It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
from 1970
(not that I think that they actually did overtake The Beatles, as far as musical influence is concerned anyway, but I do love Zep).
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
You do have a point.... when it comes to agricultural innovations.
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
It is a fact that Deep Purple MK II only came about because Blackmore went to see Led Zep, but apart from that, there's no hierarchy or anything.
Which early albums? Are you talking about "Mark 1" DP, or the "Mark 2" run of In Rock, Fireball, Machine Head and Who Do We Think We Are?
If the former, I can't disagree as I haven't heard them. If the latter, and you're claiming they're better than Led Zep I-IV then I want some of what you're schmoking.
There's some great tunes on those DP albums, but there's some right old shite (Someone's Daughter) and they feel less coherent as albums. But then I reckon LZ IV is just about perfect.
My real sticking point with Purple has always been their lyrics though. Sure, neither of them are Dylanesque lyrical geniuses- Plant's are mostly double-entendres, sex noises and cosmic bollocks, but Gillan's are pure weaponized fuckawfulness.
And the squealing.
Sweet Mary mother of God the squealing.
Don't talk politics and don't throw stones. Your royal highnesses.
Bandcamp
Led Zep released Led Zeppelin III in late 1970 to mixed reviews. It eventually sold well, but there were duff tracks on the album. Led Zep IV was a classic and Zep got better as DP went into decline.
If you created a greatest hits package you'd see they are both great bands. Saw them both live in the 70s .. very different beasts.
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
Feedback
As for Purple, I'm still fond of some of it, as for their lyrics who can resist a bit of knocking at your back door ?
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
Shame. It's one of their least awful lyrics. Not that I'd ever have guessed it was supposed to be an anti-war song.
Don't talk politics and don't throw stones. Your royal highnesses.
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
Feedback
The music press were famously lukewarm during the 70s about pretty much everything Zeppelin did. As with financial measures, you're probably going to end up with some very odd "best" artists if you rate bands only by what music journalists thought of them in their own era.
Can't disagree. Both had some great material. It's just my opinion that Led Zep managed to channel that material in to better albums than Purple did, and that the gulf between their best stuff and their worst is narrower.
I always get this odd vibe from Deep Purple- Ritchie Blackmore is a self-obsessed knobber, and the whole band have always seemed a little too pleased with themselves in interviews for my liking, and I swear I can hear that in their music. It sounds pompous and self-congratulatory.
That said, one of the things I really love about rock music of the late 60s and early 70s is that bands were getting signed that you could really have an opinion about. Bands with glaring flaws. Bands whose songs probably would have been conventionally "better" with a bit more pre-production, some input from a rent-a-writer and a few focus groups*. Bands you could bloody love, or really fucking hate. Or both at the same time. I don't hear that in many modern mainstream acts.
* I've talked about it on here before, but if any of you nerdy classic rock fans get a chance to hear the remixed (not just remastered) 1991 The Best of Free: All Right Now album Bob Clearmountain did (currently from 24p used on Amazon), it's a really interesting experience once you get over your initial urge to throw the CD out the window, then go find it and stamp on it.
Basically, super-slick 80s producer (Bon Jovi, Bryan Adams, Springsteen) gets free reign over barely-produced blues-rock minimalists' multitracks (nobody from the band was involved in the remix), adds a shit ton of reverb and drum samples but also edits out superfluous guitar solos and man-groans, beefs up the sound and "fixes" arrangements- basically all the stuff a producer would have done to their albums when they were recorded/mixed/mastered if they'd been around in 1991 instead of 1971. I've owned that album for 20-something years and I still can't decide if it's sacrilege or brilliant audacity.
Don't talk politics and don't throw stones. Your royal highnesses.
The fact that a lot of Zepp is now discredited as being 'reworked' is something against thier being wholly original, however the fact that they are influential (and look so rock n' roll) cannot be denied.
Listen to these and tell me Led Zeppelin's versions aren't significantly different.
Oh wait. Or did they steal it from...
Don't talk politics and don't throw stones. Your royal highnesses.