MyLesPaul.com
Homepage - Sponsors - Subscription - Advertise - Spy  
Go Back   MyLesPaul.com > Music Gear > The Cellar
LIKE MyLesPaul on Facebook FOLLOW MyLesPaul on Twitter FOLLOW MyLesPaul on Instagram
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-31-2011, 05:51 PM   #1
Bluesyzep
Senior Member
 
Bluesyzep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 759
Thanks: 2
Thanked 30 Times in 10 Posts
Led Zeppelin vs. Rolling Stone Magazine

I was on another forum reading up about the early days of Zeppelin and Rolling Stones take on them. This reignited my longstanding annoyance with Rolling Stone. I was wondering about anyone elses thoughts on this. I know Jimmy definitely took it personal and am not sure if he ever gave them the time of day again. Does anyone know Rolling Stones take on Zeppelin today? Are they considered one of the greatest bands today or do they still get the back door treatment? Personally, I feel they owe the whole band an apology for their short sightedness.

For those not in the know I'm referring to Rolling Stones generally poor reviews of Led Zeppelin back in the day.
__________________
Peace, Love, and Led Zeppelin

Shout out to The White Stripes. Thank you.
Bluesyzep is offline   Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Old 08-31-2011, 06:15 PM   #2
craigh
Senior Member
 
craigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 186
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Led Zeppelin vs. Rolling Stone Magazine

If it's in Rolling Stone, it has to be true - Frank Zappa

Craig
craigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 06:17 PM   #3
christophervolume
Senior Member
 
christophervolume's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: stage/studio
Posts: 2,021
Thanks: 2
Thanked 31 Times in 17 Posts
Re: Led Zeppelin vs. Rolling Stone Magazine

+1 for the stones
__________________
The 321s - Retro Rock N' Soul
www.facebook.com/the321s
The Heaters - Garage Rock N' Roll
www.myspace.com/heaters
The Blackbirds - Folk/Americana
www.facebook.com/theblackbirdsmusic
christophervolume is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 06:22 PM   #4
EasyAce
Senior Member
 
EasyAce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 13,551
Thanks: 124
Thanked 244 Times in 100 Posts
Re: Led Zeppelin vs. Rolling Stone Magazine

Rolling Stone today tends to treat Led Zeppelin with retrospective respect. I still have the issue from 2006 on which Zeppelin was the cover story and the story was a well-written analysis of their career---the good, the bad, and the ugly alike. (It was the same issue, by the way, in which RS published a kind of eulogy [bulleted on the lower right of the front cover] to Pink Floyd founder Syd Barrett, who had just died . . .)


The cover headline for Mikal Gilmore's article read: Led Zeppelin: The Heaviest Band of All Time---Metal, Black Magic, and Sex. The article itself was headlined: The Long Shadow of Led Zeppelin and sub-headed thus:

Quote:
Savaged by critics, adored by fans, the biggest band of the Seventies took sex, drugs, and rock & roll to epic heights before collapsing under the weight of its own heaviness.
And, this was the opening paragraph:

Quote:
There is no other story in rock and roll like the story of Led Zeppelin because the story is an argument---about music, about who makes it, who hears it, and who judges its meanings. Mainly, though, it's an argument about the work, merits, and life of a band that has been both treasured and scorned now for more than thirty-five years. The arguments started as soon as the band did, rooted in a conviction that Led Zeppelin represented a new world, a new age---a rift between the hard-fought values of the 1960s and the real-life pleasures and recklessness of the 1970s. Either the band was taking us forward or taking us under, illuminating the times or darkening them. Those in the band weren't always sure themselves where everything was headed; things moved big and moved fast and nothing simple happened. When everything was done, good and bad, the music withstood it all. Led Zeppelin---talented, complex, grasping, beautiful and dangerous---made one of the most enduring bodies of composition and performance in twentieth-century music, despite everything they had to overpower, including themselves. Led Zeppelin were playing for new ears, and three and a half decades later, their music still plays the same way. Those sounds rushed through us and ahead of us, into territory that seemed to have no ending.
I'm not entirely sure that would qualify as evidence of ongoing institutional hatred or ambivalence about a band. But since few if any Rolling Stone staffers today were staffers on the magazine at the time Led Zeppelin took flight, I'm not convinced the magazine owes them any kind of apology. Critics have their views; buyers have their views. And God knows how many buyers have made popular music that was (is?) positively abhorrent, for who knows what reasons. (I mean, could anyone explain the mass popularity back in the year of, say, Grand Funk Railroad, who probably had only one genuinely good album's worth of material over ten studio albums by the original band? That's just one example.)

I do remember one factor that might have turned the Rolling Stone of 1969 against Led Zeppelin---when manager Peter Grant pried a $200,000 advance out of Atlantic Records for their U.S. albums in late 1968, a record advance at the time for a new act, and also obtained complete artistic control for the band, he had been heavy-handed enough about it that it created an image problem for the band before they'd even gotten their first album into the stores. It wasn't exactly a clever idea to call their publishing company Superhype Music---it might have been a bid to laugh at the accusations that Led Zeppelin was a hype, but it backfired on them to a certain extent. I'm also convinced that Grant's heavy-handed tactics in managing the band through its earliest tours---not to mention his employment of a debaucher named Richard Cole to handle the band themselves in the States---worked against them as well. Sometimes your managers can be and often are your own worst enemies.

I myself thought Led Zeppelin inconsistent---when they were good, they were in their own league, individually and as a band; when they weren't (especially in concert, where they could be breathtaking one night and resemble something worse than a lot of bar bands covering their stuff on another night, though in absolute fairness Jimmy Page's dub-happiness and guitarchestra obsessions probably worked most against the band in concert, since it was probably well-nigh impossible for them to recreate a lot of their repertoire onstage with any kind of consistent depth), they weren't.
__________________
Electrics: Lou Pallo sig, R9, R6, Classic Antique, Flying V, Flying V "Holy V," Boho Surf Wax, Gretsch G5700 Electromatic lap steel; acoustic: Orpheum OR20 resonator; Fender Blues Junior tweed; Ernie Ball volume pedal; Boss 65 Fender Deluxe Reverb pedal.

The blues had a baby and they named it rock and roll.---Muddy Waters. All things considered, the blues should have had an abortion.---Yours truly.


https://soundcloud.com/easyace/rest-octet
EasyAce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 06:27 PM   #5
River
Senior Member
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rural Colorado, USA
Posts: 57,231
Thanks: 787
Thanked 1,123 Times in 89 Posts
Re: Led Zeppelin vs. Rolling Stone Magazine

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluesyzep View Post
For those not in the know I'm referring to Rolling Stones generally poor reviews of Led Zeppelin back in the day.
It wasn't just them.

River is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 06:28 PM   #6
River
Senior Member
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rural Colorado, USA
Posts: 57,231
Thanks: 787
Thanked 1,123 Times in 89 Posts
Re: Led Zeppelin vs. Rolling Stone Magazine

Quote:
Originally Posted by christophervolume View Post
+1 for the stones
Huh?
River is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 06:43 PM   #7
msfenderarg
Senior Member
 
msfenderarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: "alla fine del mondo"
Posts: 5,438
Thanks: 159
Thanked 37 Times in 8 Posts
Re: Led Zeppelin vs. Rolling Stone Magazine

Quote:
Originally Posted by river View Post
huh?
+1 for Huh?


.
__________________

If it ain't broke, Mod it till it is

Leonidas no is puteus in primoris rudimentum
msfenderarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 06:51 PM   #8
kingedb
Senior Member
 
kingedb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Lansdale, PA
Posts: 11,923
Thanks: 396
Thanked 60 Times in 17 Posts
Re: Led Zeppelin vs. Rolling Stone Magazine

"John Bonham, surely the clumsiest and most simpleminded percussionist in any major rock group," - Larry Rohter

Mr Rohter, you are an oak.
kingedb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 07:25 PM   #9
Bluesyzep
Senior Member
 
Bluesyzep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 759
Thanks: 2
Thanked 30 Times in 10 Posts
Re: Led Zeppelin vs. Rolling Stone Magazine

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingedb View Post
"John Bonham, surely the clumsiest and most simpleminded percussionist in any major rock group," - Larry Rohter

Mr Rohter, you are an oak.
I'm aware of their live inconsistencies but the comment about John Bohnam stood out to me. WTF....Googling Larry Rohter. Lets see what his claim to fame is. If I'd seen a more direct attack against JPJ I would have had to give a double WTF! Never heard one bad comment about him any capacity.

