Has Led Zeppelin Dated Poorly?

Happy Mondays?????????????

SecondBassman is another Miami ILX'or (current or former)! All good.

Miami then and just slightly north of there now.

Let's hear it for the Eat and the Drills and Load and the F-Boyz and seeing Marilyn Manson at Club Beirut back in the day and of course, Churchill's.

Everyone knows that Happy Mondays were massive in the US, particularly when compared to The Cure.

Those are all good choices to examine the same question. So, how do those acts stack up compared to 70s rock giants?

i think it will re some time before dates and timing get a bit more occluded allowing U2, REM, etc to be seen as huge and impt at Zeppelin. people need to stop seeing zeppelin as primary to rock 1st.

but i cant tell you how the 11 kids think about it...you do still see zeppelin shirts on kids, though...i think those kids growing up getting music knowledge and listening experience from the internet will speed the process up as they will be less likely to feel and really conceptualize the linear history. (ie: when i was young classic rock/oldies was on the radio, but only duran duran and the like were on tv (live contmeporary). with vh1 you knew it was old. now, the medium is the same...its all just there)

yeah, my dad made his fortune selling "manchester rave on" t-shirts in des moines

Now that so many years have passed, I wonder if any of those acts I grew up with are considered equal to those earlier groups

Madonna is being inducted in the Rock'n'Roll Hall Of Fame this year, in spite of not at all being rock'n'roll.
Also, Prince has several albums that have become part of the "canon". "Everyone" agrees that "Thriller" is a great album.

So it's not all guitar rock from the 80s that have survied either.

"Everyone" agrees that "Thriller" is a great album.

fuck that shit

really, shakey?

is it just that you're an 'off the wall' guy?

Off the Wall is better but best is the early Jackson 5 stuff. I am sick to death of Thriller and never need to hear it again as long as I live. Also everything MJ has done since has been so obnoxious and omnipresent and alternately offensive/disturbing its kinda made it impossible for me to enjoy any of his music at all. His talent is wildly overestimated, the amount of truly "great" songs he's written himself can be counted on one hand, and I bristle at the endless trumpeting of accepted wisdom re: his greatness...

... much like some people bristle at the endless trumpeting of accepted wisdom re: LZ's greatness.

I think the list I suggested above compares just fine with the big acts of the 60s/70s (Happy Mondays notwithstanding, fine), if you accept a few caveats: You have to cherry pick the stuff you actually like/respect. The Monkees sold more records than god, after all. You have to allow for the much decried, over-analyzed and tediously backlashed "cultural fragmentation" blah blah blah. And you have to be willing to look outside the big sellers & major labels, cuz a lot of the most influential stuff wasn't happening there (not so much the case in the 60s/70s). In other words, Sonic Youth, Joy Division, Black Flag, Smiths, etc. go on there too.

Anyway, maybe periods of wild experimentation tend to exhaust themselves. We like to think the possibilities of art are infinite (in a literal sense they are), but perhaps there are only so many huge, radical gestures available at any given point. Especially if you're still trying to get songs on the radio and sell records in Suburbia.

See, I like The Monkees. A LOT.

shakey ^^ seconded...i would love for a moratorium (at least for say 7 yrs) on thriller, purple rain, and maadonna as summed up in the imaculate collection...if i wanted to be fair, id have to put zeppelin in there too, unfortunately...

i also like the monkees a lot...

I like the Monkees, too. A lot. But they're an easy target.

Shakey OTM re: Michael Jackson.

But I don't think LZ has dated poorly. Those records are still incredibly exciting, and I've been visiting and revisiting them for 30 years now. (Longest break, probably 4 years.)

the amount of truly "great" songs he's written himself can be counted on one hand

This is a wholly irrelevant criticism.

I can't stand Michael Jackson. King of Pop, my ass.

This is a wholly irrelevant criticism.

it isn't when he calls himself "the King of Pop". Because yes I do kinda subscribe to some rockist conventions re: authorial ability when it comes to making claims about being the "King" of anything.

we might want to consider that zeppelin came about in a period where rock'n'roll had really become ok...sure still dangerous and rebelious, etc, but ok...so more easily massive as far more acceptable (though not to critics)

by the time we get to the 80's the thrill is fading. so you go more extreme, but less massive (motley crue, sonic youth). Also with tv bands are more accessable, less romantic and mysterious (hmm, look that bowie guy is on again) i.e: since i knew bon jovi would be on mtv at some time every evening (countdown) it was less mythical.

it isn't when he calls himself "the King of Pop". Because yes I do kinda subscribe to some rockist conventions re: authorial ability when it comes to making claims about being the "King" of anything.

That's your hangup, then. I think that if you actually look at the history of pop music, songwriting ability is a negligible concern; everyone is all about the performer and the interpretation.

yep, like Elvis wrote his own songs rite?

see, the trouble is, people accept him as king of pop. so i think hes allowed at this point, (even if you and i agree that "black or white" or goddamned "dirty diana" are about as good some holland dozier-holland track that never saw the electromagnetic field of a single take)

I know it is. I like songwriters. I'll take Chinn/Chapman or Gene Clark or Eric Carmen or Prince over Michael Jackson or Elvis any fucking day of the week.

x-post

Also with tv bands are more accessable, less romantic and mysterious (hmm, look that bowie guy is on again) i.e: since i knew bon jovi would be on mtv at some time every evening (countdown) it was less mythical.

Wait, aren't Bowie and Led Zepplin contemporaries? I know Bowie had a bigger career in the 80s, but still . . .

I certainly think of Bowie and Led Zepplin as being more from the same era than I do Bowie and Bon Jovi.

Haven't got time to read this entire thread at present, so forgive me if somebody's already made this point, or if it's too obvious a point: Outgrowing Led Zeppelin is NOT the same as saying their music has dated poorly.

