The Led Zepplin factor

[Limecuda]

Since '96 VH has been considered by many in the business as some what of a laughingstock. Most of it being self inflicted with singers playing musical chairs, the band has lost some of their credibility and luster. (Which IMO would never have happened if Hagar stayed or if DLR was named the man in'96.) Anyways my question is, how would the music world have viewed VH if a tragic event had occured around 1985? I'm glad it didn't , but it always seems musicians are put on pedestals after a tragedy has struck them. It is sad how some socalled "legends" are created from some very untalented people (cobain) and lumped in the same category as some true legends. (Lennon)

I personally feel that VH would be refered to in the same breath as Zeppelin,innovators and major influences on the rock scene.I know some of you do now, but the current broader musical view doesn't. The accomplishments of 20+ years are overlooked by a few mistakes made over the past 5 years. Can they polish their image to what it once was or has too much damage been done?

[Eddymon]

what is understood, doesn't need to be discussed.

[stratogibson]

I'm gonna have to agree that indeed their "mystique" would have gone higher. I'll also have to disagree with your opinion on Cobain as "untalented." Man, that dude could riff and sing, and they brought some long lost energy to popular music. I'll be the first to tell you he was not a particularly gifted guitar player, but he certainly was a hell of a songwriter, and his energy level and tone was magical.

[Glenn]

I just finished reading Hammer of the Gods again and there's some things in there that must have made sense at the time, but in hindsight don't make sense. In the mid-70's Led Zeppelin hired a P.R. group to try to get more recognition outside of their young fan base. Now, I'm sure at the time they were annoyed at being disrespected by the establishment and considered a joke up against the other bands of the day, even though they (LZ) were probably the biggest band in America at the time. As it turned out, their P.R. efforts basically failed and they never really broke through to gain any kind of industry respect while they were together.

But in retrospect, that's probably the key reason (outside of the body of music of course) that they are the legend they are now. Had they been a media darling their mystique likely would have been altered and their legend likely would not have been anywhere near what it is today.

Speculation of course, but I think it's safe to say that art is much more likely to be pure when the media isn't factored in by the artist. Van Halen, on the other hand, got huge in an age of media (hell, they helped create it), and to me there is a certain charm that gets lost when the band is making concessions to radio, media, video, management etc. Which isn't to say that VH sold out, but they were in a media age where they virtually had to be aware and use the media, whereas Led Zeppelin were in a unique position to sidestep some of that.

Personally, I don't think there is anything that VH could ever do to be considered in Led Zeppelin's league. I'm a VH man, but to the world in general, LZ is a legend, VH is a band.

I would have loved to have seen where VH would have gone with Dave, but I have a feeling things would have fallen apart eventually anyways. Having just seen the Montreal 1984 concert for the first time, I have to admit that something just seemed wrong on that stage. I really believe that Dave was getting way too far into the blabbing with the audience and the schtick, and that he would have been better served to get back to nailing the vocals and being the great singer that he was.

But even if he had stayed, I just don't believe the VH legend would have ever surpassed the Zeppelin legend.

[BrokenCombs]

Excellent post Glenn. I agree with what you say about Dave in 1984....and about how society sees LZ vs. VH

[Stuff No More]

Of course, another thing to mention about Zepplin (aside from my personal views being I don't like them) is that they're an older band that drew a fanbase of people who are old enough to have older children.

Hence, they played the crap out of Zepplin and through osmosis their kids started digging it. Which translates into Zepplin still having a hold on the younger market today (to an extent).

Van Halen's earliest fanbase is just now into the child-bearing and rearing age - enough to have kids but not enough to have kids in the popular music range that would pander older VH to them if they asked. I'd say give it a decade and see if the story is different.

[Vic Vega_0609]

Well, how are we measuring this? Album sales? I've always personally thought Zeppelin's overrated as hell, and I like them. It drives me nuts when people call them the first "hard rock" band or worse yet, the first heavy metal band. There was a ton of influential bands before them like Cream, and whole bunch of other blues-based rock bands. What about Sabbath and Deep Purple? What the hell did Led Zeppelin do exactly to make them the "First Hard Rock band" or whatever. How the hell do you measure influence? If you check most guitar polls, Eddie almost always outranks Jimmy Page, so VH's got the edge there. If you're doing in album sales, then yes, Zeppelin has the edge but I don't understand how you measure who's more of legend than somebody else. Zeppelin's had thirty years to make a legacy. VH still has ten years to go. I personally have always thought that VH, Zeppelin, Aerosmith, etc. have belonged in the same category as gigantic hard rock bands. What is it that makes Zeppelin so much more influential in your guys eyes?

[redfire]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vic Vega_0609:
What about Sabbath and Deep Purple? What the hell did Led Zeppelin do exactly to make them the "First Hard Rock band" or whatever.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"After this album (Led Zep 4), no one ever compared us to Black Sabbath." - John Bonham

That's the thing about those 2 groups. As for Deep Purple, only KISS had a harder time keeping a consistent group of band members. Led Zeppelin 4 is the most complete album ever in my opinion. The thing about LZ is that they kept the same line up. As for comparing the LZ line up to the VH line up...

Bonzo was the king. Al took over that role after Bonzo died.

John Paul and Mike were and still are both underappreciated for their contributions to their respective bands. Mikey is the better singer but John Paul is the better musician.

Jimmy Page captured peoples imagination before Edward. Keep in mind Ed was inspired by seeing Jimmy play the Dazed and Confused solo, I believe, with a violin bow. What Ed did at the time is similiar to what Jimmy did. They helped transend guitar playing. Of course many people can imitate Jim and Ed note for note nowadays but they didn't do it back in the 70s and 80s so it doesn't mean the same thing.

And as for DLR, Robert Plant and Sammy. Well, Sammy fell into the category with many others, David Coverdale being one, and that is the Robert Plant wanna be. Plant was the first frontman of rock. DLR then took over that title. Though Sammy is the better live singer of the 3, Plant and DLR both forgot words and sang off pitches. But they were the most entertaining people of their time.

Point is, head to head, they are very similiar but LZ had a mystique because they never had the same band problems VH, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, KISS, ect... had. Bonzo died and that was the end of it. Granted In Through the Out Door wasn't their best album, it was a transition into the 80's as well. Go take a listen to it if you have it. LZ will always be above Halen because THEY were the group that "didn't fuck around."

[Glenn]

Good post redfire. Don't agree with all of it, but it's good thoughts. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

I'd say, go out sometime and ask 100 people of various ages to name 10 legendary bands. I'd be willing to bet that very few would name VH before LZ. Hell, I'd bet very few would even name VH at all, whereas I'd suggest you'd hear Zep's name a lot. For me, this topic goes beyond my personal beliefs and gets into what the world in general believes.

When you're talking about the concept of being legendary, you've got to look past your own feelings and understand what everyone else believes.

Part of being a legend is the mystique that you carry with you. You can't set out to create it entirely. You can try, but it will get away from you, and you have to accept that. Led Zeppelin were lucky enough to have that mystique play in there favor over the long haul, but mystique aside, the music still stands on its own all by itself.

There isn't as much mystery behind VH, and that will affect whether people revere them as being in the "legendary" category.

In a way, the whole topic makes me point the finger at Dave a little more. Dave acknowledges that his best work was with Eddie, so why did he leave? Plant and Page weren't always buddies, but they hitched their wagons to each other's stars and stayed the course until Bonzo's death ended it. Not that I truly blame Dave (he did what he felt was best for him, that's fine), but I feel that if he and Eddie had been able to respect each other enough to keep going for another 10 years, they'd be a lot closer to being in the legends category. As it stands, with the member changes, I don't think VH are in the legends category with Zep.

[redfire]

Thanks Glenn and good follow up post at that.

The biggest point I saw was this....

"Led Zeppelin were lucky enough to have that mystique play in there favor over the long haul, but mystique aside, the music still stands on its own all by itself."

In my opinion, that's the truth. Part of their mystique was their luck. Everything fell right for them to have this aura about them.

And another good point was the fact that Page and Plant said "forget our personal feelings about each other, lets just go make some kick ass music." Dave and Ed wouldn't get past that. I'm not putting blame on any one person because I'm sure it was a group effort but my point is legendary bands say "fuck the bullshit, let's make music." And hopefully that's what the guys are doing right now.

[Georgie]

First off, I totally agree with Limecuda's take on "Legends" that are proclaimed because of a young tragic demise. I will be the first to say it, and certainly not the last, that Hendrix, Cobain and Joplin were way overrated. You know where they would be today if they were alive? hendrix would be a Carlos Santana type figure. A respected guitar player who maybe 30 years later would finally achieve platinum success. ( He never did it while he was alive. Nor did he ever headline in the US.) Had Cobain been alive, Nirvana would have broken up or they would have been defunct around 1995-1996. Joplin? Come on. Name five songs she did. This is what I am saying. Why should Joplin be a declared legend when their are many female singers with more recognizable voices and commercial success. Stevie Nicks is one that comes to mind.

About Led Zeppelin. They are second after the Beatles in album sales by a group. I'll hand it to them there. I disagree that Sammy Hagar is a Plant rip-off. Why, because he had blonde hair and screamed? He was so different. In fact, many may argue that what David Lee Roth represented in a frontman may have been more immitated than that of Plant's voice. Eddie Van Halen is certainly more innovative and influential than Jimmy Page, although Jimmy too is a legend. Bonham and Alex are in pretty much the same company and Michael Anthony's harmonies and Bass lines were more represented in recordings than anything John Paul Jones has done.

Accomplishments?

Well, Van Halen and Led Zeppelin are tied for third place of all time for most consecutive platinum albums. I may be mistaking, but 6 #1 albums by VH surpassed the four that Zeppelin had to my knowledge. I do agree that the changing in singers as dropped them down on the pedestal, but when it is said and done, Van Halen will be represented in the same senetence and same league as Zeppelin in the Hall of Fame.

[Glenn]

No question in my mind that Jimi is another guy who benefitted from the time he lived in, and has had his legend benefit from the tragic early demise.

BUT, I really believe that Jimi has to be seen in the context of what was happening with the guitar when he came out. He was way ahead of his time and a sound innovator like few musicians before him or since. Not to say he was the best guitarist, but he was using the guitar in a unique way.

I love the story of Eric Clapton and Pete Townshend meeting in a darkened movie theater to discuss Jimi when he first hit their scene. The two of them were terrified that they would be old news because they saw something so new and fresh in Jimi's playing.

You won't get much arguement from me about Cobain or Joplin though.

[RAFTER]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Glenn:
I think it's safe to say that art is much more likely to be pure when the media isn't factored in by the artist. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Damn straight.

[KenyonVincent]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Limecuda:
The accomplishments of 20+ years are overlooked by a few mistakes made over the past 5 years. Can they polish their image to what it once was or has too much damage been done?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's something called PUBLICITY. I'll never forget what my junior year history teacher said: "the news media are the biggest criminals in the world." So true. So as long as the media makes them look bad, there's not much the fans can do to make them look better.

[redfire]

Forking double post.

[ March 30, 2001 at 10:22 PM: Message edited by: redfire ]