As great as the show was, I was disappointed to hear on the Director's Commentary that Led Zeppelin was considered for the show but rejected for being too good. Seeing Jimmy Page and company perform alongside The Who and The Stones would've ended alot of "who's the best rock n' roll band" arguments.
shareDUH! Jagger and Co. HATED Zeppelin for that very reason as Anita Pallenberg has said. Why do you think this show wasn't released until a long time after it was filmed? Because The Who totally dominated and Mick didn't want the proof out there.
http://saucybetty.blogspot.com
No, the commentary said Zeppelin was rejected for being 'too guitary,' which makes sense. Zeppelin all noise and bombast but lack the Stones groove and soul, and always will. Even the Who has more meaning to their loudness.
shareI believe that Michael Lindsay-Hogg's comment of Zeppelin being too "guitary" is not meant as being condescending or of ill meaning as you seem to think it is. Their pre-heavy metal/hard blues songs wouldn't fit with the rest of the format. "Too guitary" in this context means that no band could follow them because they simply would drown everyone else out and leave them by the wayside. To write Zeppelin off as all noise and bombast is to hereby declare your musical ignorance and to neglect possibly the most pivotal band in hard rock history. They were the precursor to the new era of rock and roll; they provided a sonic blueprint and forged a new road that countless bands have often imitated, but never duplicated. Their influence on hard rock is incalculable. Cream may have been the first to marry the blues with a harder rocking edge, but Zeppelin catapulted it into a different stratosphere and into hitherto uncharted realms. It still is, and always will be, the most crushing interpretation of the blues. The blues may be sullen and maudlin, but there is an underlying notion of anger and vitriol there that Zeppelin expanded upon more so than any other band before or since.
And they weren't just all sound and fury, how about "Going to California," "That's the Way," "Tangerine," "Ten Years Gone," "Thank You," plenty of ballads that displayed true musicianship and songwriting skill. Maybe not in a playfully witty, acerbic Townsend-style, or the Stones, but in terms of musicality and versatility, they had everything. And if you don't think Zeppelin had groove or soul, listen to "The Ocean," "The Crunge," or the live version of "No Quarter," especially; the breakdown in the middle of the latter mentioned song is one of the funkiest refrains ever in any hard rock song.
And just for argument's sake, if you believe that labeling a band "too guitary" is a disparaging remark, then that would mean Hendrix's whole repertoire is just crap, right? I mean, there was no real groove or soul on the "Are You Experienced?" album, possibly the greatest debut album of all-time, influencing practically any guitarist that picked up the instrument. It's very feedback-reliant which means it's just garbage, right? The guitarist that both Townsend and Clapton both proclaim to be the greatest guitarist ever. What's the difference between what Hendrix did and what Page did? What's the difference between Zeppelin's "Good Times, Bad Times" and Hendrix's "Red House"?
I hardly feel the lineup for the Circus was lacking, and adding LZ would presumably have lengthened it, or perhaps they could have taken out the song Dirty Mac did with that horrible Yoko, but better there would have been if that group had merely done another song without her destructive involvement.
So unless you merely wanted the whole thing to be longer, they had to draw the line somewhere. Tull was also a new band, and they certainly fit in and put on a good show. Taj Mahal had a big following then, particularly in England. Marianne Faithful actually came off pretty well, and at least Jagger knew enough to give her her own song rather than have her join the Stones on stage.
The Who were absolutely at the top of their game. In hindsight a bit sloppy here and there, but the sheer energy was just great. And after all they were somewhat more well known and better friends, particularly Townsend and Clapton.
Meanwhile the Stones were about as weak as they were in that last gasp of the Brian Jones iteration. A sad story to be sure - Jones had not only previously been their original leader, but was a consummate performer on so many instruments, unlike the then rather two dimensional Richards. Jagger, however, was at the tope of his game. It would take Jones's departure and replacement by Mick Taylor for the band to reclaim any right to assert itself as the greatest rock and roll band in the world, particularly live. No wonder they had second thoughts after it was all done. As great as Sympathy for hte Devil was, watching Jones do nothing more than shake the maracas is cringe inducing.
So in short I don't know that it was all that perfidious that Zeppelin was left off, whatever the theory offered by Lindsay-Hogg.
I completely agree kenny, my argument wasn't that Zeppelin was left off, it was that binkconn was writing Zeppelin off as all bombast and no ingenuity. Being a Zeppelin fanatic, I had to say something. And as I said before, they wouldn't've fit in with the rest of the setlist because the bands that were already signed on (Tull, The Who, etc.), are more conceptual. Tull have their English folksy rock, The Who had established themselves as mini-rock opera and concept album kings (with a rollicking blues cover here and there, "Young Man Blues" and what have you). Zeppelin is just straight blues-rock, no chaser. It's not distilled with a more pop or commercialized sound as the other acts are.
And I fully agree with your assessment about Dirty Mac and The Rolling Stones. Yoko Ono's singing made Denis Leary's impression of her seem less exaggerative and more dead-on accurate, and I think the problem with The Stones was that they were SUPER trashed. You could tell from a mile away. They seemed incapacitated or lethargic...even more so than in 2008's "Shine a Light." Looking at Mick Jagger's intro to the special, it's a wonder how he was even able to put two words together coherently.
So, in short, thanks for the intelligent post. :)
I still think putting Zeppelin on the Circus - while pleasing the headbangers- would have shown how monotonous their approach was compared to the Rock greats of the 60's. Zep songs always give an exciting feeling once they start, then the feeling starts to fade once the listener senses there's nothing beneath the sound except bombast for its own sake: Plant's generic white blues man's howl, with barely a sense of the true feeling behind all those Willie Dixon lyrics; Page's gigantic riffs that repeat like a xerox machine; Bonham endlessly pounding away at 11 - sure it gave us every sledgehammer act like Metallica and the hair bands of the 80's, but what's so great about that? Stones don't play at eleven from the first note to the end (and at their best don't stoop to puerile D & D lyrics like Zeppelin, but relate politics and male/female negotiations), but actually find NUANCE in their worship of the blues. It's something Zep in all their posturing never figured out.
shareI'm sorry you seem to feel that way about Zeppelin, but clearly nearly every rock act that has existed don't seem to share your axe to grind. Plant's "generic" white man's blues howl is actually one of the most versatile of the blues in that he's able to effortlessly shift from soul-bearing scream (i.e. "Dazed and Confused") to a softer, vulnerable tone (i.e. "That's the Way"), and I don't get why you would think there's no "true feeling" behind the Willie Dixon lyrics but I guess that's dependant on what your definition of "feeling" is. To me, when he sings about trials and travails of life (the raison d'etre of the genre itself) he pours every bit of soul and despair into it, at least I always thought, making the genre a little more three-dimensional by adding emotion that doesn't seem perfunctory or obligatory. Page's riffs are everything from country-folk, to hard rock to blues and back again, so to call them repetitive is kind of a misguided statement. And in terms of drummers pounding away at 11, that's more of a Keith Moon thing. Bonham incorporated a rollicking double-beat bass (with a single-pedal bass) that gave the songs an extra kick.
Zeppelin's influence transcends farther than just hair metal and Metallica (who were more Sabbath influenced than anything), so to pigeon-hole them as just forefathers to disposable crappy pomp like the 80s hair metal scene is being willfully ignorant. What about the alt-rock scene? Like "Jane's Addiction" (just to cite one band in particular), listen to "Mountain Song" or "Ocean Size" and tell me those aren't an homage. What about Stone Temple Pilots? What about Red Hot Chili Peppers, The Black Crowes, Rush, or Soundgarden? All are (albeit a small, small fraction of) artists that were/are greatly influenced by Zeppelin. However this "paint by numbers" view you seem to have with Zeppelin seems to have clouded your judgment and leads you to believe that the only thing they influenced was big hair and mascara-laden bitchboys. ANY rock act that EVER existed from the 70s onward could veritably be considered a Zeppelin descendant, and that's no exaggeration.
The D & D thing I can kind of empathize with, but it's called experimentation. Taking risks with groundwork and reaching new directions and horizons is what being innovative is all about. They were extremely prodigious and creative musicians, and I really don't see how anyone could possibly dispute that.
Plant's loud/soft dynamics have all the subtlety of David Coverdale, which is why I suppose Page considered him at one point as a Plant replacement for a Zep reunion. As long as he can get back to singing about his crotch or the misty mounts of Morder, Plant's on deep emotive ground; and admittedly, it has a kind of dumb frat boy thrill, but starts to pale when you want something a little more adult. Jagger can do c++k-rock too, but at his best he can also do a vulnerability a la "Wild Horses" that Plant in all his devotion to acrobatic showiness just can't find.
What style of music Page plays isn't the point - it's that most of the time the riff he plays literally sounds like its coming off a production line ('D'yer Maker' and 'Fool In The Rain', to name but two), one coming down the conveyer belt completely unchanged from the other. No matter how initially exciting the riff, a robotic monotony starts to set in, while Bonham does his tick-tock caveman pounding, however double-beat it may be.
The Crowes and the singers of STP and Jane's Addiction owe more to the swagger of the Stones than Zep, but the White Stripes have a definite Zep feel (see the 'how many times can this one repetitious riff be exciting' in 'Seven Nation Army'). Yes, yes, Plant namechecks all the old Bluesmen as idols, and the band does the 'look at us, we're English blues boys in Morrocco' thing like certain others before them, but Zep just too often confuses loudness and c++k-strutting with soul, and miss the humanity those Johnsons and Wolfs found while getting in touch with their Delta mojos. Zep's like an aural shot of Red Bull - intially exciting, then when it's over leaving you with a strangely empty feeling.
Yes, good call on Coverdale, but still you seem to be focusing on a modicum of examples and trying to base your whole judgment around it. I always thought that listening to Zeppelin I or II and then listening to III afterward showed a tremendous development in song craftsmanship since I and II were all about attitude and power and III which surprised everyone with being firmly rooted in English folk and musical sensibilities. Or listening to "Physical Graffiti" and being taken from Eastern-tinged rock-outs to funky groove-stomps to country to balladry to the roots of rock and back again. (Or "The Rain Song" from "Houses of the Holy" for that matter) Plant may not encompass all the subtleties of his heroes; but his high, powerful voice has been imitated by a lot of frontmen since and has made him a hero. Everyone from rock frontmen to Alison Krauss, the folk songstress and recent collaborater have admired his voice. And I don't know where you get acrobatic showiness from, that's more of a Freddie Mercury thing if you ask me, but if you're referring to his voice then it's called range and if you got it, use it. No one ever said, "Bob Dylan's voice is too shrill and nasal to ever encompass what it is to be a folk musician," so why persecute Plant for providing his own stamp on the age-old genre?
As for Page, I personally never felt that way about his abilities. I always thought there was a reason why nearly everyone who picks up the guitar knows the first bars of "Stairway" right off the bat (like in that scene from "Wayne's World"). Every song was different in it's own way unless you're really trying to hear similarities which you can find in nearly EVERY artists' repertoire; and what about the Stones's "Honkee (it beeps the real word) Tonk Women" and "Country Honk" if you want songs that are exactly the same. (And don't get me wrong, I LOVE the Stones, and I assume you probably know more about the reason why they just took the same song and slapped a different title on it.) Page is also a phenomenal lead guitarist if you ever get the chance to see a live video which I'm sure you have, and constantly cited usually within the top ten of nearly every poll of the greatest guitarists of all time. (Don't go by just the Rolling Stone poll either, that list was garbage...) And "Fool in the Rain" was more of a JPJ contribution than anything.
One could really hear Bonham develop as a drummer as he drew closer to his death, but even so, the off-beat drumming on "Black Dog" is something that not every drummer would've come up with. His bass/snare interchange is truly phenomenal (again stating that he only had one bass pedal), and his drum solos rival that of Keith Moon's at times in terms of being two drummers that were insanely ahead of their times; the first to cross their arms when rolling around the toms, that much I know. Some of his drum rolls and fills are truly in a league of their own.
Let's also not forget JPJ's immense contribution with his gorgeous amelioration of string accompaniment. Incredibly ambitious, beautifully arranged and orchestrated and perfectly adding just the right touch to let Zeppelin really soar into a deeper, more otherworldly plane of music.
You seem like a pretty educated guy on all things rock, but your analysis of the examples I gave are purely conjecture. Weiland from STP said this about Zep in a recent interview:
"I'm serious, man. That would be one hell of a bill: STP and Led Zeppelin. I mean, we could play a doghouse, out in the middle of the ocean, and if I got to play with Zeppelin, that would be a highlight of my life."
Every list of influences I see for STP has Zeppelin sitting right at the top. Listening to "Core" and "Purple," the Zeppelin imitation is irrefutable. The guitar-drenched sound production most notably. And your Jane's Addiction analysis is ludicrous at best because listening to both "Nothing's Shocking" and "Ritual de lo Habitual" one realizes that the debt owed to Zeppelin is far greater than you would've perceived. "Three Days" and "Then She Did..." are both over 8 minutes long (with "Three Days" clocking in at over 10, much like Zep's "In My Time of Dying" or "Achilles Last Stand"). They wrote grandiose rock opuses, not like The Stones, who never wrote a rock opus in their lives (aside from maybe "You Can't Always Get What You Want" but if you're listening to Jane's Addiction's "bombastic" rock and hearing that one particular song, you're clearly hearing what you want to hear), but in the same vein as Zeppelin, pure, unfiltered electric guitar. When you listen to songs such as the sprawling "Three Days" or "Then She Did...", you don't think, "Oh wow, that sounds like Gimme Shelter!", you immediately think of "The Rain Song" or "No Quarter". ("Then She Did..." even replicates JPJ's string arrangements as well, how much more evidence do you need, really?) How could you listen to Perry Farrell's high-pitched vibrato and place it with the swagger of Mick Jagger? It's CLEARLY Plant. They've covered their songs at live shows frequently and even got Jason Bonham to drum for them on occasion. And I just threw The White Stripes in there because I saw them referenced on a webpage I researched that had no cited sources, that's why I edited them out of my post later on. (I HATE The White Stripes to let you know, but they owe more to the garage-stomp of The Kinks than anything).
I'm sorry you feel that Zeppelin doesn't have lasting power, and I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything, just simply stating my opinion. You seem like a nice guy; you haven't been crass or rude or anything so that's good to see. I just think you're seeing the music scene as you want to see it and ignoring the elephant in the room.
Oh, Zep is definitely the proverbial elephant, no doubt about it, with all the subtlety and nuance found within said animal. It's great to be masters of english folk, funk, stomp, etc. but if there's no heart to it other than saying 'look how great we are,' it just gets kind of dull. Take Page - surely a great guitarist, a keen eye for all the tricks Hendrix developed, but with none of the soul that Jimi infused in all those licks and wah-pedals; Page just sounds like he's smirkingly gang-raping the listener with all his accumulated knowledge, the former session-man now running the show with what he knows are assured tricks of money-making bombast, stripped of any confusing lyrics about relationships or politics for maximum heaviosity, with instead songs about silly Stairways to Heaven that only people who don't think Tenacious D is a comedy act would take seriously. Unfortunately there are alot of those people
I think the onstage playfulness of Weiland and Farrell owe more to Jagger than Plant, though Freddie Mercury's operatic range is Plant-influenced- bounding all over the place like a diva. But since you mentioned the two versions of *beep* Tonk Women, just listen to the percussion Mick brings to the single version and the relaxed, backporch wit he brings to the acuostic version. Plant can do skyscraping, Elvis-warbles, smug lechery, but he just can't locate a genuine personality uninfected by Plant the macho show-off. Like Bonham, the machine pounds reliably on, but ultimately it remains just that, a machine.
Good retort with my "elephant in the room" remark, I guess I set you right up for that one. However, I think that "look how great we are" attitude comes with the fact that they still are the greatest selling rock artists to date. Now I'm not saying the more albums you sell makes you the better artist, far from it. If that were true, then The Velvet Underground would be a pile of sh!t, which clearly they're not. However, it is a good indication in noting that The Beatles are the top selling artists of all time, a band that has been repeatedly called, the greatest/most influential band of all time. So following that precedent, with Zeppelin selling 111,500,000+ copies of albums (they can't ALL be frat-boys, can they?), and having a song that's been a rock radio staple since 1971 that's been covered by everyone from the likes of Dolly Parton to Frank Zappa to Foo Fighters to Rodrigo y Gabriela to Bellanova, to name a few, their influence transcends much more than just a musical comedy act or an 80s hair-band craze. That's country, avant-garde (for lack of a better word, who knows WHAT Zappa can be classified as), alt-rock (albeit, crappy alt-rock), flamenco and electronica. Even Beastie Boys have been greatly influenced by the work of Zeppelin, their first album ("Licensed to Ill") is LOADED with Zeppelin sampling and references in their lyrics, so there's a rap group for ya. Page's guitar solo of said song that will remain unnamed has been voted the greatest guitar solo of all time by Guitar World magazine. This kind of recognition by a variety of sources and experts would lead me to believe that Zep is one of the most widely recognized and yes, influential bands of all time. It's kind of hard not to have a big head under these circumstances considering the fact that you've been a supernova since the day of your inception. Just ask John Lennon (yes, I know he's dead, it's just a figure of speech). And having THAT been said, I can't really think of another band besides The Beatles (and yes, The Stones) that have wielded such an influence on such a wide variety of music for over four decades, inciting scores upon scores of musical hopefuls to pick up their instruments.
Do you have something against arena rock or something? So many people have claimed Freddie Mercury as probably the greatest frontman ever in rock and roll (just watch the Live Aid performance, he has the entire, gargantuan crowd in the palm of his hand), and you liken him to nothing more than a hyperactive diva. He had a phenomenal connection with his audience, moreso than probably any other frontman the world had ever seen.
And Zeppelin never really touted themselves as merely bluesmen. They used their first (and about half of their second) album as a springboard to branch off and forge their own trails. Completely true to themselves, they've marched to the beat of their own drums, and recorded a wide variety of music with a wide variety of different sounds that they infused with an archetype that many other English bands from the 60s had. Only Zeppelin had the balls to really take it in directions that it had not normally gone before. It's not strictly an apathetic venture as you have convinced yourself it is, I think anyway.
And as for Weiland and Farrell, I can kind of see where you're coming with the onstage behavior, but the influence of Zeppelin really lies in the core of their professions, why they're really there onstage in the first place, which is their MUSIC. You can't really say that because of their behavior on stage, it means that Jagger has played a bigger role in shaping them as a band. The music speaks MUCH louder than the actions. Their vocal styles are pure Plant as well, as I noted before. Look no further than Chris Cornell from Soundgarden as well if you want to see someone that has been immensely influenced by Plant so much so that it's almost a carbon copy.
I guess it's all in terms of how you interpret it. I always thought that by magnifying the inner vitriol of the blues legends and putting their own distinctive stamp on it (cranking everything up to ten and blowing the roof off the joint) that merits a place in the annals of rock history and then some. Sure, other bands have been better at capturing the essence of the blues like Cream (or anything Clapton, really), or John Mayall & the Bluesbreakers (also Clapton when referring to the first album), but Zeppelin gave so much to the shaping of the modern blues movement. It's like Ritchie Blackmore said, "After listening to Zeppelin's first album, we realized that heavy wasn't volume, heavy was ATTITUDE." It's ALMOST two different schools of blues, Zeppelin added kind of an ominous and presentiment to the genre unlike any other; expounding upon the early feelings that Robert Johnson had incorporated into the genre with songs like "Hellhound on My Trail." That's where I'm coming from, anyway. I think I've said my peace, and I'm pretty sure I'm not going to change your mind and I know you're not going to change mine. So I'll just leave it with thanks for debating with me and have a good day.
Am sure they are the biggest sellers - Rock music reduced to its fundamental core of power and excitement, pounding away mercilessly for maximum headbanging
appeal, no troubling lyrics about who killed the Kennedys or Rape, Murder, it's just a shot away to bother the listener. Just howling and pounding, howling and pounding...
Not a particular fan of Cornell's, or any of Plant's acolytes. Just don't think 'eyes squeezed over a mike with the vein throbbing in the singer's forehead' howling means a deeper connection with the music than a singer more interested in exploring than conquering the song at hand.
If 'attitude' equalled heart and soul, or a gang-rape was the equivalent of making love, Zep's music would equal the extent of its ambitions. As it is, uh...
Good talking with you.
[deleted]
There's been alot of talk about Zep and where they stand in the history of rock. Aside from contributing great music, people tend to forget or not know how Zep (with the help of their manager Peter Grant)changed business practices in music. First off, they were the highest paid when signing with Atlantic Records, negotiating a super deal with a high cash advance even before releasing their first album (which was totally unheard of at the time, the beatles and stones never had such leverage or balls that early in their careers).
Secondly, Zep changed the business of live concerts. They were the first group to get a cut of the ticket sales, with the higher percentage for them and not gobbled up by the greedy promoters. Hence, leading the way to the giant stadium tours of the 70s.
Finally, Zep was always a non-singles band... they never made cut-downs or air-friendly pop songs to secure radio play. Zep's music was always longer than your average pop song and still got heavy radio play... never having to succumb to doing radio edits of Whole Lotta Love or Stairway to Heaven. Not like The Doors, whose most famous song Light My Fire had a radio friendly edit.
People don't realize that during the 70s Zep was the most successful touring group at the time, out-selling The Rolling Stones and breaking records previously held by The Beatles.
Probably the main reason why Zeppelin wasn't at the Rolling Stones Rock n Roll Circus was the fact that the group wasn't around long enough. This is December 1968, the band just formed that year, and they did not yet release their first album. Plainly their reputation hadn't been established yet so there was no reason for them to be at this gig.
share