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..........