Customer Discussions > Classic Rock forum

Most Original First Album: Led Zep, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 157 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Aug 26, 2012 6:30:51 PM PDT
Led Zeppelin I, Deep Purple In Rock, or Black Sabbath I are all great albums and have pavd the way for every form of harder rock since. Zep used color and shading, Purple a chugging musical virtuosity, Sabbath a dark brooding heaviness. Zep was light and dark with acoustic guitars and howling blues vocals. Purple was sheer energy and screaming guitars and vocals. Purple an atmospheric sense of gloom and doom. Which was the most original?

Posted on Aug 26, 2012 6:37:18 PM PDT
Fischman says:
I'm gonna say Sab. Zep was repackaged blues, but darkness and doom was a huge departure from the music of the day. Purple falls somewhere inbetween.

Posted on Aug 26, 2012 6:42:02 PM PDT
Alt9999 says:
Sabbath

Posted on Aug 26, 2012 6:57:51 PM PDT
tokolosi says:
Sabbath. Fischman nailed it...

Posted on Aug 26, 2012 7:22:12 PM PDT
Zaplightning says:
Sabbath

Posted on Aug 26, 2012 8:26:46 PM PDT
In Rock was not Deep Purples debut album. Even if it was I would still say Black Sabbath. The sound, the cover, the feel of that album was complete package.

Posted on Aug 27, 2012 7:28:59 PM PDT
ulijon says:
Good question - I would say Sabbath

Posted on Aug 27, 2012 7:38:36 PM PDT
Working Man says:
Black Sabbath. Not only was their debut album the most original but they were more unique than either Zeppelin or Purple period. I love all three bands but there was no one really even remotely like Sabbath at the time.

Posted on Aug 28, 2012 9:05:03 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 28, 2012 9:05:49 AM PDT
vivazappa says:
Looks like it's going to be a first round TKO for THE SABBATH.
This is one of the best debut albums ever.
It set the stage for who they were, how they sounded and all the great things to come!
Up through Sabotage they were untouchable!

Posted on Aug 28, 2012 9:14:12 AM PDT
Black Sabbath. I was 13 when Sabbath Bloody Sabbath came out and I bought the album because I liked the cover. I gave it a spin and was hooked for life. I worked my way back to their debut and ahead to include all of their releases. It was a sound that I had never heard before and thats what made it magnetic to me...

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 28, 2012 9:15:35 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 30, 2012 12:05:31 AM PDT
AlexMontrose says:
The thread asked for "Original"...not best. That's a whole 'nother story, depending on taste ofcourse.

I can't deny that Sabbath should get the nod for most original. Mainly because of their unique Heavy metal thunder/doom, which gave them a completely different slant/sound from other hard rock pioneers at the time. But no one was doing it Purple style either. In Rock (which of course was not their debut but what the OP was comparing) was totally original hard rock in 1970......
Zeppelin's debut? LOL.....I guess when the consensus is you shamelessly plagiarized and/or untold amounts of people have questioned whether "your" songs were even "your" songs...then you don't qualify for 'original'.

Posted on Nov 14, 2012 1:36:11 PM PST
patc71s says:
Black Sabbath

Posted on Nov 14, 2012 1:43:09 PM PST
D. Mok says:
Black Sabbath. While all three were derivative in one way or another, Black Sabbath's "Black Sabbath" was the most original song of the group. It is without question the first true heavy-metal song, and the first with no hint of the blues. ("Dazed and Confused" would have given "Black Sabbath" a run for its money, except the verses are pure traditional blues.)

In the case of all three bands, their bigger innovations come after the debut album.

Posted on Nov 16, 2012 5:18:02 PM PST
I would also have to go with Sabbath. Original is the last word I would ever associate with Led Zep I.

Posted on Nov 16, 2012 6:02:12 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 16, 2012 7:59:40 PM PST
I know its been mentioned, but In Rock was Purple's 4th studio record...so that immediately negates the thread title, but I digress.

In Rock is an awesome plate of material on hand, and incumbant replacements in Gillan and Glover greatly impacted the continuation and progression of Purple as a hard rock phenom.

Zeppelin's debut is an excellent collection and provides the proof that Zep were onto a new form of heavy blues/rock and justly lead the charge here as a result.

Sabbath's debut, although similar in tone to Zeppelin 1 as far as the heavy rock aspect is concerned, is equally as innovative as Zeppelin's debut and is their interpretation of this new genre of music, which is a bit darker in its overtones.

If I were to honestly choose the best of the 3, in terms of innovation, I would say Led Zeppelin I. Deep Purple were simply throwing down the gauntlet with In Rock(which I love) and challenging the other bands' for artistic success and mass appeal. I think Page influenced Blackmore by the release of the 1st record and it steered him and Purple into a better direction to follow with.

