Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Robert Plants comment about sabbath.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • RLP4ever
    replied
    Originally posted by Mercury87 View Post
    Imo, you downplay Deep Purple/Rainbow too much. Ok, because of the regular member shifts and the tensions not all of their albums were consistent, but they still had many albums during that period that were as good and dare I say as influencial as the ones of Led Zeppelin. Also the first three albums of Rainbow were also very influencial on many HM/HR acts that followed.
    Same can be said for Queen: they also had very consistent and great albums during the '70s and were also very influencial on many acts that came after them.
    You might be right about the other acts that they didn't the acclaim of Led Zeppelin in the '70s, but imo they were all very good bands with a memorable back catalogue.
    You're right that I apparently did sort of 'downplay' the importance, and the impressive qualities of Deep Purple and Rainbow. That was weird because I actually rate '70s Deep Purple with an Ian Gillan in his vocal prime, pretty highly---indeed, it's the only DP that I ever really cared about, and 1-2 records of the '80s as well). Ditto with Rainbow; I have often praised the coolness of those first three Rainbow records with Dio, in these forums. Yes, both DP and Rainbow were strong performers in the '70s and had considerable impact on latter-day rock-metallers. I recognise Queen's fan following and impact, too, though because I honestly couldn't stand them at all, they wouldn't figure in any list of mine regarding icons of rock. As for the other bands of that era, my opinion is that a lot of them were actually patently second-rate, some were undoubtedly (unevenly) very good, but none ever threatened to match the greatness of a Led Zeppelin or Black Sabbath, through the '70s. So, I stand by my belief that Zeppelin were almost indisputably atop the pantheon of rock gods of that decade.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mercury87
    replied
    Originally posted by RLP4ever View Post
    Ashley and I have always been total poles apart on the issue of Led Zeppelin's greatness, and whether it's been wholly deserved or not----indeed she reiterates here, her estimation of the band's colossal reputation and fan-worship as "unwarranted and undeserving". Of course, I vehemently and completely disagree. But then, Ashley and I know that only too well.



    And so you would, fair enough! Maybe, I'm being more arrogant about Led Zeppelin than those fabulous foursome ever were about their band, themselves.

    Seriously, though, Mercury, I realise how 'peerless' might appear too strong, and perhaps misleading a word, to many people like yourself, in describing Zeppelin's stature in the rock scene, at the time. But I just think only Black Sabbath of the concurrent era in the '70s was Zeppelin's 'near-equal' in terms of musical chops and the massive impact they undoubtedly had on countless other acts. Sabbath never quite achieved the near-ubiquitous and phenomenal popularity and success of Zeppelin. But to me, they were the only 'peer' band comparable to Zeppelin, in class and the quality of actual studio output. Deep Purple remains, for me, a distant third in the supposed Unholy Trio of Sabbath-Zeppelin-Purple. Of the rest you mentioned (and those that you didn't) only The Who was an under-rated classy band and I'd not-so-humbly argue that the likes of Genesis, Rainbow, ELP, 10cc, Queen were in the B-leagues compared to Zeppelin's pedigree, in the '70s. So yea, Zeppelin had 'peers' alright, but none (bar Sabbath) even nearly equal, ever....so that makes them 'peerless', in that sense, in my book.
    Imo, you downplay Deep Purple/Rainbow too much. Ok, because of the regular member shifts and the tensions not all of their albums were consistent, but they still had many albums during that period that were as good and dare I say as influencial as the ones of Led Zeppelin. Also the first three albums of Rainbow were also very influencial on many HM/HR acts that followed.
    Same can be said for Queen: they also had very consistent and great albums during the '70s and were also very influencial on many acts that came after them.
    You might be right about the other acts that they didn't the acclaim of Led Zeppelin in the '70s, but imo they were all very good bands with a memorable back catalogue.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fozzy
    replied
    Originally posted by Franklin View Post
    It's also possible the comment referred to that show being crap, not Black Sabbath in general. Ozzy was using a lot of drugs back in the 70's and did more than his fair share of crap shows.
    Maybe he just thought it was crap, simple as that. Doesn't mean it was crap just that he thought it was.
    I've heard several boots from this era and I think their great, but a friend of mine who likes most rock music doesn't think much of them, boring he called 'em, but I still think their ace.
    Its all just a matter of opinion.
    If it was at Henry's Blues House it would've probably been circa '69 or '70, Sabbath were rough 'n ready back then and still finding their style, and obviously not to everyones taste.
    I could imagine Plant would appreciate the Sabbath of say, 1973, more than the one of 1969.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wicked Cricket
    replied
    Originally posted by RLP4ever View Post
    Ashley and I have always been total poles apart on the issue of Led Zeppelin's greatness, and whether it's been wholly deserved or not----indeed she reiterates here, her estimation of the band's colossal reputation and fan-worship as "unwarranted and undeserving". Of course, I vehemently and completely disagree. But then, Ashley and I know that only too well.



    And so you would, fair enough! Maybe, I'm being more arrogant about Led Zeppelin than those fabulous foursome ever were about their band, themselves.

    Seriously, though, Mercury, I realise how 'peerless' might appear too strong, and perhaps misleading a word, to many people like yourself, in describing Zeppelin's stature in the rock scene, at the time. But I just think only Black Sabbath of the concurrent era in the '70s was Zeppelin's 'near-equal' in terms of musical chops and the massive impact they undoubtedly had on countless other acts. Sabbath never quite achieved the near-ubiquitous and phenomenal popularity and success of Zeppelin. But to me, they were the only 'peer' band comparable to Zeppelin, in class and the quality of actual studio output. Deep Purple remains, for me, a distant third in the supposed Unholy Trio of Sabbath-Zeppelin-Purple. Of the rest you mentioned (and those that you didn't) only The Who was an under-rated classy band and I'd not-so-humbly argue that the likes of Genesis, Rainbow, ELP, 10cc, Queen were in the B-leagues compared to Zeppelin's pedigree, in the '70s. So yea, Zeppelin had 'peers' alright, but none (bar Sabbath) even nearly equal, ever....so that makes them 'peerless', in that sense, in my book.
    Couldn't agree more with your statement RLP4, I've always had BS, ZEP and Purple as my "Holy Trinity" (or un-Holy) of rock. Those 3 bands and particularly ZEP & SAB were the foundation of all that would be and has followed in hard/heavy rock. Zep more popular because of the sex appeal to women with rock "god" Plant out front. Sabbath was mainly a teen boy/male band with their female appeal coming from women who wanted to "mother" or "nuture" lil' Ozzy, the lost little boy who looked like he needed that. Zep was far more commercially succesful and acceptable to the mainstream public and radio than Sabbath. But staure wise, these 2 bands Zep and Sab were equals in the eyes of the die hard fans who worshipped them.

    Leave a comment:


  • RLP4ever
    replied
    Ashley and I have always been total poles apart on the issue of Led Zeppelin's greatness, and whether it's been wholly deserved or not----indeed she reiterates here, her estimation of the band's colossal reputation and fan-worship as "unwarranted and undeserving". Of course, I vehemently and completely disagree. But then, Ashley and I know that only too well.

    Originally posted by Mercury87
    I strongly disagree with some of your points: in what way were they better than every rock band of their generation? Bands like Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, ELP, Genesis, Rainbow, The Who, 10cc and Queen to name a few were as good or sometimes even better than Led Zeppelin imo so I think it's rather arrogant to state they were peerless. A great band: yes, peerless: no.
    And so you would, fair enough! Maybe, I'm being more arrogant about Led Zeppelin than those fabulous foursome ever were about their band, themselves.

    Seriously, though, Mercury, I realise how 'peerless' might appear too strong, and perhaps misleading a word, to many people like yourself, in describing Zeppelin's stature in the rock scene, at the time. But I just think only Black Sabbath of the concurrent era in the '70s was Zeppelin's 'near-equal' in terms of musical chops and the massive impact they undoubtedly had on countless other acts. Sabbath never quite achieved the near-ubiquitous and phenomenal popularity and success of Zeppelin. But to me, they were the only 'peer' band comparable to Zeppelin, in class and the quality of actual studio output. Deep Purple remains, for me, a distant third in the supposed Unholy Trio of Sabbath-Zeppelin-Purple. Of the rest you mentioned (and those that you didn't) only The Who was an under-rated classy band and I'd not-so-humbly argue that the likes of Genesis, Rainbow, ELP, 10cc, Queen were in the B-leagues compared to Zeppelin's pedigree, in the '70s. So yea, Zeppelin had 'peers' alright, but none (bar Sabbath) even nearly equal, ever....so that makes them 'peerless', in that sense, in my book.
    Last edited by RLP4ever; 11-14-2009, 03:58 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ashley Dalby
    replied
    Originally posted by WheelsOfConfusion View Post
    You know, when you reach such fame and acclaim, the classy thing to do would be to have a bit of humility and show some respect for other bands. The arsehole thing to do is to boast about yourself and pull everyone else down.
    That is the wrong thing to do rather you are famous or not... Especially since all success is achieved by a little bit of luck.

    Originally posted by Mercury87 View Post
    I strongly disagree with some of your points: in what way were they better than every rock band of their generation? Bands like Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, ELP, Genesis, Rainbow, The Who, 10cc and Queen to name a few were as good or sometimes even better than Led Zeppelin imo so I think it's rather arrogant to state they were peerless. A great band: yes, peerless: no.
    I doubt RLP was referring to the opinion of anyone in paticular here. I think he was referring to Led Zeppelin's ridiculous over zealous worshipping, though he might not call it ridiculous like I would.

    Like most other half talented bands that have a nack for writing catchy material, Zeppelin's popularity is somewhat unwarranted and undeserving. I, for one, have never understand why so many like them, they only had two albums worthy of my dollar.

    But still, they are universally loved and since you cannot open people's eyes, you just have to accept that bands who do not deserve the love and recognition they get are going to be worshipped.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mercury87
    replied
    Originally posted by RLP4ever View Post
    It's hardly Zeppelin's fault that half the rock world was steadfastly worshipping at their altar----and the rest were routinely taking grossly envious, craven pot-shots at them. Led Zeppelin had nothing to be all that 'humble' about. They were awesome and peerless---and they knew it. They didn't have to brag about it themselves---at least not too often, cos the fans (from the start) and the 'critics' (belatedly) dished out the praise and acclaim, on their own. Besides, Zeppelin never exactly went out of their way, at every given opportunity, to trash-talk other bands. It would help the other bands' cause if they weren't so mediocre or shitty in comparison----and Robert Plant or any other Zep weren't the only ones to recognise that--and say it like it is.
    I strongly disagree with some of your points: in what way were they better than every rock band of their generation? Bands like Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, ELP, Genesis, Rainbow, The Who, 10cc and Queen to name a few were as good or sometimes even better than Led Zeppelin imo so I think it's rather arrogant to state they were peerless. A great band: yes, peerless: no.

    Leave a comment:


  • RLP4ever
    replied
    Originally posted by WheelsOfConfusion View Post
    You know, when you reach such fame and acclaim, the classy thing to do would be to have a bit of humility and show some respect for other bands. The arsehole thing to do is to boast about yourself and pull everyone else down.
    It's hardly Zeppelin's fault that half the rock world was steadfastly worshipping at their altar----and the rest were routinely taking grossly envious, craven pot-shots at them. Led Zeppelin had nothing to be all that 'humble' about. They were awesome and peerless---and they knew it. They didn't have to brag about it themselves---at least not too often, cos the fans (from the start) and the 'critics' (belatedly) dished out the praise and acclaim, on their own. Besides, Zeppelin never exactly went out of their way, at every given opportunity, to trash-talk other bands. It would help the other bands' cause if they weren't so mediocre or shitty in comparison----and Robert Plant or any other Zep weren't the only ones to recognise that--and say it like it is.

    Leave a comment:


  • WheelsOfConfusion
    replied
    Originally posted by RLP4ever View Post

    AND, when you're 'unbelievably great' and apparent top dog in rock, as Led Zeppelin pretty much indisputably were, right through their career, I reckon you're actually 'allowed' to be, and can be forgiven for being "unbelievably arrogant".


    You know, when you reach such fame and acclaim, the classy thing to do would be to have a bit of humility and show some respect for other bands. The arsehole thing to do is to boast about yourself and pull everyone else down.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kgb
    replied
    Its always good to be grounded when it comes to music. Sabbath members are not sure if we can say that for the Zep guys. Look at the Maiden guys except Bruce you can say they are pretty grounded and look where they are now.

    Leave a comment:


  • RLP4ever
    replied
    Originally posted by WheelsOfConfusion View Post
    I would seriously like to see someone post here that honestly can say they enjoyed a 20min solo from Zeppelin of any instrument.
    I DID! ....not worship it and play, think and talk about it every day and to everybody I met. But, I reckon I quite dug Bonham's looooong drum solos or Zeppelin's sometimes looooong songs, in concert. 'Self-indulgent', arguably so. Virtuoso and enjoyable, especially so.

    AND, when you're 'unbelievably great' and apparent top dog in rock, as Led Zeppelin pretty much indisputably were, right through their career, I reckon you're actually 'allowed' to be, and can be forgiven for being "unbelievably arrogant".

    Also, a lot of Led Zep's rock peers often had as many crappy songs on a single record of theirs as Page/Plant/Bonham/Jones had in their entire dozen years together as performers.

    Leave a comment:


  • WheelsOfConfusion
    replied
    As much as I love Zeppelin, I absolutely despise their arrogance. They lambast so many other bands. I know that one of the Zeppelin members once said in the 70's that it's not the fact that they are the best band in the world-but they are so much better than whoever is at number 2.

    And it's pretty low for Plant to sneer Sabbath in one of their early performances. Zeppelin are notorious for ripping off artists and not crediting the original songwriter, eg "Whole Lotta Love".

    The way that Zeppelin carry on you'd think that every album they came up with was perfect. Far from it. They have their fair share of crap also-something Plant never would never admit to.

    Eg, "The Crunge". Or "Hot Dog" Most of the 'Presence' album is largely forgettable also. Some songs such as "That's the Way" or "The Lemon Song" are far from the greatest songs of all time. And the last couple of tracks on 'Physical Graffiti' could have been easily left out.

    They are an unbelievably arrogant band. It is really annoying to listen to them talk about themselves. And I'd like to meet Zeppelin fans that really like drum and guitar solos that go on for the best part of 30mins. "Moby Dick" bores me as it just goes on and on. I love a good solo, but there is a limit to everything. After that it becomes boring and self indulgant.

    I would seriously like to see someone post here that honestly can say they enjoyed a 20min solo from Zeppelin of any instrument.

    Leave a comment:


  • SabbathSteve
    replied
    Originally posted by mythology View Post
    It might well have been a crap gig. Every band has them.

    But LP-for-LP Sabbath absolutely massacre Zeppelin .

    I really like Zep, but they had nothing like the originality that Sabbath had. Plant sums it up in the article when he refers to "nicking old blues stuff ". Most bands did this in the 70s but Zep's sounds like a straight copy sometimes whereas Sabbath did something original with theirs.

    ---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:23 AM ----------

    Just to prove my point about Zeppelin nicking stuff. This is nicked from another Internet site :-)

    A list of some of the songs Zep stole from other artists:

    "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You" - A folk song by Anne Bredon, this was originally credited as "traditional, arranged by Jimmy Page," then "words and music by Jimmy Page," and then, following legal action, "Bredon/Page/Plant."

    "Black Mountain Side" - uncredited version of a traditional folk tune previously recorded by Bert Jansch.

    "Bring It On Home" - the first section is an uncredited cover of the Willie Dixon tune (as performed by the imposter Sonny Boy Williamson).

    "Communication Breakdown" - apparently derived from Eddie Cochran's "Nervous Breakdown."

    "Custard Pie" - uncredited cover of Bukka White's "Shake 'Em On Down," with lyrics from Sleepy John Estes's "Drop Down Daddy."

    "Dazed And Confused" - uncredited cover of the Jake Holmes song (see The Above Ground Sound Of Jake Holmes).

    "Hats Off To (Roy) Harper" - uncredited version of Bukka White's "Shake 'Em On Down."

    "How Many More Times" - Part one is an uncredited cover of the Howlin' Wolf song (available on numerous compilations). Part two is an uncredited cover of Albert King's "The Hunter."

    "In My Time Of Dying" - uncredited cover of the traditional song (as heard on Bob Dylan's debut).

    "The Lemon Song" - uncredited cover of Howlin' Wolf's "Killing Floor" - Wolf's publisher sued Zeppelin in the early 70s and settled out of court.

    "Moby Dick" - written and first recorded by Sleepy John Estes under the title "The Girl I Love," and later covered by Bobby Parker.

    "Nobody's Fault But Mine" - uncredited cover of the Blind Willie Johnson blues.

    "Since I've Been Lovin' You" - lyrics are the same as Moby Grape's "Never," though the music isn't similar.

    "Stairway To Heaven" - the main guitar line is apparently from "Taurus" by Spirit.

    "White Summer" - uncredited cover of Davey Graham's "She Moved Through The Fair."

    "Whole Lotta Love" - lyrics are from the Willie Dixon blues "You Need Love."
    I don't understand how "Communication Breakdown" and Eddie Cochran's "Nervous Breakdown" are similar at all. The lyrics aren't the same, and the music isn't similar either. The only thing similar about the two songs is that the phrase "Nervous Breakdown" is in both songs.

    Leave a comment:


  • nothing
    replied
    Haven't you ever been in a mood and nothing seemed to hit you right and you had to much energy to sit around and glam for bullshit. So ya hike a leg and split. That is all they did. They couldn't turn it off so they walked. Anyway. Grew up listening to all these bands so I ain't downing none of them. Of course the did send that man with the bundle of sticks to burn their witch so who knows.
    Last edited by nothing; 11-01-2009, 10:35 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • devilmaycare
    replied
    Originally posted by Wicked Cricket View Post
    I've wondered myself what the mighty Zep would have sounded like without Bonzo, the engine that drove their "heaviness" even on un-heavy like tunes, and I've come ot the conclusion it wouldn't have been the same, he was truly a "one of kind" drummer. Fare well mate TTYL..!
    Thankfully - with the exception of a few very special occasions - Page, Plant & JPJ (especially Plant - to give credit where it is most due) seem to feel the same way.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X