Currently a writer at the N.Y. Times. I started to send him and e-mail but decided against it. Would probably freak the guy out. LOL.
__________________
Peace, Love, and Led Zeppelin

Shout out to The White Stripes. Thank you.
Bluesyzep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 07:38 PM   #10
Bluesyzep
Senior Member
 
Bluesyzep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 759
Thanks: 2
Thanked 30 Times in 10 Posts
Re: Led Zeppelin vs. Rolling Stone Magazine

Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyAce View Post
Rolling Stone today tends to treat Led Zeppelin with retrospective respect. I still have the issue from 2006 on which Zeppelin was the cover story and the story was a well-written analysis of their career---the good, the bad, and the ugly alike. (It was the same issue, by the way, in which RS published a kind of eulogy [bulleted on the lower right of the front cover] to Pink Floyd founder Syd Barrett, who had just died . . .)


The cover headline for Mikal Gilmore's article read: Led Zeppelin: The Heaviest Band of All Time---Metal, Black Magic, and Sex. The article itself was headlined: The Long Shadow of Led Zeppelin and sub-headed thus:



And, this was the opening paragraph:



I'm not entirely sure that would qualify as evidence of ongoing institutional hatred or ambivalence about a band. But since few if any Rolling Stone staffers today were staffers on the magazine at the time Led Zeppelin took flight, I'm not convinced the magazine owes them any kind of apology. Critics have their views; buyers have their views. And God knows how many buyers have made popular music that was (is?) positively abhorrent, for who knows what reasons. (I mean, could anyone explain the mass popularity back in the year of, say, Grand Funk Railroad, who probably had only one genuinely good album's worth of material over ten studio albums by the original band? That's just one example.)

I do remember one factor that might have turned the Rolling Stone of 1969 against Led Zeppelin---when manager Peter Grant pried a $200,000 advance out of Atlantic Records for their U.S. albums in late 1968, a record advance at the time for a new act, and also obtained complete artistic control for the band, he had been heavy-handed enough about it that it created an image problem for the band before they'd even gotten their first album into the stores. It wasn't exactly a clever idea to call their publishing company Superhype Music---it might have been a bid to laugh at the accusations that Led Zeppelin was a hype, but it backfired on them to a certain extent. I'm also convinced that Grant's heavy-handed tactics in managing the band through its earliest tours---not to mention his employment of a debaucher named Richard Cole to handle the band themselves in the States---worked against them as well. Sometimes your managers can be and often are your own worst enemies.

I myself thought Led Zeppelin inconsistent---when they were good, they were in their own league, individually and as a band; when they weren't (especially in concert, where they could be breathtaking one night and resemble something worse than a lot of bar bands covering their stuff on another night, though in absolute fairness Jimmy Page's dub-happiness and guitarchestra obsessions probably worked most against the band in concert, since it was probably well-nigh impossible for them to recreate a lot of their repertoire onstage with any kind of consistent depth), they weren't.
This pretty much answered my question. Good to see that they came to grips with issue.
__________________
Peace, Love, and Led Zeppelin

Shout out to The White Stripes. Thank you.
Bluesyzep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 07:43 PM   #11
River
Senior Member
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rural Colorado, USA
Posts: 57,231
Thanks: 787
Thanked 1,123 Times in 89 Posts
Re: Led Zeppelin vs. Rolling Stone Magazine

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluesyzep View Post
I'm aware of their live inconsistencies but the comment about John Bohnam stood out to me. WTF....Googling Larry Rohter. Lets see what his claim to fame is. If I'd seen a more direct attack against JPJ I would have had to give a double WTF! Never heard one bad comment about him any capacity.
Did you read that review I posted? I attended that show. No, it wasn't as good as the shows I saw in '72 and '75, but it was good. Led Zeppelin good.

"...stolid and unimaginative rhythm section..."

