Customer Discussions > Rock forum

Led Zeppelin SUCKS


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 102 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Dec 23, 2012 1:15:23 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 23, 2012 1:18:17 PM PST
alexwilbury says:
All my life I've heard people raving about how supposedly "great" this band is, and treat them like the be-all end-all of rock. Well I've given them chance after chance, yet I still find them to be one of the most overrated bands in rock history. Although they were individually talented, as a band they are just kind of one-note, trying to make every song some big epic "event". Their lead singer has one of the most annoying voices in rock, and that voice ruined every song of theirs. I'd even take Dylan's voice over Plant's LOL! They also took an interesting genre (rock) and destroyed all the sense of experimentation that the late 60s had brought. Post-Zeppelin, everyone wanted to make the guitar the focus of their music, and form these big dumb hair bands to flaunt their machismo.

Posted on Dec 23, 2012 2:21:41 PM PST
D. Mok says:
> They also took an interesting genre (rock) and destroyed all the sense of experimentation that the late 60s had brought.

Don't make me laugh. Led Zeppelin was one of the most experimental bands in classic rock. Certainly more so than The Rolling Stones, The Allman Brothers Band or The Band.

> Post-Zeppelin, everyone wanted to make the guitar the focus of their music

Says you. I suppose you never bothered to listen to "No Quarter", "The Battle of Evermore", "Kashmir" or "In the Evening".

Posted on Dec 23, 2012 2:37:12 PM PST
A lot of people love Led Zeppelin, a lot of people don't. What's the point of trashing them or any other band here? Self-promotion?

Posted on Dec 23, 2012 2:39:11 PM PST
mac says:
Golly gee- is nothing sacred? Next, there will be a thread claiming The Beatles suck!

Posted on Dec 23, 2012 2:54:23 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 23, 2012 3:05:13 PM PST
doodah man says:
indy, indy,,, you're not the first, you're not the last, but u will always be in the minority. Maybe you're too young to have ever caught their music live, or just nvr had the opportunity. And what a difference that would make. Zeppelin was one of those bands where 'The Magic" would take over at a concert. Doesn't happen often, and if you've nvr experienced it, you've missed out.

If you're sitting in your sterile little environment and trying to dissect them clinically, you will never 'get it'.

Posted on Dec 23, 2012 4:42:21 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 23, 2012 4:48:57 PM PST
alexwilbury says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2012 5:03:49 PM PST
You're wrong.

Posted on Dec 23, 2012 5:16:00 PM PST
D. Mok says:
> The Stones could have ran circles around Zeppelin, Duane Allman could have destroyed Page on the guitar, and Garth Hudson could have put them all to shame.

Mick Jagger had about 1/4 of Robert Plant's vocal range, Duane Allman played nothing but blues, and Garth Hudson couldn't write a memorable song to save his life. How many songwriting credits did he have on The Band's first four albums? Zero. Not a single one.

If anything, Dickey Betts would give Jimmy Page a better run for his money as an innovator, and even then, Betts would lose.

For experimentalism, Page would be in a class with Jeff Beck, Jimi Hendrix, Pete Townshend, Allan Holdsworth, Eddie Van Halen, The Edge, Tom Morello. Duane Allman, Keith Richards, Mick Taylor, David Gilmour, Eric Clapton, Carlos Santana and Robbie Robertson wouldn't even be counted -- they are all traditionalists.

Posted on Dec 23, 2012 5:18:00 PM PST
Love Led Zep !

Posted on Dec 23, 2012 5:33:07 PM PST
alexwilbury says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Dec 23, 2012 5:42:53 PM PST
This topic SUCKS

Posted on Dec 23, 2012 5:46:07 PM PST
D. Mok says:
>> "Mick Jagger had about 1/4 of Robert Plant's vocal range,"
> Don't make me laugh! Plant had the vocal range of a dying cat!

Look up "vocal range" and then come back. Mick Jagger could barely hold a tune. Just listen to "Ruby Tuesday" -- some of the worst singing pitch ever to appear on a #1 single.

Posted on Dec 23, 2012 8:40:39 PM PST
Working Man says:
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I have said it before and I will say it again that it all depends on your perspective and what kind of music you like. It also may depend on when you got into music and what major events you associate with your music. Music is personal and everyone does not like the same thing.

I was born in 1959 and came of age in the 70's with Zeppelin. I have older sisters who were into the Beatles and the British Invasion bands so I grew up with them, especially the Beatles, whom I love. I was too young for most of the counterculture in the 60's but I really like, the Doors, the Airplane, Cream, Hendrix etc. Afterall, these bands while maybe no longer in the heyday still got plenty of air time in the 70's. However, Led Zeppelin was THE band for me and most everyone I knew. It really didn't matter if you were into progressive, glam or hard rock, while you may have been divided there you pretty much all got into Zeppelin.

