led Zeppelin.
I was raised on Led Zeppelin, but they were still performing when I was young.
They're one of my favorite musical groups. From folksy songs like Gallows Pole, to hard rock such as Black Dog, to purely experimental pieces such as No Quarter. And of course the epic anthems such as Stairway to Heaven and The Song Remains the Same etc. No band alive today can cover such a variety of styles and make them their own.
Their songs are good but they made them in a way they couldn't replicate in a live performance so seeing them live was never as good as people anticipated
Actually, Zeppelin were considered one of the best live performers of their time.
@Fajita_Jim: IMO then, I've watched videos (I know it's not the same as actually live) but I didn't think they sounded very good
I think other than The Song Remains the Same, all other videos are bootlegs (and I think there's only 5 or 6 known bootlegs). Their manager limited their exposure to TV/Video so fans would come to concerts.
Zeppelin didn't play most of their songs as recorded, they did a lot of improv and they were damn good at it. Pages playing the guitar with a bow and playing the Theremin, for example. Just because a song was 5-minutes long on record doesn't mean it wouldn't be extended to 20+ minutes on stage.
They are one of the most influential bands in the history of rock and roll. That said I had my fill when I was quite young with my pops and his friends blasting them via house stereo (along with CCR, Cream, The Eagles, etc.). Going back and listening to them I catch myself singing their tunes under my breath, but if I watch a live video of their jam sessions they end up being quite insufferable. Watching Jimmy Page beat the shit out of his guitar with that violin bow was mind-blowing when I first saw that, but after 15 minutes of it I just sat there and bitched "Dude?! I wanna start singing 'you've been learnin' baby, I've been yearnin'' with these fuckers! Get to the fucking song... about fucking!"
@TheVeteran13: Sometimes its good to hear a song differently, or more simplistic.
I think Led Zep are great. I have a couple of their albums. One time, I bought their Presence album from a local Goodwill, and inside was a 7" of Immigrant Song/Hey Hey What Can I do. That was a good day.
Also, Led Zeppelin (their first album) came out in 1969. I believe that is the same year as Abbey Road. At the time, Led Zeppelin was too ahead of its time, in my opinion. You hear it and it sounds like some real heavy blues. It must have been awesome to hear them back then.
Once I found out a ton of their popular songs are covers, I couldn't look at them the same way again. I can't believe they would play blues songs and then act like they came up with it (they never credited the original artists).
If you were in a successful a rock group in the 60s/early 70s then chances are you probably ripped off a blues artist. In fact guys like Clapton and Jeff Beck have been pretty up-front about it.
And It's not even just in order to be successful. That is just what happened back then. Its not like it is today where if someone isn't credited for something, the originators blow their top in a suit. As far back as increase in popularity of folk music people have been playing covers. They don't consider them covers, they just consider them songs that they play. People weren't concerned about "rights" to music. The most celebrated soul and R&B singers did the same thing. So its not really a big deal to find out that alot of music around that time and prior were mostly all uncredited covers. Its ok to still like Led Zeppelin.
Zeppelin are great. I got into them in high school during the whole rock phase along with AC/DC etc (thank god that's over) but Zeppelin are still amazing.
One thing to know though, a lot of their songs are ripped directly from other artists. They are serious plagiarists. Although the Zeppelin versions are far superior, it's still something that really dented how much I loved that band.
They're a great British blues band. I like them a lot but I can't listen to them for the length of time I used to when I was in high school. That's not true of The Rolling Stones, and there in lies the difference for me. Still, I have nothing bad to say about Zeppelin. I think my favorite song is "When the Levee Breaks", although it really depends on my mood since I quite like lighter stuff like "Fool in the Rain", too.
They are the best hard rock band of all time. Newer bands may be faster, louder, and have more effects but no-one has ever matched that heavy rock feel that zeppelin were masters at. Plus they were kind of like a supergroup in that each member was considered to be one of the best at what they did. The only problem is that I wish they had more output. I've heard all of their songs so many times that I've sort of worn them out. To me, their songs don't have tons of depth that multiple hearings reveal - they're pretty straightforward. I really liked their live recordings the best, but again the live performances you can get on record are mostly the same songs over and over. To me they were a little like the Dead in that they'd play the same song 500 times and it'd be noticeably different each time (lots of interesting variations), but still wish they had more songs.
While I do like Zeppelin a lot I still find them to be quite overrated in a lot of ways, mostly because of Jimmy Page. He's definitely a good guitarist and he was very fast for the time, but his playing did tend to be pretty sloppy and he'd often EQ his guitar parts to be so trebley that they'd be almost painful to listen to. Whenever I hear someone proclaming him to be the best guitarist of all time I just kind of sigh and shake my head. Overall I still think they're a great band, but by no means the be-all end-all of rock music. Honestly I appreciate how influential they were more than the actual music they produced because without them, almost none of my favorite bands would exist.
Once I found out a ton of their popular songs are covers, I couldn't look at them the same way again. I can't believe they would play blues songs and then act like they came up with it (they never credited the original artists).
If you were in a successful a rock group in the 60s/early 70s then chances are you probably ripped off a blues artist. In fact guys like Clapton and Jeff Beck have been pretty up-front about it.
And It's not even just in order to be successful. That is just what happened back then. Its not like it is today where if someone isn't credited for something, the originators blow their top in a suit. As far back as increase in popularity of folk music people have been playing covers. They don't consider them covers, they just consider them songs that they play. People weren't concerned about "rights" to music. The most celebrated soul and R&B singers did the same thing. So its not really a big deal to find out that alot of music around that time and prior were mostly all uncredited covers. Its ok to still like Led Zeppelin.
It doesn't seem a little gross to you?
Honestly I don't see the point in getting offended by it considering how often, and for how long its been happening. Even blues artists were playing covers, playing reworked old songs or just straight up playing music that was written for them by other people. There's a whole lot of blues songs out there written by Willie Dixon that were performed by other artists and, hell, Chuck Berry's first single was a reworked country song and the guy is pretty much credited for having invented Rock n' Roll. As for R&B artists, don't even get me started. Aretha Franklin's entire career has pretty much been based around an Otis Redding song she covered and hardly anybody realizes it.
Most of the old blues artists who had their music ripped don't seem to mind all that much either. Jeff Beck claimed that he actually asked Howlin' Wolf if he was okay with him ripping off one of his riffs and he didn't object. Quite frankly I think the only people who get super offended by it tend to be record label execs looking to make some money off of dead old bluesmen or just assholes looking for an arbitrary reason to bash an influential/popular group or artist that they don't like.
It's not like the practice ended in the Zeppelin days either. Rock groups tend to stay away from it a lot because of the stigma surrounding ripping off another another artists music, but there are still a few that have done it. The Replacements performed both a tighter punked-out (and, if you ask me, better) version of Kiss' Black Diamond and a crazy-ass reworking of Ted Nugent's Cat Scratch Fever on their ridiculously-acclaimed record Let it Be. They've since been credited as one of the groups that paved the way for alt-rock to absolutely blow-up in the mainstream. Then of course there's the beast known as rap music. Rap is entirely based around sampling the music of other artists and, regardless of whether you like the genre or not, its become a much celebrated genre of music; so much so that handful of rap recordings have already made it into the National Recording Registry for artistic and historical significance.
I don't like Led Zeppelin as well as they deserve, probably. I can't listen to a full 'Get the Led Out' block without getting a little restless. But I can tell they're talented and every once in awhile they hit just the right spot. My favorite song by them is "What is (and What Should Never Be)"
I'm not a huge Led Zeppelin fan. They've got some amazing songs but overall I'm always left wanting something more from the majority of their songs. I don't know why. It's weird.
@sionweeks: And considering how much of a douche bag Robert Plant is I find in unacceptable that they they could do anything of the sort. They won't license their music out to shit and some of some of it is flat out stolen?! What the fuck!?
I've never liked Led Zeppelin. Classic rock just isn't my thing, and I got sick of hearing about them in middle school because every kid who wasn't into rap was one of those "YEAH LED ZEPPELIN BEATLES AC/DC" punks.
Yeah they're pretty good. I mean, I'm not the biggest Zeppelin guy (CCR is more up my alley), but I still think In My Time of Dying is one of the best songs ever recorded, despite being a cover of an old blues song.
And I don't know if you heard, but that Stairway to Heaven is pretty good too.
Perhaps the most overrated of the 'dad rock' bands.
This a million times over. I like Led Zeppelin, but jesus fucking christ people blow them up to be the greatest band to ever grace a stage. How the fuck can people say that when a band like Pink Floyd exists?
Log in to comment