I would say the same applies to Sabbath, even though its from a darker place within their style. Iommi doesn't have the dexterity of Jimmy Page, but he doesn't need to; his rhythm style and penchant for writing riffs provides the solid basis for the success of the debut. His lead guitar playing is good(great for the style of the band), but I've always seen Iommi as less of a creative lead player than Page or Blackmore.

Its Zep.

For the record, though, The Who, Cream and Jimi Hendrix were the earliest ones I can think of which provided the template of sound that Zeppelin, Sabbath and Purple would hone to their greatest adavantages.

Posted on Nov 17, 2012 12:21:59 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 17, 2012 12:28:21 AM PST
@Exile: "Original is the last word I would ever associate with Led Zep I."

Original is *precisely* a word I would associate with Zep's debut. It doesn't matter that nearly every song is a cover or plagiarized or what-have-you, the group did something different with that material and certainly put their own highly unique stamp on it. The very fact that their versions of those songs don't sound anything like the originals, highlights their brand-new sound. The only thing Zep I sounded like at the time were some of the very last Yardbirds stuff w/Page (and which therefore wasn't really a "copy", so much as Zep being a continuation of what Page had been working on a few months earlier), and The Jeff Beck Group's debut album "Truth" (and as good as Rod Stewart was, Plant definitely sounded like no-one else before him). It's a testament to the group's originality that in spite of three-quarters of their debut being taken from other sources (credited and uncredited), it sounds as startlingly fresh and different for January 1969 as it does. So many standards of both hard rock and heavy metal can be traced to Zep I, from Plant's high-pitched vocals to the hyperkinetic riff of "Communication Breakdown" to Bonham's drumming throughout; you certainly cannot say the same about Joan Baez, Howlin' Wolf or Jake Holmes.

That being said, I think Sabbath's debut was even more influential on the way heavy metal eventually turned out, especially later mutations of the genre. Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath were both labeled "heavy metal" by many in the early 70s but when metal changed later in the decade, fewer and fewer people called Zeppelin heavy metal, while Sabbath continued to be called such. The fact that Zeppelin did not stick completely with their early hard rock/proto-metal sound but increased the lighter folk elements and expanded into funk, reggae, prog, etc. also had something to do with it; for those who like their rock all-hard, all the time this was seen as a betrayal, but Zeppelin didn't seem to care as they said themselves they didn't want to be known as a heavy metal act.

Posted on Nov 17, 2012 4:04:43 PM PST
I just don't "get" the greatness of Black Sabbath's debut, I guess. The title song, yeah, there's something cool and original going on there, but as I've said before (and, apparently, the critics of the day said THEN) - the rest of the album sounds a hell of a lot like the first two Zeppelin album, mixed with some Cream. To me, it wasn't until their third album that Sabbath really broke out of sounding similar to the heavier early Zeppelin and Tull (and, even then, Sabbath's 70s output often reminds me of those two other bands). Zeppelin, also, seemed to derive from Cream and other early riff/blues-based heavy music of the 60s. I think both bands were very influential in taking heavy music into the next level and forming heavy metal, I just think that you can hear where they were coming from as much as where they were going to on their debut albums. Purple's "In Rock", though - doesn't sound like Cream, Sabbath, Tull, or really anything else from the era (Uriah Heep, yes, but I think it's pretty much accepted that Heep were influenced by Purple and not the other way around). That said, I got into this stuff after hearing what came after, so maybe the fact that I was familiar with so much stuff that Zep and Sabbath influenced made them sound less original to my ears? I dunno, but I can't really think of anything else that sounds like "In Rock" from before 1970, can you? (And, although Sabbath and Zep's influence is often touted in metal, I think Purple's influence is clearly important on Priest and Maiden right on through the whole power- and prog-metal genres).
But, as also has been pointed out, In Rock wasn't Purple's debut - their first two albums were half covers and sounded much less distinctive and original in style, if you compare each band's FOURTH album, they all pretty much have established a distinctive style, and Sabbath's fourth is probably the most original sounding there.

Posted on Nov 19, 2012 11:53:29 PM PST
Good points all, but I still go with Sabbath for Iommi's down tuned guitar alone. There was no other music prior to that, to my knowledge, that sounded as eerie as death emitting such a huge sound...a sound that is still highly influential in today's metal.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 5:20:01 PM PST
Matthew-Bands like Sabbath, Zeppelin, Purple were hated by most of the critics of the time. Hard rock/metal music is not about what the critics like its what the people like.

