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.