That's your man Bonham and my man Jones. It's laughable.
River is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 08:11 PM   #12
Sweeper5
Senior Member
 
Sweeper5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 577
Thanks: 3
Thanked 33 Times in 11 Posts
Re: Led Zeppelin vs. Rolling Stone Magazine

Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyAce View Post

I myself thought Led Zeppelin inconsistent---when they were good, they were in their own league, individually and as a band; when they weren't (especially in concert, where they could be breathtaking one night and resemble something worse than a lot of bar bands covering their stuff on another night, though in absolute fairness Jimmy Page's dub-happiness and guitarchestra obsessions probably worked most against the band in concert, since it was probably well-nigh impossible for them to recreate a lot of their repertoire onstage with any kind of consistent depth), they weren't.
I sooooo agree with this. Jimmy Page was a pioneer and one of the first true "rock guitar composers", but because he was the only guitarist in the band, he had to multi-track and overdub all of the guitar parts in the studio. Genius work and a real joy to me every time I listen to those old Zep tracks. But you are so right when you say that their live playing suffered when compared to their studio work. I also agree that there were huge inconsistencies of the live performance vids I've seen, and heard. A world of difference between the musical performance quality between these two clips (especially the vocals, but everything really):

I find this one damn f*&^king good, and it captures the raw power and excitement that was Led Zeppelin.



And this only one yr. later at Madison Sq Garden...to me it is disappointing. Don't get me wrong guys, Led Zeppelin is my all time favorite band and always will be...but I remember watching this performance for the first time (in The Song Remains The Same movie), and I remember how disheartened and let down I felt. Robert's soaring vocals were cheated down to the point that the melody of the songs were altered (they didn't even sound like the same songs). Some of you guys may disagree with me, and that's cool. But for my money, these two performances are not in the same league.



I'm interested to hear what some of you guys think after comparing these two performances.
__________________
--Sweeper5--
Gibson Trad Pro Goldtop
Tom Anderson Drop Top
Terry C McInturff Glory Standard
Ibanez Prestige S-1270FB
Breedlove AD25/SR Plus Acoustic
Schecter Elite5 Bass
Marshall JCM 900 4101
POD X3
Sonar 8.5.3 DAW
KRK Rockit 8's
Yamaha SY-85
Sweeper5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 08:26 PM   #13
Bluesyzep
Senior Member
 
Bluesyzep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 759
Thanks: 2
Thanked 30 Times in 10 Posts
Re: Led Zeppelin vs. Rolling Stone Magazine

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweeper5 View Post
I sooooo agree with this. Jimmy Page was a pioneer and one of the first true "rock guitar composers", but because he was the only guitarist in the band, he had to multi-track and overdub all of the guitar parts in the studio. Genius work and a real joy to me every time I listen to those old Zep tracks. But you are so right when you say that their live playing suffered when compared to their studio work. I also agree that there were huge inconsistencies of the live performance vids I've seen, and heard. A world of difference between the musical performance quality between these two clips (especially the vocals, but everything really):

I find this one damn f*&^king good, and it captures the raw power and excitement that was Led Zeppelin.

Led Zeppelin - Rock'n'Roll (1972) - YouTube


And this only one yr. later at Madison Sq Garden...to me it is disappointing. Don't get me wrong guys, Led Zeppelin is my all time favorite band and always will be...but I remember watching this performance for the first time (in The Song Remains The Same movie), and I remember how disheartened and let down I felt. Robert's soaring vocals were cheated down to the point that the melody of the songs were altered (they didn't even sound like the same songs). Some of you guys may disagree with me, and that's cool. But for my money, these two performances are not in the same league.

Led Zeppelin - Rock n' Roll (Live at MSG, 1973) HD - YouTube


I'm interested to hear what some of you guys think after comparing these two performances.
I think the 73' version sounds pretty good until compared to the 72' version. I'd describe it as being much tighter.
__________________
Peace, Love, and Led Zeppelin

Shout out to The White Stripes. Thank you.

Last edited by Bluesyzep; 09-01-2011 at 04:43 PM.
Bluesyzep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 09:13 PM   #14
Thumpalumpacus
Outside Cat
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 67,450
Thanks: 1,464
Thanked 798 Times in 88 Posts
Re: Led Zeppelin vs. Rolling Stone Magazine

RS has this annoying habit of hating bands, and then when history shows them wrong, they pretend to have liked them all along.
__________________
Objects in rear-view mirror may be farther away than they appear.
Thumpalumpacus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 09:17 PM   #15
River
Senior Member
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rural Colorado, USA
Posts: 57,231
Thanks: 787
Thanked 1,123 Times in 89 Posts
Re: Led Zeppelin vs. Rolling Stone Magazine

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweeper5 View Post
I'm interested to hear what some of you guys think after comparing these two performances.
Led Zeppelin live does not do well when autopsied. I won't argue that with anyone, "there" or not.

It was what it was, and it was awesome. I'll decline to attend the post-mortem.
River is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 09:29 PM   #16
Eric Smith
Senior Member
 
Eric Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: U.S. 30 & 31
Posts: 7,476
Thanks: 121
Thanked 40 Times in 24 Posts
Re: Led Zeppelin vs. Rolling Stone Magazine

Quote:
Originally Posted by River View Post
It wasn't just them.

When I read this I can't help but think, holy crap, $19.99 for pantsuits that normally cost $30? That is a great deal.
Eric Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 09:33 PM   #17
River
Senior Member
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rural Colorado, USA
Posts: 57,231
Thanks: 787
Thanked 1,123 Times in 89 Posts
Re: Led Zeppelin vs. Rolling Stone Magazine

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Smith View Post
When I read this I can't help but think, holy crap, $19.99 for pantsuits that normally cost $30? That is a great deal.
Guess how much the concert tickets were, '72 and '77. NOT adjusted for inflation.
River is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 09:40 PM   #18
Eric Smith
Senior Member
 
Eric Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: U.S. 30 & 31
Posts: 7,476
Thanks: 121
Thanked 40 Times in 24 Posts
Re: Led Zeppelin vs. Rolling Stone Magazine

Lets not forget that Zep rarely did anything the same twice in a row and who knows, maybe Plant was having some issue with his voice or possibly there is a difference because of the difference in recording equip. Who knows. I know that RS didn't like Houses or Graffiti.
Eric Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 09:49 PM   #19
Eric Smith
Senior Member
 
Eric Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: U.S. 30 & 31
Posts: 7,476
Thanks: 121
Thanked 40 Times in 24 Posts
Re: Led Zeppelin vs. Rolling Stone Magazine

Quote:
Originally Posted by River View Post
Guess how much the concert tickets were, '72 and '77. NOT adjusted for inflation.
I have a pretty good idea.





Eric Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 10:07 PM   #20
EasyAce
Senior Member
 
EasyAce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 13,551
Thanks: 124
Thanked 244 Times in 100 Posts
Re: Led Zeppelin vs. Rolling Stone Magazine

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingedb View Post
"John Bonham, surely the clumsiest and most simpleminded percussionist in any major rock group," - Larry Rohter

Mr Rohter, you are an oak.
He should have said "drum soloist." A Bonzo drum solo, sorry to say, was a perfect excuse for a dinner break during one of their shows. (Even for Plant, Page, and Jones, whom I heard sometimes left the venue entirely when Bonzo was hunting Moby Dick . . . ) He was a great drummer but as a soloist he was a snooze . . .
__________________
Electrics: Lou Pallo sig, R9, R6, Classic Antique, Flying V, Flying V "Holy V," Boho Surf Wax, Gretsch G5700 Electromatic lap steel; acoustic: Orpheum OR20 resonator; Fender Blues Junior tweed; Ernie Ball volume pedal; Boss 65 Fender Deluxe Reverb pedal.

The blues had a baby and they named it rock and roll.---Muddy Waters. All things considered, the blues should have had an abortion.---Yours truly.


https://soundcloud.com/easyace/rest-octet
EasyAce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2011, 09:41 AM   #21
River
Senior Member
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rural Colorado, USA
Posts: 57,231
Thanks: 787
Thanked 1,123 Times in 89 Posts
Re: Led Zeppelin vs. Rolling Stone Magazine

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Smith View Post
I have a pretty good idea.


Mine were 6.50 and 8.50, respectively.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyAce View Post
He should have said "drum soloist." A Bonzo drum solo, sorry to say, was a perfect excuse for a dinner break during one of their shows. (Even for Plant, Page, and Jones, whom I heard sometimes left the venue entirely when Bonzo was hunting Moby Dick . . . ) He was a great drummer but as a soloist he was a snooze . . .
I've heard live versions that leave me cold, and others that I can groove to with my eyes closed all the way through. I recall '72 as riveting. The other two I can't really claim to recall. But I have bootlegs.