I won't make any comparisons because it's all apples and oranges and I feel I might be partly responsible for this thread since I of added Zep to the Beatles vs. the Band thread. It was not my intention to compare Zeppelin to the Band since there is little in common really between the two. I may have struck a nerve and I didn't mean too.

My list of favorites all time does not include The Band, and these ridiculous comparisons just insight unpleasant threads.

We all have our favorites, I can sight the Stones as a band that I am not really into but I do like a lot of their music and for some is actually great, but I have listened to the Stones all my life and I just don't get the pedestal others put them on. Maybe they aren't heavy enough for me or maybe it's Jagger's moves, and it's probably a little of both but I don't going around saying they suck just because I don't get them.

Posted on Dec 23, 2012 8:59:06 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 23, 2012 9:00:59 PM PST
Hinch says:
I'm not the biggest Zep fan but I wouldn't say they suck. They have quite a few great songs. I'm not a big fan of their first 3 albums, but I do like several songs on each.

Led Zeppelin IV (aka ZOSO) and Houses of the Holy are two of the most solid rock albums ever recorded. I used to listen to them repeatedly on vinyl. Their next 3 albums are also very good.

I don't mind giving my opinion of like or dislike of any artist but I don't see the need to create a thread just for the purpose of bashing an artist or band I don't care for.

If you don't like a certain artist, the best thing to do is not listen to their music. Plenty of people love their music.

Posted on Dec 23, 2012 9:32:20 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 23, 2012 9:34:10 PM PST
alexwilbury says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2012 10:40:05 PM PST
You meant to say the who sucks. I accept that as true! You can thank me later for this correction.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2012 10:55:17 PM PST
Captain Ogre says:
The Beatles were just an overrated boy band.

Posted on Dec 23, 2012 10:58:47 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 23, 2012 11:00:25 PM PST
alexwilbury says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 24, 2012 12:29:12 AM PST
>>Post-Zeppelin, everyone wanted to make the guitar the focus of their music, and form these big dumb hair bands to flaunt their machismo.<<

No one told that to the new romantics.

Shame. It would have saved a lot of people a lot of embarassment.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 24, 2012 12:32:19 AM PST
>>A lot of people love Led Zeppelin, a lot of people don't. What's the point of trashing them or any other band here? Self-promotion?<<

No, he's just using his tremendous musical discernment to save us from the horror that is Led Zepellin.

We all must be saved from ourselves.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 24, 2012 12:39:50 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 24, 2012 7:25:03 AM PST
Hmm...let's see.

Great + excellent + one of the best + annoying = suck.

I must remember that formula in case I need to rate a band in future.

Your not jealous of Plants shirtless magnificence are you?

Does it worry you that Plant probably had more women in one night than you've had in your life?

Is that what this is all about?

Posted on Dec 24, 2012 5:59:54 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 24, 2012 6:01:24 AM PST
Working Man says:
My view of the best bands as far as talent and musicianship (not in any particular order).

1. Yes
2. Deep Purple
3. Jethro Tull
4. Rush
5. Led Zeppelin

The difference between my post and indydefense's post is that this that I say it's 'my view' and don't say definitely or absolutely that "the best bands (overall talent)". It's not measureable, it's simply an opinion. I have no problem with the list as I like and respect and recognize each of the bands in indydefense's list as very good. I have nothing bad to say about the five bands (the band, the beatle, the airplane, the dead and ccr) however, it's simply an opinion and my opinion is worth just as much.

As for Plant's voice, I agree thay it may not be for everyone, but again it's all a personal opinion.

Posted on Dec 24, 2012 6:03:38 AM PST
The Beatles do suck, hard.

Posted on Dec 24, 2012 10:16:20 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 25, 2012 3:11:52 PM PST
Hinch says:
I would list my favorites, not necessarily in order, as

The Beatles
Stevie Wonder
Eric Burdon(The Animals, War, solo)
The Byrds
Jefferson Airplane
The Beach Boys
The Doors
CCR
CS&N
Yes

I would add, having certain favorites or not being a fan of certain artists isn't an indicator of whether one is more talented than another. There are quite a few artists whose music I don't care for, but I recognize as having talent.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 24, 2012 1:19:10 PM PST
B. rogers says:
indydefense says:
"The Beatles were up there with Bob Dylan as the best thing to happen to music. Too bad bands like Zeppelin torpedoed everything bands like that helped to build."

How did Zeppelin "torpedo" everything the Beatles and Dylan did? Was it impossible to build on their achievements just because a Led Zeppelin existed?
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 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
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Rock forum
Participants:  35
Total posts:  102
Initial post:  Dec 23, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 29, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions