Has Led Zeppelin Dated Poorly?

lolz Radiohead as an "80s band". Actually I think REM, the Cure, and especially Joy Division/New Order are heavily canonized for being "influential" at this point.

U2 as well, but I can't stand them.

zeppelin fucking rules

Shakey: I thought I said "80s to present." If not, it should say that.

I know Radiohead isn't an 80s band.

oh haha sorry

in that case the "elephant in the room" re: your list is Nirvana

Them, too. I wasn't trying to give an exhaustive list, but I should have mentioned them.

Robert Plant stopped being able to truly sing about two decades ago

he can't scream anymore, but he sounds good on the alison krauss record.

Robert Plant stopped being able to truly sing about two decades ago

dude you need to hear the album with alison krauss, it's seriously great

ghaaa xp

The tendency to make grand sweeping generalizations based on your own beliefs is one that we all must fight, I know.

But while I can't get on board with this whole ". . . little more than a workman-like mish-mash of riffs and blues cliches" thing, this might be a good place to share the idea that for my lovely girlfriend and I, "Kashmir" is a dumb joke.

It's a wonderful injoke for us, we find it absolutely hilarious whenever we hear it, like if some ballplayer or the other uses it as his song, if we hear it at some bar or some restaurant, or God forbid at somebody's house, it's a kind of shorthand for us for "these people are stupid AND stoned."

I remember when I was in junior high, I ran into my buddy Jose at a park somewhere, maybe in Coconut Grove, he was carrying this monstrous boom box he'd just bought, had steel handles welded onto the sides it looked like, and my bud was all stoked coz he had "Kashmir" loaded up onto the thing, at a time when all of it was still new to us. He pressed play and I still remember how bombastic the drums seemed.

But in retrospect, "Kashmir" seems plodding, moronic, pretentious, and just plain silly.

I still believe that Zeppelin never made an album that wasn't great. I love "Over the Hills and Far Away" like I love anything. There's stuff on III that has never been duplicated, and "Carouselambra" is mighty.

But man, "Kashmir." It's embarassing almost.

LZ is great but tbh i don't like "black dog" at all. everything else is pretty awesome though.

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

I agree with Dan about Beyoncé, mainly because she can sing better than anyone else on that list. I think good singing and good pipes tend to last longer, as various fashions and modes of "bad" singing lose the context that once made them urgent+key.

I guess this is a decent rule of thumb but I don't know that I 100% agree with it, particularly when you consider people like Bob Dylan.

On a fundamental level, I can't fathom how any could possibly dislike Led Zepplin. Everything about them is pretty much 100% on at all times for me.

alls i knows is that you still see 10-year olds in Led Zeppelin t-shirts. you won't see anyone in Beyonce shirts ten years from now.

O RLY?

i've been to the future. everyone there wears Huey Lewis shirts

That's because Beyonce fans aren't going to become irritating dads that dress their kids in Beyonce t-shirts and make them go to R&B camp.

That's actually gonna start happening circa '09. The great music wars afterwards will result in Huey Lewis reclaiming his rightful crown as the king of music.

bow down to the phallic majesty of ROCK

Doc, we gotta get back!

that's the power of love

dude thanks for the link! what a jam! they must have amazing live back in the day

been amazing, whatever. has dread zeppelin dated poorly?

Problem w/ the original post is that so much of it = "not hitting me anymore". The fact that you once loved Zep but no longer feel it says much more about you & time than about the band's relationship w/ the present moment. To make this kind of critique stick, you really have to be hearing something for the 1st time.

***

would people say that the Cure, R.E.M., Radiohead, U2, Bauhaus, Joy Division and New Order are equal to, say, Led Zepplin, Boston, Yes and big acts of that era?

-- Daniel

Sure. Why not? I quibble with the fact that your list tilts so hard in favor of not-particularly-mainstream UK goth faves (Cure, Bauhaus, Joy Div), but even so, these bands continue to be wildly influential and adored to an almost terrifying degree by their fans. It's hard to see R.E.M. as anything more than mildly pleasant, at best, but I don't think they compare unfavorably with, say, Boston.

In general, though, "big rock" in the 90s/00s does seem rather pared-down and timid in comparison with the 60s/70s. Mainstream stuff is less experimental, less ambitious & grandiose; subcult stuff more willfully insular and off-putting. Still, I think this has more to do with what modern audiences actually want than any deficiency on the part of contemporary rock bands.

I mean, a list of "big rock" acts releasing event albums, 80s - presesnt seems like it should concentrate on the likes of: Duran Duran, The Cars, Bruce Springsteen, Motley Crue, Prince, U2, REM, Guns 'n' Roses, Happy Mondays, Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Tool, Oasis, White Stripes, Radiohead, etc.

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