Tell Me :
Talk
plant thought has actually said they nicked lyrics as little tributes to guys that influenced them so yes they knew what they were doing
I disagree, the covers of the "old blues guys" are always better.
That's YOUR opinion.....
....please don't state opinion like it's fact
Oh thank you for the reminder! Yes, I was there - Jonesy-side, nosebleed seats. Very happy and privileged to finally see and hear Lord Page in the flesh, he was brilliant. They were all outstanding.
So true, I was blown away by how good they were (given that it COULD have been a disaster). I was about 20-25 people back in the mob on the floor, couldn't see that much, but just happy to be a part of it all!
Well, some of us love both. And I wouldn't wish the present LZ site on my worst enemy.
likecats--the waiting in line for the ticket and wristband was one of the best parts!
Then we turned right around and got in another line for an hour+ for merch. Then came back the next day and got in line for the actual show.
Exactly how I feel. The Stones have always been my favorite band, but there's nothing to say I can't adore another band too, and that night was really something very special.
It's Beatles vs. Stones. The rest of them are in the second and lower leagues. So it's nonsense to have a thread Stones vs. Led Z. It's like FC Barcelona vs. some unkwown football club from a little provincial town. That's not fair.
Don't be silly, in the 70's LedZepplin were outselling everyone.
So what? No one knows them today, except some bearded hag here and there.
Nonsense.
Because? If I would ask my daughter I'm 100% sure she doesn't know Led Z. "Some kind of Zeppelin?" she would ask. And she's very smart and very well educated indeed.
Because there are many young people who like Led Zeppelin.
She must be pretty secluded from the world of music if she does't know who Led Zeppelin are.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-12 18:46 by His Majesty.
I concur. I have five nieces and a nephew (age 18-30) and all of them discovered Zeppelin eventually...typically in their late teens. Even the youngest, who just started college, cranks 'em up occasionally.
Wrong conclusion. The same goes for her friends and many other young people here. Ah, all secluded from the world of music, duh.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
keefriffhard4life
()
Date: December 8, 2013 21:26
Quote
crumbling_mice
What's laughable about this whole premise is the unmentioned notion that all of these old blues guys also'stole' their material...it's how the music business works. Sometimes it's concious as in, 'oh let's do a cover of a Willie Dixon classic' other times it's more subliminal where a musician is writing a new song and without being aware he incorporates something he has previously heard. Nothing comes from nothing. Everything is deriviative - especially in music.
Some bands chose to pay their dues and give money, or writing credits, others chose not to...lawyers as usual made shit loads out of it and journalists will continue to churn out poorly researched nonsense in the hope that some mugs will keep them in work.
Let's not get too upset for the poor old blues guys, yes many rock bands stole their riffs, but I can assure you they stole their riffs from the other places be that the slave plantations or other guitarists...it's how it is.
plant thought has actually said they nicked lyrics as little tributes to guys that influenced them so yes they knew what they were doing
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
Aquamarine
()
Date: December 9, 2013 01:24
What you're describing him as doing, and knowing he was doing, is very different to what others are accusing them of, however.
One thing that really gets under my skin is how little those who gripe about LZ (not you, keefriffhard4life) actually seem to know about the musical context in general (or about Zep themselves, to be honest). Then there are those who say "Don't get me wrong, I'm a Zeppelin fan, but they're conniving thieving bastards"--I mean, WTF?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-09 02:23 by Aquamarine.
One thing that really gets under my skin is how little those who gripe about LZ (not you, keefriffhard4life) actually seem to know about the musical context in general (or about Zep themselves, to be honest). Then there are those who say "Don't get me wrong, I'm a Zeppelin fan, but they're conniving thieving bastards"--I mean, WTF?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-09 02:23 by Aquamarine.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
pcerio
()
Date: December 9, 2013 18:03
Quote
PhillyFAN
Often the original music is superior to the remakes or rip offs
I disagree, the covers of the "old blues guys" are always better.
Re: OT - Zeppelin Plagairism
Posted by:
BluzDude
()
Date: December 9, 2013 18:13
Quote
FrankM
Yeah but like Hamburger Helper you can only take so much of it. Led Zeppelin's music is good in small doses, not seven days a week.
That's YOUR opinion.....
....please don't state opinion like it's fact
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
crumbling_mice
()
Date: December 9, 2013 20:36
I grew up on a very healthy diet of The Stones and Led Zep, love every thing Zep did and was lucky enough to catch them at Knebworth. Both bands owe a great deal to their blues heroes, how they choose to honour that debt is their business...I just enjoy their music, I am not here to make a moral judgement on either case. As I stated before all music comes from a previous inspiration and this is the beauty of music.
Let's forget about the who is best as it's a pointless discussion as Aquamarine has pointed out and whether they 'stole' someones songs, riffs, melodies and lyrics for me is irrelevant. I like it or I don't.
Let's forget about the who is best as it's a pointless discussion as Aquamarine has pointed out and whether they 'stole' someones songs, riffs, melodies and lyrics for me is irrelevant. I like it or I don't.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
BluzDude
()
Date: December 9, 2013 21:50
Quote
crumbling_mice
I grew up on a very healthy diet of The Stones and Led Zep, love every thing Zep did and was lucky enough to catch them at Knebworth. Both bands owe a great deal to their blues heroes, how they choose to honour that debt is their business...I just enjoy their music, I am not here to make a moral judgement on either case. As I stated before all music comes from a previous inspiration and this is the beauty of music.
Let's forget about the who is best as it's a pointless discussion as Aquamarine has pointed out and whether they 'stole' someones songs, riffs, melodies and lyrics for me is irrelevant. I like it or I don't.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
seitan
()
Date: December 9, 2013 22:55
Led Zeppelin is great but really overrated myth at the same time.
I love them..but no, they are not one of the greatest rock bands in history, cause they did steal most of their ideas from old blues guys and they gave no credit.. Maybe we should call them the greatest cover band in history of rock music or the greatest rock n roll swindle.
I love them..but no, they are not one of the greatest rock bands in history, cause they did steal most of their ideas from old blues guys and they gave no credit.. Maybe we should call them the greatest cover band in history of rock music or the greatest rock n roll swindle.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
Aquamarine
()
Date: December 10, 2013 03:46
See, that's the kind of post that baffles me. "They're great, but they're lying cheating bastards."
Incidentally, if you look at covers by blues bands of the same era who did credit people other than themselves for their songs, half the time they get the writer(s) wrong. So the original writer still wasn't getting credit. However, thanks to the likes of the Stones, the Pretty Things, the Animals, and Zep, many blues artists made lucrative tours of England thanks to the new attention brought to their brand of music. (John Lee Hooker, Bukka White, Bo Diddley, etc.) In the US, too--ask Buddy Guy. In fact, he'll tell you without being asked.
Incidentally, if you look at covers by blues bands of the same era who did credit people other than themselves for their songs, half the time they get the writer(s) wrong. So the original writer still wasn't getting credit. However, thanks to the likes of the Stones, the Pretty Things, the Animals, and Zep, many blues artists made lucrative tours of England thanks to the new attention brought to their brand of music. (John Lee Hooker, Bukka White, Bo Diddley, etc.) In the US, too--ask Buddy Guy. In fact, he'll tell you without being asked.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
Aquamarine
()
Date: December 10, 2013 09:27
And speaking of Zep--six years today since this gloriosity!
(Anybody else there? What a night!!)
(Anybody else there? What a night!!)
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
Big Al
()
Date: December 10, 2013 18:05
I just wish people would close their minds, open their ears and enjoy the music. I don't particularly care if Jimmy Page borrowed some ancient blues chord-progression or the odd riff: his music makes me tap my feet, smile and rejoice. That, is what matters.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
Claire_M
()
Date: December 10, 2013 20:21
Quote
Aquamarine
And speaking of Zep--six years today since this gloriosity!
(Anybody else there? What a night!!)
Oh thank you for the reminder! Yes, I was there - Jonesy-side, nosebleed seats. Very happy and privileged to finally see and hear Lord Page in the flesh, he was brilliant. They were all outstanding.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
Aquamarine
()
Date: December 10, 2013 21:52
Quote
Claire_MQuote
Aquamarine
And speaking of Zep--six years today since this gloriosity!
