redbarchetta
|
Edited Dec 06, 2007, 12:58
Re: Is Zeppelin Really That Good? Maybe Sabbath...
Dec 06, 2007, 12:56
|
Sabbath win hands down for me every time. I don't see them as heavy metal per se - more like amped pschedelic rock with distortion pedals.
Zep were a bit too portentious and overblown, and Page's guitar never quite had the long range influence that Iommi has, to my mind.
Zep did cut some great records - I've yet to meet anyone who doesn't like Physical Graffitti. But Sabbath had an edge - an ear for a great tune, a sound to die for and a more street level sensibility - and in Geezer Butler a really talented lyricist (the words to Spiral Architect for instance).
Influence wise, Sabbath inspired a million garage bands, their sound is extant to this day. Zep were among the last of the blues rock behemoths.
Also, if Hammer of the Gods has just a micron of truth in it, I wouldn't have cared to have spent much time in the same room as Page and especially Bonham.
That's my tuppence worth.
|
Mule
|
Re: Is Zeppelin Really That Good? Maybe Sabbath...
Dec 06, 2007, 13:25
|
|
redbarchetta wrote:
Sabbath win hands down for me every time. I don't see them as heavy metal per se - more like amped pschedelic rock with distortion pedals.
Now there's a debate! I agree, I wouldn't call Sabs heavy metal. In fact, I'd argue that heavy metal as a genre (regardless of who first used the term and when) didn't exist until the New Wave Of British Heavy Metal. I'm well aware that the phrase might well have been used occasionally by reviewers, just like any other phrase. But I don't believe it can be legitimately applied to any band pre-NWOBHM.
I recall as a 12-year-old asking my brothers, "So are Led Zeppelin hard rock or heavy rock?" - because they were the only terms we used. I think - going a bit academic here, I apologise - heavy metal might only be applied more properly to those emulating pre-punk rock, with the benefit of the hindsight of punk.
Anyway, that's enough bollocks from me! I can sense people nodding off!
|
zphage
|
Re: Is Zeppelin Really That Good? Maybe Sabbath...
Dec 06, 2007, 13:30
|
Definitely in the 70's hard rock had not yet calcified into metal.
In the late 60's and early 70's heaviness could mean Vanilla Fudge, Spooky Tooth, Atomic Rooster, and whatever Hendrix and Miles were currently doing.
(thanks everyone for the great insights/responses)
|
Vybik Jon
|
Re: Is Zeppelin Really That Good? Maybe Sabbath...
Dec 06, 2007, 16:01
|
|
zphage wrote: Definitely in the 70's hard rock had not yet calcified into metal.
The first Montrose album would call that statement into question as would large chunks of Budgie's catalogue.
|
Dog 3000
|
Re: Is Zeppelin Really That Good? Maybe Sabbath...
Dec 06, 2007, 16:49
|
Budgie had exactly the same producer as Black Sabbath: Roger Bain. (And both bands only started to sound more polished after leaving his tutelage; Sabbath for their 4th record and Budgie for their 3rd.)
And yes, you're right, Zeppelin was obviously modeled on the Who, at least "structurally" (virtuoso power trio + lion maned rock god). But their musical style was quite a bit different.
I think Zeppelin's influence is everywhere (or at least "was" in the days before rock was put in a museum) -- and more prominent than Sabbath's (the Sabs weren't "rehabilitated" into a "legit" influence til at least the '90s.)
Zep's position in rock is a bit like Charlie Parker in jazz -- his saxophone playing doesn't sound all that innovative today, but that's only because of the perspective of history. After everybody copied him for decades, his style became "generic jazz." But it was radical stuff in the context of the times it was created in.
The most influential artists are the ones whose influence is so all-pervasive that it replaces the previous paradigm and becomes the new paradigm.
Think of Zeppelin in the context of stodgy old Cream or Clapton-era Yardbirds, and it's clear they were a huge step forward in terms of "sonic mass & depth."
Bad Company, AC/DC, Wolfmother and all the rest who came after don't represent nearly as large of a leap from Zep (they could be said to merely be doing variations on Zep themes, whereas you can't really say Zep was just doing variations on Cream or The Who themes.)
|
riotmaster
|
Re: Is Zeppelin Really That Good? Maybe Sabbath...
Dec 06, 2007, 17:56
|
AC/DC "doing variations on Zep themes" ?
BEHAVE
|
sakedelic
|
Edited Dec 06, 2007, 18:08
Re: Is Zeppelin Really That Good? Maybe Sabbath...
Dec 06, 2007, 18:08
|
I agree with the Dog here about Zep's 'fluence, but maybe if you replace "AC/DC" with "Aerosmith" that sentence would resonate more
satisfactorily with you....
|
Spaceship mark
|
Re: Is Zeppelin Really That Good? Maybe Sabbath...
Dec 06, 2007, 18:10
|
|
But is it 'Is Zeppelin' or 'Are Zeppelin'?
|
Dog 3000
|
Re: Is Zeppelin Really That Good? Maybe Sabbath...
Dec 06, 2007, 18:14
|
Absolutely -- AC/DC certainly weren't following in the footsteps of Cream or the Beatles or Bob Dylan.
Who else would have been their primary inspiration?* Did you think they invented the idea of loud, pounding blues-based rock from out of nowhere in 1973?
(* might have been The Coloured Balls actually!)
|
Piquiod
|
Re: Is Zeppelin Really That Good? Maybe Sabbath...
Dec 06, 2007, 18:30
|
Zep was the template for all the 80's hair bands. this was a bad influence on rock and roll
Jane's Addiction was influences somewhat by Zeppelin, but only in "feel" not out and out sound...they really captured the vibe and urgency that Zep's music put out.
I think the positive influence they had was one more of approach to music, and to the possibilities that rock could offer.
The transcendence of the groove, and the togetherness of making live music is something Zeppelin exemplified and its something bands still try to attain.
their music was colorful magic, and the feelings you felt afterward are the ones todays bands want you to feel.
|