I don't really care that he didn't write a lot of songs. He had great producers and collaborators, and made some amazing records (that wouldn't be as amazing with someone else at the front).

And you have to be willing to look outside the big sellers & major labels, cuz a lot of the most influential stuff wasn't happening there

A decade's trends isn't define by "influential" underground stuff, they are defined by what the average 12 year-old is into. Pixies and Sonic Youth are mainly a 90s thing, as far as their influence goes. The same way Velvet Underground had zero impact on 60s music, but a lot of impact of 70s, 80s and 90s, and 00s music.

Not always, Geir. Lots of people recall the 80s as the New Wave-ish era, where a lot of "college rock" bands had influence, via MTV.

i think we might need a ilm referendum to declare that michael jackson is beloved, perhaps rightfully seated as the king of pop, and/but utterly loathsome and unhealthy for the world.

we can all agree on that right?

just like we can (indeed the world can) agree that zeppelin is awesome. and that everyone has to be atleast "ok" with creedance...

when I think about it, that preference comes down to accepting the fact that a great performer still ultimately requires good material. good material otoh can and does endure whether performances of it suck or not. ergo, I place more value on the person actually generating the material. I guess its kinda a platonic ideal thing.

christ I'm veering into Geir-ish territory here...

x-post

xpost a bit

Thing is, Led Zep haven't dated poorly to these ears but are they really still culturally significant (ie do ver kids still listen to them??)
upthread people are talking about their primacy & so on but I'd be surprised if any of the russell brand clones stalking our cities' streets had even heard anything by them. possible US/UK o_O thing?

Geir, velvets had plenty of influence on 60s music

eg yardbirds clip here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwRc2of5Li4

but i do agree with your point

yes, bowie is more contemporary with zeppelin and perhaps a bad call. i guess my point in using him was that he was someone far more "romantic" and mysterious when he wasnt on tv all the time ("china girl" video looking quite like duran duran, for example)

"we can all agree on that right?"

No, I simply don't like his music. I can't listen to it. I think it sucks. I'm probably outvoted, but that's fine.

A decade's trends isn't define by "influential" underground stuff, they are defined by what the average 12 year-old is into.

If that's the case, then the Archies defined 1969. I'm not knocking the Archies, but since "Sugar Sugar" was the number one song of that year, it's safe to say the "average 12-year-old" was into them.

And since when is the average 12-year-old necessarily NOT into influential underground stuff?

Lots of people recall the 80s as the New Wave-ish era, where a lot of "college rock" bands had influence, via MTV.

MTV never showed those bands outside "120 Minutes", a program that appealed to specially interested people.

Of course it may be a question of age. I was too young in the 80s to be into that college stuff, for me it was all about the hitlists. But again, the artists in the hitlist (and the singles list in particular even though they were less important for sales) are the ones that define the decade's trends the most.

A decade's trends isn't define by "influential" underground stuff, they are defined by what the average 12 year-old is into.

-- Geir

That's just one way of looking at things, Geir. It's not "correct", just a personal preference. Which is fine, but it pays to be able to look at things from a variety of vantage points.

Categorically disliking Michael Jackson seems absurd to me, but whatever. To each his own.

But Shakey, Rod Temperton or whoever might be a great songwriter, but we wouldn't be talking about those songs w/out MJ & Quincy's sick arrangements and MJ's style.

If that's the case, then the Archies defined 1969

Bubblegum was definitely a big part of what the late 60s were about. I mean, then, not necessarily in retrospect. But also rootsy rock, represented by the likes of Rolling Stones (who had one UK #1 single in 1969) and Led Zeppelin (whose two first albums already sold in truckloads)

(nothing in that statement suggest that his music is in anyway good or enjoyable)

Billie Jean & Beat It = Class. the rest = Dud. ( i have tried but don't get it)

If that's the case, then the Archies defined 1969. I'm not knocking the Archies, but since "Sugar Sugar" was the number one song of that year, it's safe to say the "average 12-year-old" was into them.

And since when is the average 12-year-old necessarily NOT into influential underground stuff?

My 7-year old daughter puts in a vote for HANNA MONTANA as the most influential and significant artist of this decade (Hanna getting the nod over Radiohead).

Of course it may be a question of age. I was too young in the 80s to be into that college stuff, for me it was all about the hitlists.

GEIR HONGRO, STOP MAKING ME FEEL OLD.

When I was 12, my favorite albums were:

1. Men Without Hats - Rhythm of Youth
2. Red Hot Chili Peppers - s/t
3. Adam and the Ants - Kings of the Wild Frontier
4. Prince and the Revolution - Controversy
5. The Jets - s/t

Also anyone who doesn't love "Human Nature" or "Wanna Be Startin' Something" is a robot.

(btw: "sugar sugar" was written by the same dude that wrote that "rock me gently, rock me.." song in that jeep or whatever ad that was ubiquitous durring football season in the us...with the singing animals)

xpost my 7-year-old daughter was dancing to Loveless this evening. there is some hope for the next generation at least (possibly)

Arguing that the pop charts are a big part of the definition of an era's musical culture is totally valid (after all, they represent what most people were buying/hearing/enjoying).

But arguing that the pop charts are the only meaningful way to define an era's musical culture seems foolish. Intentionally blinkered. Such a view takes no account of influence or eventual significance, no account of the fact that "the past" is not a fixed object -- it changes depending on your distance from and perspective on it.

xpost my 7-year-old daughter was dancing to Loveless this evening. there is some hope for the next generation at least (possibly)

Oh, that prompts me to be serious. My seven year old girl also likes The Bleeding Heart Show from The New Pornographers and some songs from The Field's 2007 disc. And some Black Sabbath.

J/K about Sabbath. I can't back that one up.