When he was "on" it was brilliant. But drum solos have to be.
River is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2011, 12:41 PM   #22
EasyAce
Senior Member
 
EasyAce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 13,551
Thanks: 124
Thanked 244 Times in 100 Posts
Re: Led Zeppelin vs. Rolling Stone Magazine

Quote:
Originally Posted by River View Post
When he was "on" it was brilliant. But drum solos have to be.
You find the better drum solos in the least likely places. Case in point---a Ginger Baker solo, unearthed last winter, from a Cream performance in southern California . . . not "Toad" but, rather, a somewhat novel way of imagining "Passing the Time" in concert: the trio plays only that intro with the vocal chanting, guitar chords, rhythm section, then improvise collectively a short spell before Jack Bruce and Eric Clapton slip away to let Baker have a ride. This solo is almost as engaging as the famous "Toad" from the live Wheels of Fire.

I'd bet the best solo Bonham ever took is out there, somewhere, on some bootleg tape. It sure wasn't in the one concert I saw of Zeppelin and it sure wasn't on Led Zeppelin II . . . and I'll go to my grave swearing his absolute best drumming was "When the Levee Breaks." If you can imagine some cross road where metal meets classic soul, or vice versa, his anchorage of that one was it.

Quote:
You can't talk about the end of Led Zeppelin---indeed, you can't talk meaningfully about Led Zeppelin, for better or worse---without considering John Bonham. He was in many ways the center of the band's story---the force that literally propelled the band and the problem that stopped it. Bonham had grown up drinking in the Black Country and found himself in a music scene that was at the time a drinking culture. The trouble was, Bonham was a horrible drunk. Many described him as the friendliest and most down-to-earth member of Led Zeppelin when he was sober, but after a few drinks he could be belligerent as hell. Richard Cole believed that Bonham's temperament stemmed from the strain he felt being away from his wife and children. In Mojo, Nick Kent related a memory [Roxy Music's] Bryan Ferry had of a night in Bonham's company in Los Angeles. "Ferry recalled Bonham bursting into tears and pleading to go home, back to his family in the Midlands, so terrified had he become of his own insatiable appetites while on the road.

. . . On September 24th, 1980, Led Zeppelin met to begin rehearsals for the upcoming American tour. Bonham had overcome a heroin problem and was taking a drug to help with anxiety and depression---but he had also been drinking vodka the whole day, and the alcohol only renewed his depression . . .

. . . By [the time of the Plant/Page collaboration
No Quarter], though, if you're looking for grace in the Led Zeppelin legacy, it's best to examine sounds over manners . . . That music changed things far more than anybody ever expected, or might have wanted, even those who made the music. It is still an immediate music---too big, too overwhelming to wear off or end and too pleasurable to refuse. These messed-up men created something that still lays a claim on the times. That is Led Zeppelin's shadow, and it will outlast the souls who made it.

---Mikal Gilmore, in "The Long Shadow of Led Zeppelin."
__________________
Electrics: Lou Pallo sig, R9, R6, Classic Antique, Flying V, Flying V "Holy V," Boho Surf Wax, Gretsch G5700 Electromatic lap steel; acoustic: Orpheum OR20 resonator; Fender Blues Junior tweed; Ernie Ball volume pedal; Boss 65 Fender Deluxe Reverb pedal.

The blues had a baby and they named it rock and roll.---Muddy Waters. All things considered, the blues should have had an abortion.---Yours truly.


https://soundcloud.com/easyace/rest-octet
EasyAce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2011, 03:52 PM   #23
Groove Toad
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: If you lived here you'd be home by now
Posts: 14,099
Thanks: 796
Thanked 157 Times in 33 Posts
Re: Led Zeppelin vs. Rolling Stone Magazine

Back in the Seventies I would buy an album for the mere fact that Rolling Stone magazine gave it a bad review. It seemed the writers and editors of Rolling Stone flat out hated Led Zeppelin.
Groove Toad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2011, 04:06 PM   #24
lespaul01
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 16,930
Thanks: 831
Thanked 153 Times in 44 Posts
Re: Led Zeppelin vs. Rolling Stone Magazine

Let me at this idiot.

