Cohesion Sound

Home of the Presence Production
It is currently Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:38 am

All times are UTC-04:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:12 am 
Genuinely novel thread themes from newbies are probably rare in R-O, since it’s a well-established forum with a critical mass of long-time, thoughtful and serious participants. I tried with the Plant Rant, but inexplicably that was not well received. :lol: So here goes with an idea that may or may not be original to this board (and, of course, may or may not be of any interest ... :( ).

As many of you have probably already said or thought, it’s hard to think of any band with comparable talent, longevity, success, etc., that has been as critically, consistently and viciously slagged as Zeppelin. Naturally, this has caused considerable resentment from the band members and its devotees. But there’s a bright side to this: all those negative reviews have produced a bunch of real corkers and howlers that can be sources of some serious amusement. You know, the kinds of reviews that are, for example, demonstrably misinformed, or over the top with negative hyperbole, or filled with really bad predictions.

Anybody up for amusing ourselves by generating a little informal “database” of reviews that are really stupid, funny, erroneous, etc? I don’t have much in the way of Zeppelin research material; really, just this forum, the internet in general, and the 1997 edition of Led Zeppelin: The Concert File. But I have no doubt that many of you know of some real “beauties” and maybe you might be willing to share one or two?

A modest contribution for starters:

1. Some predictions from Robert Hilburn’s June 2, 1973 review (kindly supplied by Professor Mikito here: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=30011&p=537648):

Quote:
[Zeppelin’s] popularity is perhaps the strongest testimony we have to the fact that this is a troubled time for rock. The music is in need of new direction and new vision. When it comes along (hopefully soon), Led Zeppelin will probably be forgotten. Don’t let the box office figures mislead you. Put the Stones – or the Who or even Jethro Tull, possibly – head to head against Zeppelin in Tampa, Los Angeles, or Kezar Stadium and watch who wins.

:x

:-k

:lol:

FAIL

2. From The Concert File, some hyperbole in a review published in The Montreal Star of the April 13, 1970 concert in Montreal:

Quote:
To say that Led Zeppelin is an awful group is merely an understatement.... The group is ridiculously monotonous. There is a patent lack of rhythm... Plant is without talent as a singer ... and cannot dance ... Guitar companies must be pleased with Jimmy Page’s work because all he is doing is demonstrating [the range of guitar sounds and gimmicks] with as much creativity as an encyclopedia salesman ... [which is] about as satisfying as watching a television picture signal.

3. From The Concert File, some gross ignorance and more hyperbole in a review published in Melody Maker of the March 10, 1971 concert at the University of Kent:

Quote:
... nothing beneath the glittering superficialities ... exposing a group of barely adequate musicians, lacking in enthusiasm for what they were doing ... in their self-indulgent, quasi-sophisticated key and tempo changes.

"self-indulgent, quasi-sophisticated key and tempo changes"? :-s


Last edited by chs on Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:27 am 
Years and years ago (late 70s), the Rolling Stone record guide that was in print at the time, referred to Zep's debut album as being the musical equivalent of a 300 pound Gorilla smashing through the jungle in an Opium induced rampage. :D


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:18 am 
Miss Pamela wrote:
Years and years ago (late 70s), the Rolling Stone record guide that was in print at the time, referred to Zep's debut album as being the musical equivalent of a 300 pound Gorilla smashing through the jungle in an Opium induced rampage. :D


Yeah, I remember picking up a really old version and being surprised at how low the albums were rated. The edition from the early 90s improved these somewhat, then the one from a few years ago more accurately reflects the Zep catalog's reputation nowadays.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:32 am 
That same review went on to say...(and I paraphrase):



"...with the release of Led Zeppelin, two things were made crystal clear-the sixties were over and spaced out heavy rock drove barely pubescent boys crazy." :lol:


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 12:07 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 10:14 pm
Posts: 3
Location: Toronto
This one doesn't exactly fall into the stupid, funny or erroneous categories. But I've always been amused by how much this guy hated Zeppelin. Why they would send him to review a Zeppelin concert is beyond me.

For comparison and contrast, I've also included another review of the same show (Vancouver 75).

Jeani Read wrote:
... playing ... to the hilt through a set that was brilliantly paced and structured with a view to the most effective control of contrast, dynamics and impact.

Don Stanley wrote:
The old songs were as ponderous as ever, and some of the listenable new tracks ... were hammered into the audience's brain like dull spikes.


:lol:

Image

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 12:27 pm 
MisterPitiful in part wrote:
This one doesn't exactly fall into the stupid, funny or erroneous categories. But I've always been amused by how much this guy hated Zeppelin. :lol:

Wow! =D> I think "extra vicious" qualifies as a sub-category under hyperbole. :wink:


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:50 pm 
he makes a few good points, but I would like to hear his band to compare :lol:


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:05 pm 
I guess it's pretty safe to say this review of the Pittsburgh 3/30/70 show will not be included in the "best of" reviews:

Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 10:32 am 
Miss Pamela wrote:
That same review went on to say...(and I paraphrase):"...with the release of Led Zeppelin, two things were made crystal clear-the sixties were over and spaced out heavy rock drove barely pubescent boys crazy." :lol:
I have the 1983 edition which, I guess, has a few changes. The review is by Billy Altman, quoted exactly:

"When Led Zeppelin's debut album appeared in 1969, the anticipation built up among knowledgeable music fans...was replaced by an equally king-sized disgust. Here was a band that, when not totally demolishing classic blues songs, was making a kind of music apparently designed to be enjoyed only when the listener was drugged to the point of senselessness. Page...had somehow made 2 very important discoveries: spaced-out heavy rock drove barely pubescent kids crazy; the Sixties were over. And so with virtually no critical support Led Zeppelin was soon the biggest new band on earth."


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 10:37 am 
chs wrote:
2. From The Concert File, some hyperbole in a review published in The Montreal Star of the April 13, 1970 concert in Montreal:

Quote:
To say that Led Zeppelin is an awful group is merely an understatement.... The group is ridiculously monotonous. There is a patent lack of rhythm... Plant is without talent as a singer ... and cannot dance ... Guitar companies must be pleased with Jimmy Page’s work because all he is doing is demonstrating [the range of guitar sounds and gimmicks] with as much creativity as an encyclopedia salesman ... [which is] about as satisfying as watching a television picture signal.

Well, he can't dance! Kudos on such an observation!

LOL @ This:
Tom Davis wrote:
It turned out that Jimmy Page can really play the guitar, when he stands still.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 3:59 pm 
And the total contradiction in the sixth paragraph, talking about "Moby Dick." :roll:


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 10:50 pm 
Sweet_Willy wrote:
Miss Pamela wrote:
That same review went on to say...(and I paraphrase):"...with the release of Led Zeppelin, two things were made crystal clear-the sixties were over and spaced out heavy rock drove barely pubescent boys crazy." :lol:
I have the 1983 edition which, I guess, has a few changes. The review is by Billy Altman, quoted exactly:

"When Led Zeppelin's debut album appeared in 1969, the anticipation built up among knowledgeable music fans...was replaced by an equally king-sized disgust. Here was a band that, when not totally demolishing classic blues songs, was making a kind of music apparently designed to be enjoyed only when the listener was drugged to the point of senselessness. Page...had somehow made 2 very important discoveries: spaced-out heavy rock drove barely pubescent kids crazy; the Sixties were over. And so with virtually no critical support Led Zeppelin was soon the biggest new band on earth."


I'd been wanting to start a thread on a similar, but not identical, topic ... namely, why is there such an impression of 'hatred' or knee-jerk rejection of Led Zeppelin's music by a certain community / camp of music listeners who were in their teens-thru-thirties-or-thereabouts when the band originally became widely popular (circa 1969-1975)?

Some of it, sure, is due to critical ink - like the boldfaced sentence in the ^^above-quoted paragraph (which to me sums up much of the general/initial response), or other 'unthinking' reviews noted on this thread.

But my main question is - :arrow: why did so many 1960s-era rock music, and music-in-general, listeners seemingly, and/or steadfastly turn against or reject Led Zeppelin as a musical or even creative entity from almost the beginning?

As in - why wasn't Zep received the same way, on a broad basis, as were The Beatles?

    Was the music too loud and/or obnoxious for them?