(Anybody else there? What a night!!)
Oh thank you for the reminder! Yes, I was there - Jonesy-side, nosebleed seats. Very happy and privileged to finally see and hear Lord Page in the flesh, he was brilliant. They were all outstanding.
So true, I was blown away by how good they were (given that it COULD have been a disaster). I was about 20-25 people back in the mob on the floor, couldn't see that much, but just happy to be a part of it all!
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
likecats
()
Date: December 10, 2013 22:00
I was there, GA arena floor. Amazing night, and the whole weekend leading up to it was a blast, even waiting in line to get the ticket and wristband.Quote
Aquamarine
And speaking of Zep--six years today since this gloriosity!
(Anybody else there? What a night!!)
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
belld
()
Date: December 10, 2013 22:39
This thread goes round and round in circles, `Oh yes they are, Oh no they are not`` Lets split camp - LZ plaudits to LZ fan website. Likewise RS plaudits here.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
Aquamarine
()
Date: December 10, 2013 22:59
Quote
belld
LZ plaudits to LZ fan website. Likewise RS plaudits here.
Well, some of us love both. And I wouldn't wish the present LZ site on my worst enemy.
likecats--the waiting in line for the ticket and wristband was one of the best parts!
Then we turned right around and got in another line for an hour+ for merch. Then came back the next day and got in line for the actual show.Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
likecats
()
Date: December 11, 2013 05:08
I did the same. I figured I might as well get in the merchandise line too and get everyone's Xmas presents, and not have to haul a bag of stuff around on the night of the show. Still had plenty of time to go out to the pre-concert parties that night. I love the RS and I've enjoyed every concert I've attended but I wouldn't trade that LZ experience for anything.Quote
AquamarineQuote
belld
LZ plaudits to LZ fan website. Likewise RS plaudits here.
Well, some of us love both. And I wouldn't wish the present LZ site on my worst enemy.
likecats--the waiting in line for the ticket and wristband was one of the best parts!
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
Aquamarine
()
Date: December 11, 2013 05:17
Quote
likecats
I did the same. I figured I might as well get in the merchandise line too and get everyone's Xmas presents, and not have to haul a bag of stuff around on the night of the show. Still had plenty of time to go out to the pre-concert parties that night. I love the RS and I've enjoyed every concert I've attended but I wouldn't trade that LZ experience for anything.
Exactly how I feel. The Stones have always been my favorite band, but there's nothing to say I can't adore another band too, and that night was really something very special.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: December 11, 2013 06:51
These threads are kind of Tiger beaty...
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
marko
()
Date: December 11, 2013 18:35
to me,..they´re best band ever with Stones,Pink Floyd, black sababth,the who..but even i collect bootlegs every of those bands,it goes on perioids for me,there are times that i don´t touch any of them,at all.
But i have wondered for a long time how the so much great rock music came from Britain 1962-1979 and even in 1908ies(duran duran)...i mean the variety is endless,and yet they all listened to the blues,we all know Beatles and Stones sort of started this and "everything" came after(and so it is),,but my point is Britain gave best rock music ever and best rock bands also.US never had or never will that kind of quality,theres been more individuals,not bands per-se,i dunno why,maybe American could explain this,,knowning american roots better than me.
Then after 1992,Nirvana and Metallica break thru,,,really nothing interesting has not happened is rock music general,,,some good songs yes,but mostly utter useless bullshit,just big egoes and all that crap
But i have wondered for a long time how the so much great rock music came from Britain 1962-1979 and even in 1908ies(duran duran)...i mean the variety is endless,and yet they all listened to the blues,we all know Beatles and Stones sort of started this and "everything" came after(and so it is),,but my point is Britain gave best rock music ever and best rock bands also.US never had or never will that kind of quality,theres been more individuals,not bands per-se,i dunno why,maybe American could explain this,,knowning american roots better than me.
Then after 1992,Nirvana and Metallica break thru,,,really nothing interesting has not happened is rock music general,,,some good songs yes,but mostly utter useless bullshit,just big egoes and all that crap
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: December 11, 2013 20:17
Quote
Max'sKansasCity
These threads are kind of Tiger beaty...
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: December 11, 2013 21:59
Quote
His MajestyQuote
Max'sKansasCity
These threads are kind of Tiger beaty...
It's Beatles vs. Stones. The rest of them are in the second and lower leagues. So it's nonsense to have a thread Stones vs. Led Z. It's like FC Barcelona vs. some unkwown football club from a little provincial town. That's not fair.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
pgarof
()
Date: December 12, 2013 12:10
Quote
kleermakerQuote
His MajestyQuote
Max'sKansasCity
These threads are kind of Tiger beaty...
It's Beatles vs. Stones. The rest of them are in the second and lower leagues. So it's nonsense to have a thread Stones vs. Led Z. It's like FC Barcelona vs. some unkwown football club from a little provincial town. That's not fair.
Don't be silly, in the 70's LedZepplin were outselling everyone.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: December 12, 2013 16:42
Quote
pgarofQuote
kleermakerQuote
His MajestyQuote
Max'sKansasCity
These threads are kind of Tiger beaty...
It's Beatles vs. Stones. The rest of them are in the second and lower leagues. So it's nonsense to have a thread Stones vs. Led Z. It's like FC Barcelona vs. some unkwown football club from a little provincial town. That's not fair.
Don't be silly, in the 70's LedZepplin were outselling everyone.
So what? No one knows them today, except some bearded hag here and there.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: December 12, 2013 17:10
Quote
kleermaker
So what? No one knows them today, except some bearded hag here and there.
Nonsense.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: December 12, 2013 18:37
Quote
His MajestyQuote
kleermaker
So what? No one knows them today, except some bearded hag here and there.
Nonsense.
Because? If I would ask my daughter I'm 100% sure she doesn't know Led Z. "Some kind of Zeppelin?" she would ask. And she's very smart and very well educated indeed.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: December 12, 2013 18:43
Quote
kleermakerQuote
His MajestyQuote
kleermaker
So what? No one knows them today, except some bearded hag here and there.
Nonsense.
Because? If I would ask my daughter I'm 100% sure she doesn't know Led Z. "Some kind of Zeppelin?" she would ask. And she's very smart and very well educated indeed.
Because there are many young people who like Led Zeppelin.
She must be pretty secluded from the world of music if she does't know who Led Zeppelin are.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-12 18:46 by His Majesty.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
Aquamarine
()
Date: December 12, 2013 18:56
Millions and millions of people entered the lottery draw for the 2007 show and, just based on glancing around the crowd, most of the winners were 40s or younger.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
Jah Paul
()
Date: December 12, 2013 20:23
Quote
His MajestyQuote
kleermakerQuote
His MajestyQuote
kleermaker
So what? No one knows them today, except some bearded hag here and there.
Nonsense.
Because? If I would ask my daughter I'm 100% sure she doesn't know Led Z. "Some kind of Zeppelin?" she would ask. And she's very smart and very well educated indeed.
Because there are many young people who like Led Zeppelin.
She must be pretty secluded from the world of music if she does't know who Led Zeppelin are.
I concur. I have five nieces and a nephew (age 18-30) and all of them discovered Zeppelin eventually...typically in their late teens. Even the youngest, who just started college, cranks 'em up occasionally.
Re: Rolling Stones vs. Led Zeppelin
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: December 12, 2013 22:38
Quote
His MajestyQuote
kleermakerQuote
His MajestyQuote
kleermaker
So what? No one knows them today, except some bearded hag here and there.
Nonsense.
Because? If I would ask my daughter I'm 100% sure she doesn't know Led Z. "Some kind of Zeppelin?" she would ask. And she's very smart and very well educated indeed.
Because there are many young people who like Led Zeppelin.
She must be pretty secluded from the world of music if she does't know who Led Zeppelin are.
Wrong conclusion. The same goes for her friends and many other young people here. Ah, all secluded from the world of music, duh.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
austrianstones , Broesel2404 , Doxa , hj3009 , hockenheim95 , IGTBA , joguema , MadMetaphoricalMax , midimannz , Muddyw , pjb , StonyRoad , walkingthedog , woodyrichards
Guests:
2071
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10