[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The Who, Led Zep, VH, et. al.



>>>Besides, you left out some of the other artists who were influenced or
>>>inspired by Led Zeppelin, including Aerosmith, Rush, Van Halen, Neil Young,
>>>Tori Amos, Heart, Dream Theater, Phish, etc.
>>
>>Well, apart from Neil Young I'm not too impressed by any of these. 
>
>Gee that's too bad.  I'll take any one of them over Green Day.

Scott:

Not me. There's nothing too distinctive or original about any of those
bands. At LEAST Green Day is somewhat exciting. Of course, I'll take Punk
over `70s Formula Rock anytime. But the reason they were mentioned in the
first place is that I was talking about the influence of the bands currently
on the front line. And GD is definitely that.

>No, No, NO!  Van Halen were NEVER a Zep clone.  Give me ONE example of a 
>Van Halen song being a clone of Led Zep!  

His guitar style may be different, but the songs are structured just the same.
That same old weary high vocal, insert the lead here, and so on. How
freakin' many bands do we have to listen to like this?
An example for you: Running With the Devil as compared with, say, Whole
Lotta Love. I couldn't give you TOO many examples, because after VH's first
I passed them over after hearing their albums once. Too much of the same thing.

>>Of course, that is just my humble opinion...
>
>Same here, of course.  But I'll bet my savings account that more people 
>(and critics) agree with me than agree with you.

Perhaps, but after some 27 years of (at times) extremely deep involvement in
several facets of Rock music, I think I may have a bit more knowledge than
your average "Zeppelin Rules, man!" Rock fan. Or critics, although I must
confess to having done a stint of that myself (oh the shame! Actually, I
TRIED to stay away from the traps therein...so I should get points for that).
But having had something to do with musicians, as I have, counts the most.
THEY are the ones who were influenced, and they are the ones who
acknowledged Pete and The Who.
The majority may rule (that's also subject to question), but the majority is
certainly not always right.

>Actually, Led Zeppelin was formed with the intention of going against the 
>grain of "singles" bands like the Who.  Very, very few people will listen 
>to _Led Zeppelin I_ and say, "Oh yeah, definite Who influence here."

Now if you were reading my notes, you will have seen a few times that I
wrote "after the first album" or something of that nature. LZ I was a Blues
album, a natural extension of The Yardbirds. It is also very unlike most of
the other albums. I know of people listening to the second album (at the
time) and saying: "Wow, that sounds like The Who."
I would hardly call The Who a "singles" band, either. They released singles,
as bands did to survive back then, but their best work was on albums.

>> from the structure of the songs (excepting that Page
>>was a Blues style guitarist rather than a chord player) 
>
>Gee, that's only the most important part of it.

Gee, no it's not. The form and structure of a song are more important that
the guitar riffs, when we're talking influence. You can put Blues riffs on
practically any kind of music. I could make a case for lyrics, too.

>>Plant is a good (and sometimes great) songwriter. But, as the solo albums
>>clearly show, his contribution to Zeppelin was probably the single most
>>significant of all the members (after the first album). 
>
>No, No, NO!  Page was the member of Zep who did the most-- he produced 
>EVERY album and co-wrote 95% of the original songs.  A song didn't make 
>the record unless Page OK'd it.  And Plant was also involved from day 
>one-- the only reason he didn't receive co-writing credits on "Led 
>Zeppelin I" is because he still had a contract with CBS.

All I can say is this: If what you say is true, then why so suddenly (when
the band broke up) did his brilliant songwriting and production skills
disappear? As has said before: DEATHWISH II, The Firm, OUTRIDER. All the
while Plant's songwriting remained on the level of Zeppelin, too. I mean,
what a freakin' coincidence!
Let's face facts. Pagie was losing it after `71. Too little moderation with
too many drugs. His solos were weak compared to what he had done just a year
earlier. Onstage, he got even sloppier (and I like a certain amount of
sloppiness) and less focused. This progressed to the point where it became
painful to watch him play (Live Aid).

>Well, that's my rant for now.  Sorry if it doesn't have much to do with 
>The Who, but I saw 2 of my 4 favorite bands slandered so I had to respond.

Actually, I was merely defending The Who against the repeated notes about
"Zeppelin being better than..." I love Zeppelin and consider them a great
band (at least until `75). But when the cards are on the table, I call them
as I see them.

               Cheers                         ML