Re: Zep must be crazy

["Mark R. Leaman" <mleaman@sccoast.net>]

> Still a positive message despite the misinformation.  Wouldn't you agree
Mr.
> Leaman?  ;-)

Kevin:

No misinformation there that I see.

> Mark : I agree that Zep started off on a pretty high standard,but
> according to what you sayin summary they seem to have slid or got worse
> LIVE as the years went by ! Now that'snot exactly good for any band.

Derick:

Absolutely right. By the time they did the second disc of the BBC release,
they'd lost some ground (not a lot, but you can tell).

> Over a period of about 3-4 years. As much as I like their records,they
> were unable on both occasions to playthat music or present it LIVE in a

Yeah, that is one thing about Zep live. Apparently they did a lot of
overdubing, so when you hear them live there's always something missing. The
Who, on the other hand, would do a completely different version (like Magic
Bus). I heard LAL before I heard the original versions of MG and Substitute,
so when I got Meaty Beaty and heard the originals I had to wonder if it was
the same band!

> stoned to physically embrace Zep,I don't know!  Is it possible to er,
> pass on this LIVE Zep music of 1969 or so, so that I can hear for myself

Yes, obviously I need to make a copy for you and Kevin.

> still want to know why they dissed him.

Jon:

I haven't heard anything about that except that they didn't contact JPJ
(according to him) and it was a surprise to him.

> No, I think it's demi, meaning half.

Keets:

I'd still use "semi" as in not even half.

> Here's Mark with the definitions again.  Is Rock N Roll like roots rock?

Yes, but Rock as a genre came to include RnR as well as the other forms.

> I thought they were sort of contemporary, except you didn't hear much of
> either of them until they built up enough of a following to be featured on
> radio and TV.

In the US, The Who barely had any radio impact until 1967 (ICSFM), which
happens to be the same year The Doors made their first album, had their
first two hits (Light My Fire and Break On Through). BUT The Who first
recorded in late 1964, so...

> been IOW?  Did they ever play together before that?

I can't say. The first US Who tour was 1967, and it's unlikely The Doors hit
the UK until after they'd had a few major hits.

> with the seventies and eighties cock rock.  Could be Led Zeppelin and
Ozzie
> picked up some elements from Morrison--I'd be more likely to trace his

Ozzie, definitely, but I think Plant was a stone hippie (peace and love,
man...does anyone remember laughter?)...at least his stage banter indicates
this.

> Maybe he's like those folks that think The Who never produced anything
> worthwhile after MY GENERATION.  He went a few albums further, after all.

I'd say the type of fan who thinks they didn't do anything worthwhile after
MG is a different kind, an extremely judgmental and anal fan. The Who have
been known to evoke this sort of thing, you know. But most casual fans think
Tommy and WN were their best albums, with perhaps a nod to LAL. But nothing
before or after.

> Their theme song?  :)

*I* wouldn't know.

> Huh???  I am a who-head, too, but are you serious?

Kevin Mc:

You may be a Whohead but would you give Whohead.

> tour in 1994 without him. The exception to this would be the Who, I could
not
> fathom them without Entwhistle. A great singer, lead gitarist (in a band
with
> only one to begin with), and drummer are irreplaceable.

Jon:

I think the standard to set is: would it still sound like the band without
this or that member. The Who needed all four. None were replacable. Zak does
a great job, but he's still not even close to Moon.
With The Stones, the various replacements didn't change their sound
significantly.

> mystique. The Who on the other hand - blew it.

I don't think so. They felt Keith would have wanted them to continue. I'd
say the main problem was that Pete was tired of The Who and took the
opportunity to change them into something else. Sort of.

> packed full of killer punches they wish to indulge their "brilliance" so
we
> get No Quarter for fifteen minutes too many, Moby Dick is wheeled out and
I
> head to the bar and toilets for at least another twenty minutes!

Nigel:

I had to laugh when I read that...they did No Quarter for 20 minutes and
Dazed And Confused for 35 minutes on that tour. Yes, they gave indulgence a
new meaning.


"The threat of terrorism on US soil still exists."
               Otrying bin Tellinya