You're a fool.

I agree with Peter in that Led Zeppelin has spawned lots of truly horrible music, however, I enjoy their early blues "rip-offs". I admit when I first heard Led Zeppelin the only songs I could stand were Good Times, Bad Times and Stairway to Heaven, but they have really grown on me, and I think their blues covers were pretty good and. As for stealing from the blues Clapton did the same thing. As for the theft of Dazed and Confused, that was unfair to Jake Holmes, but Page definately made the song his own and even the lyrics were changed quite a bit for the Led Zeppelin version. Artists steal from each other all the time, and often that is how great art is born.

You have no taste for music at all!  LZ is one of the greatest rock bands to ever walk the planet they took blues, folk, arabic, rock and roll, and tons of other styles of music and incorporated it into their own unique style of music.  You try doing that not so easy.  And if they are so bad why do people still love to listen to them now and thirty years ago?  Plant also kicks ass because no other singer would have the balls to go all out on every performance and have a lot of passion for their music. Another thing about them is that they give great shows and improvise almost every song they do to make it sound a little better each time.  You obviously have not heard there DVD they released or How the West Was Won because those are probably the best live recordings to ever exist.  So if you want to insult LZ do it somewhere else.

Finally, someone gets specific about ripping off songs. So Clapton stole Strange Brew. Do you mean the style is copied or do you mean that there's an Albert King song out there with lyrics that and/or melody were lifted? If so what is that song called? One of the things the first few Cream and Bluesbreakers albums did was steer me towards the originators. Skip James, Willie Dixon, Chester Burnett. It says so right on the albums.

I'd be interested in seeing someone compare LZ song credits on the original vinyl with CDs. Would we see the results of lawsuits? It would be ironic if the Led Zeppelin (and others) suit against this site included songs that were rip-offs from men and women that were too powerless and penniless to go after the mighty Zeppelin.

Peter H:

I'd be interested in seeing someone compare LZ song credits on the original vinyl with CDs. Would we see the results of lawsuits? It would be ironic if the Led Zeppelin (and others) suit against this site included songs that were rip-offs from men and women that were too powerless and penniless to go after the mighty Zeppelin.

All right.......so f***ing what. Yep....they were over the top. No,they definitely weren't Lennon an McCartney. Yeah, they catered to the simplest whims of their audience. OK. I'll agree with all of the above.
But what is the argument here???
Tell you what they were good at.  Effect. Which by the way, is the root of the word effective. That counts.
Another plus....as a studio band, they "executed" phenominally well. Whether or not that just means they took their time doesn't matter.....the results do. After Zeppelin II, I can find no real sloppiness.
Production was top-notch. Doubt you'd even argue that.
Took the "roll" out????? Single handedly???? You give them far too much juice. How about some other bands, that at the time were as big as,if not bigger than them???? Steppenwolf. Deep Purple.  drum roll..................
GRAND FUNK.....if your going to put things in a historical perspective,at least be fair to the times.
And last, but not least....they were melodic,with a pretty good feel on dynamics..Probably honed at all those long ago shows full of hit's and misses....Oh, one other thing;you sell John Paul Jones way too short. I happen to believe his calculated understatement was the glue that put all the bombast in listenable perspective. I think he was a huge part of their success. And he is a consummate musician....as well as a producer. Oh and yet one more "one more thing"....LOL.....
Elvis was never mistaken for Shakespeare..........

For an update on downloads, please check out

"What Performers Are Paid" in the Ladies and Gentlemen forum.

Well Peter my response is not from listening to some old bootleg lp's, I was there.The first time was in 1969 at the Orlando Sports Stadium. That was when " Whole Lotta Love" was playing on the radio. There was no opening act, the band played for better than 3 hours which included a couple of encores. Tickets back then were $5.00, I still have my stubb. To say I got my money's worth is a gross understatement. I saw them 5 more times in the next 7 years, never dissapointing me. I worked as part of the stage crew during the Tampa riot show. I got to meet Plant& Page before the show and all the trouble that followed. Over the years I liked a little bit of everything listening to Rock, Jazz, Reggae, Country, New Wave, Punk...etc.I have seen everybody from George Jones to Johnny Rotten. Yes that included the Dead (twice) in their prime as well as Pink Floyd (3), Dylan(2)the Band, Paul McCartney, Ringo& the All Stars, Joe Jackson(2), Elvis Costello(3), Johnny Cash, Merle Haggard, Herbie Hancock, Stevie Wonder, B.B. King, Eric Clapton (4) just to name a few. I am 50yrs old now and still going to shows. Point is they were the best live band I have ever seen, period.....end of conversation.

In reply to this Dork's jibberish :
The Jeff Beck Group (w/ Wood, Stewart,Waller, Hopkins) version of "You Shook Me" was on their first lp "Truth". Not their second,(and final ) lp "Beck-ola".

"When Led Zeppelin came out in early ‘69 I was 14 and Jeff Beck’s Beck-Ola had already been on the turntable for half a year. Three songs into LZ came You Shook Me. I distinctly remember reaching for Beck-Ola to play Beck’s earlier version. I thought, hey wait a minute. This is a rip-off. And that Rod Stewart guy is a better singer. Yeah, I said it.  (After ‘74 I can’t defend Rod but wait until the Vault puts up Jeff Beck Group’s 07/24/68 show.)"

Peter H,

I agree with you, you hit it right on the head and I enjoyed your writing.

Rock On

Peter H:

Rush breaks the no chipmunks rule. I have to admit that when Rush was at its peak of popularity I was busy with the Ramones, Clash,
Gang of Four and Bruce Springsteen.

Just reading this thread and this says it all:
Peter H, you're a geek, a nerd, a misfit. I remember your type back then....I've got your number now. You were a nerd, a pinhead....the long-haired, partying guys scared you. Bands like Zep were to heavy for you to relate to because the crowd that followed them scared you. I'll bet you're the type that has conniptions when someone lights a joint at a rock show.

I would never expect a Clash/Springsteen follower to understand Zep. Too heady for guys like you. Too badboy.

You're a cheeseball, pop-culture follower...
bands like Zeppelin are too dirty for you.....to scary.....too druggy........

Elvis Costello, "Pump It Up"......
yeah, that's deep stuff alright.
And you think this man can sing? Let alone write good songs.
Yuck. Gimme a break. He's a horrible. He sings like a living adenoid. He's a geek too..
....pffffff.....

If your telling the truth about your age than that makes you around 53, which puts you at an age where "your time is way past", musically. You're just bitter that Zeppelin put such a huge, mighty stamp on rock'n'roll. Too bad. Shat happens. Quit ranting like an old fart......you sound like my 76 year-old Dad.

What I will agree on is that the Beatles were a more prolific band. That's about it though....

I loved the Beatles.

Peter H:

Cream.

Lame band. The equivalent of musical masturbation.
Talk about self-indulgent, mindless dribble.
I bought a couple of their albums back in the day....

...but you know what? Their music is incredibly "dated". It didn't stand the test of time like Zeppelin's catalog. Teenagers all over the world are still tuning in and turning onto Zeppelin. Zeppelin's music still is in heavy rotation on rock radio. Why? Because unfortunately for you, it has mass appeal and millions of folks would rather here that than Cream, Springsteen, the Ramones or the Clash.

Zeppelin has stood the test of time. Their music still carries the same weight today, much to the dismay of old farts like you.

Whip out the Lawrence Welk and Montavani.

Zeppelin never stood for anything.  That's why the the music press hated them (snubbing the press didn't help...) and that's why the hippies of the 60's and early 70's didn't like them (and they are the most outspoken of the youth back then).  That's why it's hard to find glowing reviews of their music from back in the day.  They were loved by the silent masses. 

 

I may not have worded that completely right, but I think it explains them. 

dude ya got to reelize alot of singers,were hopped up on dope or such things !

I saw Led Zeppelin at Green Lake in Seattle in 1968 or so.  They were completely smashed. They could barely stand much less play. I was really excited to see them on the strength of their first album, but left after 2-3 songs. I still really like that album and some of their other stuff, but I have never been more disappointed by concert and have never seen them again.

I know. I saw Leo Kottke when he was drunk enough to be offered a chair, which he declined. The first time I saw Little Feet play, they were passing around doobies an inch across. They played great shows. Led Zeppelin's self-indulgence was as legendary as their drug abuse and on this occasion, they were too self-absorbed to play a decent show for 700-800 fans who were wild about seeing them.