Posted on Nov 20, 2012 8:32:10 PM PST
D. Mok says:
> the rest of the album sounds a hell of a lot like the first two Zeppelin album, mixed with some Cream.

Black Sabbath's blues didn't sound like Led Zeppelin or Cream. Probably not as good, either, because Black Sabbath never really knew what it wanted to do with the blues. Ozzy Osbourne's harmonica on "The Wizard", for example, was pedestrian. What was unique about Black Sabbath's first record were the title song, Tony Iommi's guitar (both in tone and in technique -- his trademark, emotionally cold wavering sound was already in place as on the ending to "Black Sabbath"), and also the subject matter of the songwriting. And the fact that Ozzy Osbourne was one of the least skilled vocalists of that era...which lends the band a unique sound. As a blues band, Black Sabbath was far below Led Zeppelin and Cream.

Deep Purple's In Rock doesn't sound *at all* original to me. Everything on that record had been done better in the '60s by Jimi Hendrix and the psychedelic bands, and the riff rock (especially "Speed King" and "Hard Lovin' Man") sounds derivative of early Led Zeppelin. Ian Gillan's vocals are pure barroom rock/blues in the vein of Rod Stewart and Robert Plant. I consider In Rock the *least* original of the three.

Posted on Nov 20, 2012 9:03:55 PM PST
@D.Mok: "Deep Purple's In Rock doesn't sound *at all* original to me. Everything on that record had been done better in the '60s by Jimi Hendrix and the psychedelic bands, and the riff rock (especially "Speed King" and "Hard Lovin' Man") sounds derivative of early Led Zeppelin. Ian Gillan's vocals are pure barroom rock/blues in the vein of Rod Stewart and Robert Plant. I consider In Rock the *least* original of the three."

For all that we disagree on the "blockbuster" status of "Automatic For The People", I must say I agree 590% with your statement above. I think the only thing that made "In Rock" distinctive at the time is that was there were no ballads on the record, and very few slower bits. Other than that, it had certainly been done before, and done better, to boot. IMO. And it wasn't all THAT radical a change from their earlier work; the hardest rocking stuff on the first three albums (and even the "rock" bits of "Concerto") all point to what they would do on "In Rock".

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 9:54:10 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 20, 2012 10:19:01 PM PST
AlexMontrose says:
Well it looks like the two biggest blowhards finally found each other. That's what happens when one guy is scared sheetless to offer an opinion unless he can hide behind someone else. LOL....this is better than Thanksgiving for this wus, who bores everyone to tears with long winded essays about his top 100 albums and other self absorbed jaunts into territories completely foreign to the thread title. This guy is a monumental wannabe music critic and uses the forums to shove in everyone's face how much he likes bands that many of us could gives two craps about. But in his mind this lends authenticity to his opinions....lol. The more "out there" the band the more he can vomit about them with ten paragraph "reviews", pompously and condescendingly "informing" us how great "his" bands are and how lousy some of the music others like is.

It usually takes... ohhh a few weeks tops before new "friends" tire of his snob laden, love to hear myself talk posts as he hops on different forums looking for someone who can stand him. He's been praying to Lord Jesus that *someone* would finally say a bad word about In Rock....lol...so he could say yes yes !...I agree !! Thanks for saying that !!!! LOL.....finally happened...;)

I know your desperate for friends around here Topper and your post is hilariously oozing with "I finally got my chance" to say something (you'll deny this of course but don't bother, you'll look even sorrier than you already are)....but just to give you a heads up about your new "friend" D. Mok.... he hates the Beatles. Uhh a band I believe you worship? No? So...desperation man......in your quest to find people to talk to, why don't you tell us how much you agree with that opinion. 590%?

Posted on Nov 20, 2012 10:20:16 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 20, 2012 10:22:57 PM PST
@Alex: Of course, I KNEW you couldn't resist. You're right--I didn't want to say anything about Deep Purple at first for fear that you *wouldn't* be able to resist, and would break our truce to ignore each other (remember that, numbnuts? You know, the deal you were *so adamant* about just a few months ago, after you practically stalked me when I made a sly dig at you on another forum without actually even mentioning your name?).

Then I realized I *was* being a wus--afraid to talk about a band for fear that you wouldn't be able to control yourself. I realized that was ridiculous. If you broke the truce, that would be YOUR responsibility. Your total and complete inability to control yourself. But you would be the one to break it first, just as I always suspected.