    Was it devoid of perceived 'refinement' or redeeming value?

    Some kind of 'hip' reference, relevance, or undertone was missing, for them?

Or maybe they just didn't like it. It wasn't to their taste. It rubbed them the wrong way.


Not only this - prominent rock musicians (in 'competing' :| bands of similar stature) also made public statements at the time of not being able to 'get' Led Zeppelin's music. Keith Richards, Pete Townshend and Eric Clapton are all quoted in early-'70s interviews with sidelong comments about how the band's music was "too loud", "simplistic" or otherwise, in their view, pointless. (On the other hand, prominent musicians from Ike Turner, to Elton John, to George Harrison himself acknowledged some appreciation of what Led Zep was doing at the time ...)

So why wasn't Led Zeppelin, the musical successor in popularity terms anyway to The Beatles, afforded similar 'acceptance'?

(then it diverted & degenerated into not just how Led Zep was "too loud" or "simplistic" but further into how they "ripped off every old bluesman", they "weren't original" or weren't "pure/real blues", the 'satanism' accusations, "a supergroup conspiracy concocted entirely by record company corporate interests" :roll: :wink:, on-tour/backstage antics, and all other forms of detractions and distractions ... a lot of this was to do with how the band, at the outset had to choose its own battle with certain elements of the press for positive portrayals; and on later tours would devote more effort just to PR.)


Now in a way I can understand how some of the music of Led Zeppelin doesn't get the kind of 'universal' appeal that a Beatles tune like "Hey Jude" or something like that might (although for a different generation of listeners, songs like "Stairway" have a similarly broad meaning or identification factor) .... or that as great as LZ's impact was, nothing in modern music can ever approach or reproduce the impact & moment in time that The Beatles had on the world of music in the years 1964-66.

Part of this is the songs themselves: one of the main reasons The Beatles and Dylan became so universally acknowledged, is that their compositions were adapted and performed by countless contemporary & popular music artists, at that time. Led Zep's music, being so much a product of the 4-piece ensemble itself, the unique way in which the LP albums were presented/recorded/arranged, and the band's own live performances, doesn't lend itself easily to wide re-interpretation in this manner. (So right there: you've alienated a big demographic of 'mainstream' 1960s-era critics and music listeners who could potentially "identify" with Zep in such a second-hand way.)

But still - there seem to be a core group of listeners and music fans who simply will never cross the Led Zeppelin line (primarily drawn by them). It's not music that they embrace, or consider 'worthy'.

Musicians are also included. So many musicians (not of the celebrity-popstar variety) still find one way or another to explain why Page can't play guitar, Bonham can't play drums compared to so-and-so or someone-or-other ... "that's not music."

and of course, there's no accounting for taste.

And then again, there's a whole lot of cognoscenti/classic-era rock & music fans (and musicians too) who do love Zep and always have from the very beginning in '68 (even if they hadn't been big Yardbirds fans at the time, or whatever). So it seems to be very polarized. :-k


Anyway, these kinds of comments by their contemporaries are important to look at from the pre-1975 era in particular (by what mainstream rock, or the music biz / music fans / musicians in general were 'saying about' Led Zep in the post-1975 era you'll get a variety of 'post-modern' interpretations & perspective to how their music inspired a punk backlash, and further from that to the post-punk era where actual inspiration is drawn, and openly acknowleged as such, from their music itself).

Although, in the very early 1970s - let's say from about 1970 to 1972-3ish - it seems as though English bands like Led Zep, Pink Floyd (and a few others) had such a strong, but underground, following that there was a whole new generation, and large number, of post-Beatles music fans who were not being fully 'accounted for' by the mainstream press. Also remember the Glam Rock wave of '72-'73 which swept the UK and then US; not to mention progressive rock ... all the things happening in funk/soul, reggae, and jazz. a time of upheaval for popular music.

There's a quote (which is reproduced in Paul Kendall's Led Zeppelin In Their Own Words) from Jimmy Page about this, from some mid-'70s UK music paper interview iirc, in which he says something to the effect of, he's just glad that due to relative lack of 'mainstream' commercial appeal, fans do connect with & appreciate the music:

    " ... bands like us and - I hate to say it but, The Floyd - we're off into our own little bits."

(iirc ^this quote may be from a 1976-or-later era interview in which Page is perhaps, in part, being asked about the impact of the punk wave on LZ ... don't have the In Their Own Words book handy.)


As I also made comment on a couple of the newspaper reviews (from California shows, researched by blackmikito) posted in What Place To Rest The Search forum: in the 1969-'71ish era especially, it seemed as though the typical local concert reviewer was not even equipped to hear what music the band was actually playing ... it's often just portrayed as an inaudible 'noise' or whatever; then, having failed to recognize or discern what's being done in a musical sense the reviewer will begin making comments/going into a dissertation on the concertgoers themselves, or even veering off topic into how 'depraved' or 'beneath' them today's pop/rock music is in general ... how inspiring these writers/pundits of the time found LZ's music, indeed.

and as we know, in the 1969-72 era (esp. in the US but also in Europe as well) there was 'unrest' among the 'youth' which the newspapers/media seemed generally obliged to report on in connection with 'rock concerts'; and were more than happy to associate such disturbances with the very nature of the music itself.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 5:28 am 
great post, july73. Very good, reflected thoughts :)


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 12:20 pm 
I think the press wrote scathing reviews of Zeppelin because they did not have their asses kissed by the band. The band did things their own way with virtually no help from the press. The press were deemed unnecessary because the fans decided what was good and what was not. As a result, the band was resented by the press who were eliminated of all their "power" to decide what was good and what was bad. Their only way to get back at the band was to write bad reviews, especially since the band wouldn't give the press the time of day and carried on as if they didn't exist.

The band realized early on that the success of the group had to do with the music they produced and acceptance by the FANS, not music critics.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 12:56 pm 
july73 wrote:
As I also made comment on a couple of the newspaper reviews (from California shows, researched by blackmikito) posted in What Place To Rest The Search forum: in the 1969-'71ish era especially, it seemed as though the typical local concert reviewer was not even equipped to hear what music the band was actually playing ... it's often just portrayed as an inaudible 'noise' or whatever; then, having failed to recognize or discern what's being done in a musical sense the reviewer will begin making comments/going into a dissertation on the concertgoers themselves, or even veering off topic into how 'depraved' or 'beneath' them today's pop/rock music is in general ... how inspiring these writers/pundits of the time found LZ's music, indeed.

well I met two guys who saw zep in '69 and all I ever got out of them was 'it was LOUD!' and descriptions of the crowd happenings. I think the 'heavy music' sound sorta overloaded everybody's brains, esp in those days. Opening with Train Kept A Rollin it sounds like a frenzy, not very musical even but sets the atmosphere of the show. They were freaking out on stage with a hell of a noise to attract attention (and fans).


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 9:31 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 12:40 pm
Posts: 4
Location: Serbia
All of the negative critic are probably merited and true.

But who cares? Love is blind.

Zep_sr

_________________
Led Zeppelin Fan Club Serbia


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:47 am 
Five wrote:
july73 wrote:
As I also made comment on a couple of the newspaper reviews (from California shows, researched by blackmikito) posted in What Place To Rest The Search forum: in the 1969-'71ish era especially, it seemed as though the typical local concert reviewer was not even equipped to hear what music the band was actually playing ... it's often just portrayed as an inaudible 'noise' or whatever; then, having failed to recognize or discern what's being done in a musical sense the reviewer will begin making comments/going into a dissertation on the concertgoers themselves, or even veering off topic into how 'depraved' or 'beneath' them today's pop/rock music is in general ... how inspiring these writers/pundits of the time found LZ's music, indeed.

well I met two guys who saw zep in '69 and all I ever got out of them was 'it was LOUD!' and descriptions of the crowd happenings. I think the 'heavy music' sound sorta overloaded everybody's brains, esp in those days. Opening with Train Kept A Rollin it sounds like a frenzy, not very musical even but sets the atmosphere of the show. They were freaking out on stage with a hell of a noise to attract attention (and fans).

Right, exactly - I know people who saw/heard & say the same! :wink: 8) And I also agree that in the period, let's say, 1967-70 in Western popular music, there were so many radical advances and 'new sounds' around, from all comers that it truly was a form of 'information overload'. We're still going back, ourselves trying to figure out and digest a lot of this stuff; :wink: or just appreciate it as an irreproducible moment of genius / creative outpouring in popular culture. (e.g. the London scene of '66-'67 ... The Pink Floyd ... The Move ... The Soft Machine ... The Jimi Hendrix Experience ... how amazing was that?)

but the point here is: these people who wrote the reviews which were published in major newspapers, should have had a bit more to say/offer and provide, than just what a typical concertgoer would.

plus RE: 'heavy music' - by 1968 or so, perceptive critics, musicians, and observers of the rock scene were giving clear-eared :wink: listens to what groups such as the Jimi Hendrix Experience and Cream were doing. So why were Zep - by many of those same cognoscenti - seen/heard as the 'party crashers'?


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:59 pm 
Well, although I wish more reviews were posted, july73’s post is most welcomed and seems quite pertinent. Much to think about! I’m not a Zep or rock historian, so I don’t have any answers, just some questions and comments.

When Zep I came out, was their primary audience really “barely pubescent” boys? I’ve never thought of Zep’s music as “thinking man’s rock,” but also never thought that their appeal was mostly to early teens. So were such early press characterizations accurate? As the point of my initial post suggests, we have good reason to believe that not all press reports about Zeppelin were accurate.

In comparing the popularity of Beatles’ music to Zeppelin’s, july73 discusses the idea that the Beatles’ music was more readily adaptable as cover songs. I agree with that, but I wonder if we can’t take one further step back and say this: the Beatles’ music was more popular because it had broader appeal. Whatever they ended up being, when they started out the Beatles made wonderful pop music, catchy light tunes, etc., like “I Wanna Hold Your Hand.” Even my old fogey mother liked early Beatles.

july73 in part wrote:
But my main question is - why did so many 1960s-era rock music, and music-in-general, listeners seemingly, and/or steadfastly turn against or reject Led Zeppelin as a musical or even creative entity from almost the beginning?

A great question, and one worthy of research and further discussion. It would be a good question to pose to the members of Zeppelin.

As one who has done some historical research and writing in other areas, one thing I’ve learned is never to accept at face value the conclusions of other historians if such conclusions are not supported by verifiable source material. All too often, I’ve begun my research with a particular question or assumption in mind, only to find that I’m not asking the “right” question or that my assumptions are not entirely correct. If someone were to seriously research july73’s question, I suspect some very interesting and surprising things would come to light.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:31 pm 
they hated the way they were portrayed in the press (not all, but most of it) so they stopped dealing with them. post-1970 there was hardly any contact, correct me if I'm wrong but I could count the interviews on my fingers! also no television (except a couple little things & those two knebworth clips). Creem magazine would do cover stories with nothing but some pics and an article with no interview whatsoever, just speculation. They stopped putting their pics on their record sleeves (except PG... sorta) and became whatever you wanted them to be. Not really possible to do that in this day and age.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:42 pm 
july73 wrote:
but the point here is: these people who wrote the reviews which were published in major newspapers, should have had a bit more to say/offer and provide, than just what a typical concertgoer would.

you would think... in the beginning zep seemed less sophisticated. some shirtless guy screaming over fast loud noise (as they heard it!). okay there was white summer but that was just a short break for your ears before the noise started again :lol:

july73 wrote:
plus RE: 'heavy music' - by 1968 or so, perceptive critics, musicians, and observers of the rock scene were giving clear-eared :wink: listens to what groups such as the Jimi Hendrix Experience and Cream were doing. So why were Zep - by many of those same cognoscenti - seen/heard as the 'party'?

well Jim said himself that zep was meant to be a band in the vein of JHE or Cream. but they weren't covering all aspects of those bands imo, at least not until later when they did lz3 and onwards. in the beginning they were (almost deservedly) lumped in with Black Sabbath, but they turned out to be much more than that.

^^all imo, as I see it etc etc. let's discuss...


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 5:48 am 
I scanned a page from an old Creem special edition that I've had for years - too much for me to type. The "interesting" review is the one for III. I simply scanned and saved as a jpeg - I know others load large pictures here shrunk down to save bandwidth, but I don't know how to do that, so if anyone wants to, feel free.

http://s210.photobucket.com/albums/bb25 ... eviews.jpg


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:09 am 
relayer wrote:
I scanned a page from an old Creem special edition that I've had for years - too much for me to type. The "interesting" review is the one for III. I simply scanned and saved as a jpeg - I know others load large pictures here shrunk down to save bandwidth, but I don't know how to do that, so if anyone wants to, feel free.

http://s210.photobucket.com/albums/bb25 ... eviews.jpg


I have no idea what that guy is trying to say at all :lol:


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:57 am 
Five wrote:
july73 wrote:
but the point here is: these people who wrote the reviews which were published in major newspapers, should have had a bit more to say/offer and provide, than just what a typical concertgoer would.

you would think... in the beginning zep seemed less sophisticated. some shirtless guy screaming over fast loud noise (as they heard it!). okay there was white summer but that was just a short break for your ears before the noise started again :lol:

Yeah, I realize that early LZ live may have been a bit over-the-top and hard to take for the average critic; but if you check The Rover there are still a few decent reviews of the (let's say) '68-'70 era to be found ... so it's not like it wasn't possible.



Five wrote:
july73 wrote:
plus RE: 'heavy music' - by 1968 or so, perceptive critics, musicians, and observers of the rock scene were giving clear-eared :wink: listens to what groups such as the Jimi Hendrix Experience and Cream were doing. So why were Zep - by many of those same cognoscenti - seen/heard as the 'party crashers'?

well Jim said himself that zep was meant to be a band in the vein of JHE or Cream. but they weren't covering all aspects of those bands imo, at least not until later when they did lz3 and onwards. in the beginning they were (almost deservedly) lumped in with Black Sabbath, but they turned out to be much more than that.

^^all imo, as I see it etc etc. let's discuss...

Right, they 'expanded' (LOL) their repertoire on later releases ... I don't know if they were "almost deservedly" :P :wink: lumped in with Sabbath but - still, it seems to me that a bunch of the trend-setting critics missed the boat, early on. Many early reviews simply or repetitively mention The Yardbirds (Page's old band) as a point of comparison, when in reality as we all know, LZ was a quantum leap from what The Yardbirds' musical concept was, even if transferred-from-there showpieces like "Dazed and Confused" remained similar (at that earlier point in time, '68-'69ish). Anyway there just seemed to be a surfeit of "WTF" and non-comprehension, among the typical critic or reviewer of the day; when LZ was a completely new entity in rock music and had to be approached & appreciated as such.

These are great discussion points Five :thumbsup:, thanks for bringing them up.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 12:42 pm 
thanks for the scan, relayer, great stuff!

javit, I think the review of lz3 means to say they're less than cavemen, they're chimps like you see at the zoo :lol:

the lz2 review on that page is very good, tho :mrgreen:

would love to see some more of that if at all possible... you can copy the 'IMG' code from the right and paste it in here to get them to show up in the thread. or links is fine with me as well if you'd be so kind.


july73: I think the yardbirds were headed in a zeppelin direction, Jimmy was really taking the helm there. you can really see it in the french tv clip when they do 'I'm confused' and Keith is doing the moans during the bow part. Jimmy didn't want the yardbirds to break up, they were pretty good players with some fame, but he did very well upgrading the members when he put together lz. songs like 'psycho dasies' and 'think about it' are really worthy imo.

ps I love talking about this stuff, too! bores my gf to death :lol:


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:52 pm 
Five wrote:
july73: I think the yardbirds were headed in a zeppelin direction, Jimmy was really taking the helm there. you can really see it in the french tv clip when they do 'I'm confused' and Keith is doing the moans during the bow part. Jimmy didn't want the yardbirds to break up, they were pretty good players with some fame, but he did very well upgrading the members when he put together lz. songs like 'psycho dasies' and 'think about it' are really worthy imo.


Yes, and Jimmy was also proud of them and their live work and was disappointed because they could not capture on tape what they were doing live. He said, they were live much more heavy, experimental and edgier than on record.

Five wrote:
ps I love talking about this stuff, too! bores my gf to death :lol:

Talking about stuff like this is what I'm living for :)


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 Next

All times are UTC-04:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited