As with many things in life, one man's meat is another man's poison.  Music is a personal thing.  The way we experience it will define how we perceive the band.  Some people might think that LZ is over rated whilst others might thing there are the best band in the world.  What is important is how one perceives the band in one's eyes.  Everybody else's opinion is irrelevant.

Back in 1969 (I think it was '69 anyway) I got to see Jethro Tull blow Led Zeppelin off the stage in San Diego. People were screaming for Tull halfway through LZ's set. As I remember the story, Tull was canned from the rest of the tour. Anybody else remember this? I actually went to see Jethro Tull but must confess that, even as a snot nosed 15 year old kid, I knew about the Pillage Of The Delta Bluesmen's tunes by Page And The Boys. I actually own some LZ recordings and every so often listen to them but, they don't deserve the All Time Rock Hero status they seem to have maintained. Granted that ALL music is repetition and there's a certain amount of "stealing/borrowing" in all forms of it from classical to rock and beyond. I play guitar and lapslide and when I want to write stuff, I have to stop listening to other people's music so I'm not being influenced on a conscious level. I doubt that it works. End of the story: Music will always borrow from what came before and unless there is a conscious plaugerism at work, it's probably just the nature of memory to repeat and embellish.

 

-Bilko

Somewhere in the hinterlands of Northern California

You sir, are an idiot. First off, Robert Plant is one of the greatest male vocalists in rock history, up there with Freddie and Roger. His unique voice is an essential part of Led Zeppelin. Secondly, is there a reason Jimmy Page is referred to as "one of the greatest guitarists in the world"? Yeah, it's probably because he has a lack of imagination and covers that by playing loud. So before you rag on the forefathers of hard rock, get your facts straight.

Well it seems that his "phrashing" is better than your spelling or attention to detail.
Hendrix was incredibly sloppy as well, but that doesn't change his incredible and historical contribution to the world of electric guitar.
You seem unaware of the fact that sloppiness can be, and in many early Radiohead songs is, an intentional action. There are many of us that prefer heartfelt, edgy guitarwork, and even downright NOISE to the spit-shine polish of many modern players. Neil Young is one of the sloppiest lead guitarists ever and I wouldn't change his style or tone for the promise of a dozen Satrianis . . ..

I think a lot of the problem here is few seem to have any perspective or ability to provide context for their opinions.

Every group/performer has pluses and minuses.Personal taste aside, one needs to be able to provide some context and an educated perspective.

The initial post in this thread amounts to uninformed flame throwing. If one is making a case about Rock based upon pitch and self indulgence then that person clearly has no understanding of the idiom. You also have little or no concept of "singing."

Using a criticism based upon "stealing or ripping off" in music also shows no understanding of what music is all about.

It is not that you do not like the band, that's a matter of your personal taste. The real problem is you provide no support for your dislike that makes any sense.

You contradict yourself often enough.

Bilko McFish:

Back in 1969 (I think it was '69 anyway) I got to see Jethro Tull blow Led Zeppelin off the stage in San Diego. People were screaming for Tull halfway through LZ's set. As I remember the story, Tull was canned from the rest of the tour. Anybody else remember this? I actually went to see Jethro Tull but must confess that, even as a snot nosed 15 year old kid, I knew about the Pillage Of The Delta Bluesmen's tunes by Page And The Boys. I actually own some LZ recordings and every so often listen to them but, they don't deserve the All Time Rock Hero status they seem to have maintained. Granted that ALL music is repetition and there's a certain amount of "stealing/borrowing" in all forms of it from classical to rock and beyond. I play guitar and lapslide and when I want to write stuff, I have to stop listening to other people's music so I'm not being influenced on a conscious level. I doubt that it works. End of the story: Music will always borrow from what came before and unless there is a conscious plaugerism at work, it's probably just the nature of memory to repeat and embellish.

 

-Bilko

Somewhere in the hinterlands of Northern California

That's funny, I have a book that completely refutes your story.  Sunday, August 10, 1969 San Diego, CA Sports Arena, support from Jethro Tull. Tracks magazine reports:

"All the conditions were there to make it a usual run-of-the-mill dull concert; it took place at the super-hype Sports Arena, a large rent-a-Gestapo was present, and it was a sit down affair.  When Zeppelin came on, several thousand music lovers ignored that stupid unwritten law which says you should sit perfectly still in your numbered seat like a respectable citizen, and converged to the floor area and felt free. Two encores cost the promoters an additional couple of grand and it was with their approval that the encores were permitted.  Instead of the usual 11 pm deadline, the concert ended at 12:05."

I have several recordings of Zep from the summer of 1969 and they more than back up this story.  It seems the ravages of time have caused you to remember what you want to remember.

P.S. This is he only time LZ played with Tull in San Diego, and Tull wasn't "canned" from the rest of the tour either.

Look, LZ is good. Really good.  But they're not the greatest.  It's impossible to say that.  There is no way you can convince me that anyone is a better writer and arranger then Pete Townshend.  I'm not going to lie, Page is a better guitarist.  Hands down as a matter of fact he could blow townshend off the stage.  However, Zep albums like well... don't really gel if you know what i mean.  Like to me, there's no direction or flow per say.  Not to say that's a bad thing. But I mean if you were to really look into what Pete townshend of the Who was doing it's extraordinary.  A. He wrote everything alone with no outside help. B. He arranged all of the synth parts and basically produced everything. and C. He recorded demos of his songs at home by himself: drums, keyboards, piano, synth, guitar, bass and vocals. You name it, the song was basically finished before it even was submitted to the band.  As a audiophile that's incredible to me.  Brian Wilson-esque to say the least.  As a drummer well Bonham is probably better.  Moon had the oomph but he had the prowess.  As for a bassist Entwhistle wins hands down.  Though jones could play other instruments (HUGE STREET CRED!!!), as a bassist entwhistle wins. And vocally, in my opinion, I'd have to say Daltrey.  I do not like the whiny, nasaly, and tin vocals of plant.  It just doesn't register.  I'm not saying Zep is trash or that it is insult to Mississippi Delta.  But I do think they are really overated in some aspects.  A lot actually.  A lot of their endeavors have been ballyhooed.  However I'll admit that in a lot of cases, Pete Townshend is a bit of a pretentious little punk.  Still, to me nobody and I mean nobody rocks harder then The Who.  But that's just my opinion.  Take it as you want but I don't think Zeppelin are good as they're proclaimed and hyped to be.

Hmm, worst singer and most overrated band?!  I'm assuming that in 1969 you must have been on LSD. Let me guess, you think "Stairway to Heaven" is terrible also.  Most bands do covers and take something from before them especially early in thier career. Its called the evolution of music. It goes back to Robert Johnson and the old blues men. Regardless of any "borrowing", I can't comprehend that you think Plant is the worst singer. Why not ask the hundreds of bands who have admited to being influenced by LZ. Longevity counts for a lot and LZ's music is still played regulary. So, what music have you produced lately?

In response to San Tropez' earlier post:
Actually I would be surprised if the story were false. I have spoken to people through the years who say they were at one of the shows. Also, the reaction of the audience would not be surprising given that, IMO, Ian Anderson is unsurpassed as a Showman. Few other musicians, (Zappa, Hendrix to name a few), are able to command a stage like IA. Additionally, all bands don't steal the material of those that came before them and ignore due royalties as did LZ. What LZ did was take a pre-existing musical genre and damn near perfect it. For this they should be commended. However, if one takes the time to listen, they will find that, while there are influences in the music of Zappa (Stravinsky, Verese) and Tull (Roland Kirk, Bach), the two respective bands basically invented their own unique genres. Led Zeppelin did not. Moreover, unlike the 50 or so Tull albums and the 100 plus Zappa albums, Led Zep were simply not proficient writers. There are a scant few Led Zeppelin albums. So, while it is ridiculous to say that Led Zeppelin is 'the most overrated band in the history of Rock music', there is a large contingent that does agree that historically they are a bit overrated.

Chelsea Potter:

In response to San Tropez' earlier post: Actually I would be surprised if the story were false. I have spoken to people through the years who say they were at one of the shows. Also, the reaction of the audience would not be surprising given that, IMO, Ian Anderson is unsurpassed as a Showman. Few other musicians, (Zappa, Hendrix to name a few), are able to command a stage like IA. Additionally, all bands don't steal the material of those that came before them and ignore due royalties as did LZ. What LZ did was take a pre-existing musical genre and damn near perfect it. For this they should be commended. However, if one takes the time to listen, they will find that, while there are influences in the music of Zappa (Stravinsky, Verese) and Tull (Roland Kirk, Bach), the two respective bands basically invented their own unique genres. Led Zeppelin did not. Moreover, unlike the 50 or so Tull albums and the 100 plus Zappa albums, Led Zep were simply not proficient writers. There are a scant few Led Zeppelin albums. So, while it is ridiculous to say that Led Zeppelin is 'the most overrated band in the history of Rock music', there is a large contingent that does agree that historically they are a bit overrated.

So you are going to take one man's account from 39 years after the concert took place over an excerpt taken from a music publication written the night of or morning after the concert took place?  I love Tull (I've actually gone to one of their concerts, and Anderson is definitely on my shortlist for favorite frontmen), but Zep in 1969 was a ferocious live act, and I doubt anyone "blew them off the stage".

As for the rest of your post, I don't agree with it, but it has nothing to do with my previous post.