Attached Images
File Type: jpg Capture.jpg (41.0 KB, 89 views)
lespaul01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2011, 05:16 PM   #25
EasyAce
Senior Member
 
EasyAce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 13,551
Thanks: 124
Thanked 244 Times in 100 Posts
Re: Led Zeppelin vs. Rolling Stone Magazine

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grand Toad View Post
Back in the Seventies I would buy an album for the mere fact that Rolling Stone magazine gave it a bad review. It seemed the writers and editors of Rolling Stone flat out hated Led Zeppelin.
I did a little research. I don't think the magazine institutionally was opposed to Led Zeppelin at the outset; apparently, a then-21-year-old John Mendelsohn sent them an unsolicited review of the first album---he murdered it, basically---and the magazine printed it to his surprise and, probably, their own. (Kinks fans may recognise Mendelsohn's name: he was a rapturous Kinks fan and was invited to do the jacket notes for the splendid anthology The Kink Kronikles.)

The image that Rolling Stone might have been institutionally opposed to Led Zeppelin may have begun, too, when the magazine asked Mendelsohn to review Led Zeppelin II. However, the magazine invited legendary gonzo critic Lester Bangs to review Led Zeppelin III and Bangs gave it a mixed review. (Bangs basically wasn't impressed with a lot of the songs, while he praised Zeppelin for being at least creative enough to apply an occasional pleasing fillip to their uninspiring material, and professional enough to keep all their recorded work relatively clean and clear — you can hear all the parts, which is more than you can say for many of their peers. On the other hand, he absolutely raved about "That's the Way"---as many critics then and now have, understandably; Jimmy Page himself has said that song above anything else on the album or in their catalog to date was Robert Plant's real coming-out as a lyricist.)

For the fourth album, the review assignment went to Lenny Kaye, the curator of garage rock and guitarist for Patti Smith (at that time, Smith was a New York cult figure if that familiar and her performances consisted strictly of her reading/singing her poetry and Kaye accompanying her on electric guitar), and he raved about it. (It might seem a bit incongruous to say that Led Zeppelin — a band never particularly known for its tendency to understate matters — has produced an album which is remarkable for its low-keyed and tasteful subtlety, but that's just the case here, Kaye's review began.) That may have helped break the ice for Cameron Crowe to write a cover story on the band during its 1975 tour, though Crowe's traveling with them willingly despite their initial rejection might have helped too. (Crowe ingratiated himself to Jimmy Page, who said to him, "What the hell, Joe Walsh says I should trust you.")

I think as the years went on Rolling Stone softened its attitude toward the band's music even if it didn't shy from telling the sordid truth about some of their most notorious road escapades. But in fairness RS hardly got the best rhetorical shot off at their notorious debaucheries and managerial heavy-handedness. That prize should probably go to Ellen Sanders, whom Life sent to cover Led Zeppelin's 1969 U.S. tour. In due course, she wrote (not in Life but for another publication, possibly the Village Voice):

Quote:
No matter how miserably the group managed to keep their behaviour up to a basic human level, they played well almost every night of the week. If they were only one of the many British rock groups touring at the time, they were also one of the finest. The stamina they found each night at curtain time was amazing . . . [But on the final night of the tour, t]wo members of the group attacked me. Shrieking and grabbing at my clothes, totally over the edge. I fought them off until Peter Grant rescued me, but not before they managed to tear my dress down the back . . . If you walk inside the cages at the zoo, you get to see the animals close up, stroke the captive pelts, and mingle with the energy behind the mystique. You also get to smell the **** firsthand.
Rolling Stone today rates the albums (excluding box sets and other anthologies of the studio material) thus:

Led Zeppelin---four stars (out of five)
Led Zeppelin II---five stars
Led Zeppelin III---four stars
Led Zeppelin (the fourth; a.k.a. the Runes Album)---five stars
Houses of the Holy---five stars
Physical Graffiti---four stars
The Song Remains the Same---two stars
Presence---three stars.
In Through the Out Door---three stars.
Coda---two stars
The BBC Sessions---four stars
How the West Was Won---four stars

I'd say that's mostly a pretty fair assessment of their real works, though I'm not sure I'd agree about Presence. I've always thought that was Led Zeppelin's most badly underrated album, and there's what Murray Kempton once called a raw nudity of pain (he used the phrase describing Frank Sinatra singing "I'm a Fool to Want You," but I thought the phrase applied to so much of Presence's music) throughout that album that informs some of their most elemental music. In that regard, Presence just might be the best Led Zeppelin album that nobody outside the fan base seems to appreciate. I'd have given it four stars myself.
__________________
Electrics: Lou Pallo sig, R9, R6, Classic Antique, Flying V, Flying V "Holy V," Boho Surf Wax, Gretsch G5700 Electromatic lap steel; acoustic: Orpheum OR20 resonator; Fender Blues Junior tweed; Ernie Ball volume pedal; Boss 65 Fender Deluxe Reverb pedal.

The blues had a baby and they named it rock and roll.---Muddy Waters. All things considered, the blues should have had an abortion.---Yours truly.


https://soundcloud.com/easyace/rest-octet
EasyAce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2011, 06:37 PM   #26
FUS44
Senior Member
 
FUS44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Burning in Hell
Posts: 8,059
Thanks: 12
Thanked 24 Times in 11 Posts
Re: Led Zeppelin vs. Rolling Stone Magazine

Usually by the time any band gets favorable press in the Rolling stone, they're truly dead in the heroic band-sense and ready to be assimilated by the Nickelback/creed/arena/cell phone concert scene hordes. If they start with the hosannas, they usually blow anyway.
__________________
"So how is school, Richard?"
"The name is DICK."
FUS44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2011, 09:32 AM   #27
northernguitarguy
SWeAT hOg
 
northernguitarguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: North of Toronto
Posts: 19,488
Thanks: 395
Thanked 576 Times in 184 Posts
Re: Led Zeppelin vs. Rolling Stone Magazine

sorry, but who cares? this dinosaur is ready for extinction anyway...they also savaged Sabbath, Maiden, JP, and too many more too mention
northernguitarguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2011, 09:55 AM   #28
geochem1st
V.I.P. Member
 
geochem1st's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: NC
Posts: 26,998
Thanks: 1,284
Thanked 1,175 Times in 304 Posts
Re: Led Zeppelin vs. Rolling Stone Magazine

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grand Toad View Post
Back in the Seventies I would buy an album for the mere fact that Rolling Stone magazine gave it a bad review. It seemed the writers and editors of Rolling Stone flat out hated Led Zeppelin.
Not only that but it appears that RS has become a history revisionist site...

I stopped reading RS after reading the review they gave in 1971 for the release of Zep IV. I was furious and thinking how out of touch the magazine was. The phrase 'inferior tripe' that they used in the review has stuck with me for 40 years. When you search their site today for the archived Zep IV review, this is what they produce.... and its a favorable review to boot

Led Zeppelin IV by Led Zeppelin | Rolling Stone Music | Music Reviews
__________________
_____________________



http://www.thumbtack.com/nc/harrisbu...guitar-lessons
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geo
Ut Maneat Vobiscum in Aeternum Lumen Intelligentić
geochem1st is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2011, 10:02 AM   #29
MCAN
Senior Member
 
MCAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: East York, ON
Posts: 880
Thanks: 2
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Led Zeppelin vs. Rolling Stone Magazine

Quote:
Originally Posted by River View Post
Huh?
I think he misread the thread title. He must have thought it was a band vs band thread, Led Zeppelin vs. The Rolling Stones.
__________________


I could look at Les Pauls all day...

Jay Turser JT-133 (Natural)
Danelectro DC-59 12-string (Black)
Epiphone Les Paul Standard w/ Jimmy Page wiring (Honeyburst)
Epiphone Les Paul Custom Black Beauty 3-pickup w/ 6-Way Switch
Silvertone Jupiter
Epiphone G-1275
Dragon Telecaster
Yamaha FG12-II
Big Baby Taylor
MCAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:07 AM.


Our Network: PRS Guitar Forum | Luthier Forum | SG Guitar Forum | Marshall Amp Forum | Music Gear Forum | 7 String Guitar Forum | Acoustic Guitar Forum

MyLesPaul proudly supports St. Jude Children's Research Hospital

Copyright © 2006-2016, MyLesPaul.com. All Rights Reserved.