- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Led Zeppelin: The Most Influential Band In History
Posted on 1/9/13 at 8:46 am to Gorilla Ball
Posted on 1/9/13 at 8:46 am to Gorilla Ball
Not really into Zep.
Would much prefer bands/artists like: Kinks, Velvet Underground, Zappa, Captain Beefheart, Bowie, Love, etc etc
Would much prefer bands/artists like: Kinks, Velvet Underground, Zappa, Captain Beefheart, Bowie, Love, etc etc
0
Posted on 1/9/13 at 8:48 am to Gorilla Ball
quote:
LZ was also influence by the chicago and Ms delta blues
They basically copied a ton of riffs, lyrics, and general songs from old blues players from Mississippi and other touring bands that they opened for like spirit. It's been addressed that thy basically stole a ton of their songs straight up.
They are insanely influential to hard rock/metal genres, but the Beatles influenced way, way more people than LZ from a songwriters standpoint, a harmony/melody standpoint and a lyrical standpoint.
From the teenybopper period, all the way to the let it be/revolution period, the Beatles have influenced more people, bands and songwriters than led zeppelin ever did.
Posted on 1/9/13 at 8:50 am to TheDoc
I gotta agree that the only answer here is the Beatles... I'm sure they influenced LZ...
Posted on 1/9/13 at 8:55 am to TFTC
I had always been told from people that LZ had ripped off many blues acts from back then. Had a podnah who traveled(guitar tech) with Tab Benoit and he once told me a story about why Tab didn't like LZ. At the time I though LZ were champions of rock who did NO wrong... little did I know.
Black Sabbath also comes to mind... not nearly the influence as either but certainly a very influential band for the time and for the genre it laid out.
After reading threw the OP article... I have another question. Why the frick does hip-hop outsell rock.
Bootlegging?? Pirating? Ripping music from buddies? what is up with that?
Black Sabbath also comes to mind... not nearly the influence as either but certainly a very influential band for the time and for the genre it laid out.
After reading threw the OP article... I have another question. Why the frick does hip-hop outsell rock.
Bootlegging?? Pirating? Ripping music from buddies? what is up with that?
Posted on 1/9/13 at 9:04 am to HempHead
quote:
Did anyone actually read the article? The author makes a better case than just, 'Gotta get the Led out'.
Yes, I read it. The most interesting part was the depressing first half, detailing how rap has taken over from rock commercially.
The LZ section was interesting for the stories about Peter Grant and his business practices. LZ certainly helped change the economics of rock, no question. But they weren't even the first in some of those areas. Steve Miller signed with Capitol in 1968 for a royalty rate three times the standard. And Dave Clark negotiated a deal giving him production control as well as masters ownership as early as 1964 -- compare that to the Beatles, who due to Brian Epstein's inexperience signed terrible record and publishing deals (the latter was especially bad), which continue to cost them money to this day.
The idea that LZ is the most influential band of all time is mystifying to me. What did they invent? The hard rock genre certainly existed before them, with acts like Cream, Hendrix, The Velvet Underground, Steppenwolf, Deep Purple, Blue Cheer, Iron Butterfly, and The Yardbirds themselves working in the form. I believe The Stooges first album came out before LZ's debut, though this I'm not positive about. The MC5 released their first album the same year; I'm not sure which one was first -- though The MC5 had been playing this form of music for at least two years (there is an amazing clip of them on a local TV station in 1967).
LZ was influential, yes, in that they were staggeringly popular -- really the most significant thing about them. But Hendrix and Clapton had already established the idea of a "guitar hero", and as I pointed out other bands had been successful with the sound -- even Top 4 pop singles in the cases of Steppenwolf and Deep Purple.
Trying to claim LZ was more influential than The Beatles is not just inaccurate but historically ignorant. The Beatles were so huge, so all-encompassing, that it's difficult to find areas of pop culture they didn't influence. Their was the hair, or course -- which altered almost a century of looks for men. The more colorful fashions, which would dominate the rest of the '60s. Superficial changes perhaps, but changes nonetheless. And their hit film A Hard Day's Night brought the quick-cut style of TV commercials to mainstream films.
Note I haven't even said anything about the music.
The Beatles were in a sense continuing the form The Beach Boys had refined from Buddy Holly and The Everly Brothers -- harmony vocals set to a Chuck Berry beat. But the Beatles were rather rougher than the ultra-smooth Beach Boys, giving them a new type of sound. Their popularity would inspire (tens of?) thousands of bands in the US, as well as many more around the world -- I've heard really good Beatle-influenced records from contemporary bands in Sweden and Czechoslovakia.
But the Beatles were eclectic, and didn't stay with one sound: they would work in soul, power pop, psychedelia, country-rock, and even blues. They were not necessarily the first band in any of these genres, but thanks as always to their great popularity they were extraordinarily important in increasing awareness of them with the mass audience. And not just audiences -- Roger McGuinn of The Byrds (my choice for second mot influential band of all time, but that's another essay) cited The Beatles cover of Buck Owens' "Act Naturally" into inspiring he and his bandmates into experimenting in a form that would eventually be called country-rock.
Not only does Led Zeppelin not surpass that, I don't even see how they can compare to it.
Posted on 1/9/13 at 9:17 am to Rickety Cricket
quote:
That sounded completely different from when LZ played them.
You've clearly never heard You Need Love or I Can't Quit You Baby. Those are direct lifts (ok, they change the words to You Need Love to Whole Lotta Love -- first time I heard the original, it was a head snapping moment).
I like Hyden, and his retrospectives are great (his What Ever Happened to Alternative Nation? series is excellent). I like the concept of the Winner's History of Rock, and it should be interesting.
But it starts with the Stones, man. That's where the division begins. Zep just widened the gap, particularly between the critical community and the fans. Critics at least liked the Stones -- they despised Zeppelin. I do like the comparison to Nickelback, it's not that far off, though I think a comp to Linkin Park is more apt (though Zeppelin is a much, much better band).
ETA: I should mention that, yes, the Beatles are more popular and more influential, but I think what Hyden is going for is that they aren't a ROCK BAND in the sense that we think. They were a pop band, and easily the greatest one ever, but it is the Stones and Zeppelin who created the archetype of the sex-crazed, drug-addled, everything to excess rock star. The Beatles were, as Kafka points out, keepers of the flame and a continuation of the recent history or pop music. The Stones and Zeppelin were the break into "rock" as the dominant form of pop music.
This post was edited on 1/9/13 at 9:23 am
Posted on 1/9/13 at 9:27 am to Baloo
quote:
(ok, they change the words to You Need Love to Whole Lotta Love -- first time I heard the original, it was a head snapping moment).
What's funny about that, while playing Whole Lotta Love live, they would go off on a little jam and Plant would just kind of intersperse random lyrics, chiefly "you need love"
Posted on 1/9/13 at 9:57 am to The Dudes Rug
quote:
I could never get into LZ.
Me neither. I enjoy listening to them when they are on, but never sought them out. same is true for the beatles though. They were the music my parents listened to, not me. I appreciate and enjoy it, but it just doesn't do it for me.
And by far the biggest band as an influence was the beatles. They are copied over and over and over again.
One time my wife was in a coffee shop (with me), and the beatles came on. She said who is this of montreal rip off?
She also did the same with pavement and the velvet underground. strangely enough I did seek out the stones, david bowie and the velvet underground, plus hendrix and the doors. I guess my parents didn't listen to that enough.
Posted on 1/9/13 at 10:05 am to TheDoc
quote:
led zeppelin stole a lot of their songs from various other bands
So did almost everyone...
Played covers, took verses, took rythm, took style.
You can't really 'create' a genre, only turn one style into your own. To make rock out of blues you HAVE to steal from blues.
I would say the reason people look at the Beatles as more influential is because they were/are in your face. Zeppelin was mysterious for being such a superstar band.
I agree with the OP
Posted on 1/9/13 at 10:11 am to Kafka
quote:
Kafka
perfectly put, my dude.
rock existed far before LZ.
Posted on 1/9/13 at 10:13 am to TexasTiger1185
I much prefer listening to LZ, but they were not originators. They stole too much making them far more influenced than influential.
Posted on 1/9/13 at 10:26 am to Jester
quote:
They stole too much making them far more influenced than influential.
so what does that make the people who were influenced by LZ?
Posted on 1/9/13 at 10:32 am to bobbyray21
quote:
Led Zeppelin created a genre. A tiny little genre called Rock
Posted on 1/9/13 at 10:45 am to Gorilla Ball
sorry, It's the Beatles.
Posted on 1/9/13 at 10:58 am to bobbyray21
quote:
A tiny little genre called Rock.
And metal
Posted on 1/9/13 at 11:07 am to Kafka
quote:#knowledge
Kafka
Do the overall talents of LZ surpass that of the Beatles? Speaking strictly on each members ability here.
Really...especially after reading that post Kafka, this is the only area I see where LZ has an edge over Beatles.
Thoughts?
Posted on 1/9/13 at 11:09 am to quail man
quote:
so what does that make the people who were influenced by LZ?
Being influenced is not the same thing as plagiarism.
My band is Influenced by wilco some would say, but we don't go lifting chord progressions, exact riffs, and lyrics
Posted on 1/9/13 at 11:10 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Led Zeppelin created a genre. A tiny little genre called Rock
Yeah, that is completely wrong.
Posted on 1/9/13 at 11:11 am to TheDoc
quote:I don't want to come off as defending LZ, but, back then wasn't it common to copy/use songs from other bands? Sort of like a Epic being handed down and changed slightly depending on the 'story teller''?
Being influenced is not the same thing as plagiarism
Just a question.
This post was edited on 1/9/13 at 11:12 am
Posted on 1/9/13 at 11:16 am to JohnZeroQ
Not like how led zeppelin did it. They blatantly stole lyrics, chords, riffs, bits of songs, whole songs. There were a ton of lawsuits against them even back then.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News