Just in case anyone here is unfamiliar with the drill, Mr.Montrose is now going to hijack this thread in an attempt to bait me with post after post after post filled with nothing but baseless insults of the kind in his opening volley above. I will needlessly fall for his bait and we will have at it for about 500 posts before one of us (usually me) screams mercy as he continues to "prove" his superiority on all things Rawk. You know, things like Ritchie Blackmore being the first to use the bow technique on the guitar. Or Ritchie Blackmore inventing sliced bread. Or Ian Gillan being the literal Son of God, not just playing one in a cheezy Andrew Lloyd Weber musical.

Anyways, have at it Montrose. Admit it, this is what you've been DYING to do for months now, in spite of being the one to originally insist "you go your way, I'll go mine".

I see you've been reading my posts. I'll bet you even checked out and read every entry of my top 100 list on rateyourmusic. I'm honored.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 10:53:58 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 20, 2012 11:27:26 PM PST
AlexMontrose says:
You didn't want to say anything about Deep Purple for a lot of reasons. Fear being the main one. So you got that right. And mmmm.... if I recall (do I HAVE to pull up another of your posts as you continually and pathologically try to re-invent history?) you sheepishly said a few months ago...can you please just "leave me alone". I remember feeling sorry for you (not really but I said I did..and then said I didn't) because you sounded like you were ready to have a nervous breakdown. You actually were back then and practically begged me to lay off. Of course NOW....you will attempt to foist upon us some new found bravery....and to be honest...good for you.

I'll be even more honest with you. If you weren't so ham handed and obvious in your attempts to speak out about an album I love and let Moks idiotic, blind as a bat opinion about In Rock go by without a comment I would have found a spec of respect for you. But it's YOU who couldn't resist...and used this "opportunity" to say something to me without directly saying something to me. But that's cool, knew you would......and again would have nodded my head up a down down a couple times and said Wow...if you would have "not" commented.

Do you see me saying something "bad' about Ocenia (or however you spell it) the album by your lover boys The Smashing Pumpkins? When that album came and went without a wimper? Nope. I know you love it and as much as I roll my eyes as you go on and on and on and on about "marginal" bands to 'prove' some musical acumen (I wouldn't read your top 100 if I was in jail... and it was the only thing they let me read) I would leave it alone if it came up. Ofcourse it doesn't but that's another story.

So let's call it for what it really is...you commented about In Rock because you loved the fact that somebody in this forum was putting it down. And in your insecure glee, that was your chance to finally open your mouth about it. Not in your post above where you never once mentioned Deep Purple. But now....because you had someone to hide behind. It's as obvious as your fear....which naturally is what this is all about. Finally someone said something you were too afraid to say. But see....I know you feel that way, whether it's part agenda or not, I know you don't like the album. Would have been the mensch thing to do by *not* saying a word. But you "saw your chance" ;) Mildly amusing, totally predictable...and totally stemming from the pop forum where I commented on the MK I to MK II change. You think I don't know that? LOL......I see right through you numbnuts.

And me? Lol.....I'm just defending some music I like...no different than I would with anyone else.

Posted on Nov 21, 2012 12:31:43 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 21, 2012 12:38:22 AM PST
@Alex Montrose: I thought I could go another 500 rounds of this tonight but I think I'm finally over it. It's not fear anymore, just sheer wide-eyed incredulity that now stops me in my tracks. I can say what I want to say about how "In Rock" SUCKS now and not hide behind anyone, and there will be no need for a "truce" or me begging you to just leave me the $%^&#*$ alone because, quite frankly, I know that will never be the case. You will always find some excuse to attack me and then claim that I "started" it just because I expressed an opinion about an album you like. Yes, Alex, I *must* be talking directly to you and you alone! You will always believe this, and you will always attack. Even if I *was* "baiting" you, you didn't have to react, you DO realize this, don't you? But you're like Pavlov's dog, since I can say what I want to say and simply expect you to automatically foam at the mouth. I can't fear the known and (highly) predictable, only the unknown--so what's to fear? I was being so silly. Thank you for the therapy, it's been enlightening.

"I remember feeling sorry for you (not really but I said I did..and then said I didn't...)"

LOL Oh, poor Alex! There's help for you somewhere but as with all things regarding you, I've given up looking for answers. Only you will ever know for sure if you are sorry for me, or not sorry, or sorry again. Or not know. Or know. Or say you know, but not really mean it, but then mean it again, but not really.

There's help for this somewhere.

"...you commented about In Rock because you loved the fact that somebody in this forum was putting it down."

Well...duh. I don't like the album, and I didn't like it long before I ever knew who you were. I just dislike it even more, now that I know you worship it.

PS "The Three Dog Night Game"...ROTFLMFAO
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 



Active discussions in related forums  
   
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Classic Rock forum
Participants:  20
Total posts:  157
Initial post:  Aug 26, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 24, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions