Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

The year Led Zeppelin overtook The Beatles


Rabs

Recommended Posts

In 1969 Fleetwood Mac (Peter Green's original Fleetwood Mac) sold more records than The Beatles and The Rolling Stones combined!

 

That was amazing!

 

But there's no arguing the success and popularity of Led Zep! I think possibly the most recognizable song in Rock & Roll history is Stairway To Heaven...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A very interesting post... [thumbup]

 

And also an eloquent comment on the changing music scene in 1970

 

IMO Led Zep deserved all their success and accolades

 

Having worked hard on their craft for years before achieving huge success

 

And applying great intelligence and artistry in re-interpreting 'the blues'

 

True to say...Beatles tunes are good to hum

 

Led Zep et al tunes serve a different purpose

 

V

 

:-({|=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NOW we're talkin'!

 

Go, DONNY!

 

I'm kind of on the fence about his later Bad Boy comeback years year though. It just wasn't the same.

 

 

Actually, talking of them, for all their clean cut, cheesy image and all, there was one single they put out that really did rock! (serious...stop laughing!).

My sister was head over about Donny so I had to put up with her playing their records all the time around home. Hated it, until one day she played this single (45rpm) that they cut, it was called "Crazy Horses". And it blew me away. Couldn't believe it was them. Thought my sister was playing some joke on me. It's got the most insane slide riff in it, and it just out and out ROCKS!.

Ever get the chance to hear it, you won't believe it's them!

(ok...now you can start laughing again).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just found it on U-Tube. It's not a slide, it's a theramin on the keyboards. A little reworking for crunchier guitar and it could be worth something! Replace the theramin with some Joe Walsh slide, the horn section with some slash style chord work, plenty of OD, and yeah, this has potential. (just don't tell anyone who recorded it first) Cheesy clip!

(recommence laughing).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

 

Priceless/clueless interviewers - "the personalty cult is dead" . . . . "people are voting for 'good musicians' instead".

 

Of course, without the foresight of all those lip syncing fiascoes and personality cults to come, not the least of which was the Milli Vanilli Grammy scandal.

 

But LZ was riding very high at the time and deservedly so - the fawning is understandable. Enjoyed the comments of John and Robert.

 

Nice post. . B)

 

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cup of tea with the bangers and mash old chap?

 

Led Zeppelin and the Beatles were very different bands, so it's unfair to compare them in terms of popularity. I wonder how it would have been if they both came out at the same time? It would have been very interesting.

 

Led Zeppelin were musicians who could play to a good level, whereas the Beatles really couldn't play and were pop songwriters. The Beatles were commercial and hoping for hits, whereas Led Zep weren't commercial in the fact they avoided releasing singles and wrote longer than 2-3 minute songs right from the beginning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Similarities in lifespan of the bands, number of albums and in being completely prepared to change direction and try many different approaches and styles of music irrespective of the critics. Perhaps the pre 1980 Pink Floyd could be bracketed with both in those respects too.

 

Very different musically, but some interesting similarities in other ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah to make it clear.. This is not about which is a better band.. Its more about how the music scene changed in 1970 (well around that time).. and Zepp were right at the top of it :)

 

Certainly the Live vs Studio focus was different.

 

Beatles concerts were what... 30 minutes, at that stage Led Zep would be on about their 3rd or 4th song with 2-3 hours ahead of them by the mid 70's. Both bands gigged their backsides off early in their time, but Beatles then reverted to studio whereas Zep became less prodigious in their album releases but played the mega tours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly the Live vs Studio focus was different.

 

Beatles concerts were what... 30 minutes, at that stage Led Zep would be on about their 3rd or 4th song with 2-3 hours ahead of them by the mid 70's. Both bands gigged their backsides off early in their time, but Beatles then reverted to studio whereas Zep became less prodigious in their album releases but played the mega tours.

Yeah well in Hamburg the Beatles gigs lasted all night. So what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cup of tea with the bangers and mash old chap?

 

Led Zeppelin and the Beatles were very different bands, so it's unfair to compare them in terms of popularity. I wonder how it would have been if they both came out at the same time? It would have been very interesting.

 

Led Zeppelin were musicians who could play to a good level, whereas the Beatles really couldn't play and were pop songwriters. The Beatles were commercial and hoping for hits, whereas Led Zep weren't commercial in the fact they avoided releasing singles and wrote longer than 2-3 minute songs right from the beginning.

Yeah George Harrison and Paul McCartney couldn't play. Sheesh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah well in Hamburg the Beatles gigs lasted all night. So what.

 

so I responded to the quoted point from Rabs in my post about changes in the scene from 60's to 70's, highlighting one such difference whilst noting that both bands gigged their (a$$es) off (i.e Hamburg) early on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1421619469[/url]' post='1616853']

Certainly the Live vs Studio focus was different.

 

Beatles concerts were what... 30 minutes, at that stage Led Zep would be on about their 3rd or 4th song with 2-3 hours ahead of them by the mid 70's. Both bands gigged their backsides off early in their time, but Beatles then reverted to studio whereas Zep became less prodigious in their album releases but played the mega tours.

 

The Beatles were doing three shows a day, while writing new stuff. Led Zepplin was stealing old blues guys songs....and speaking as someone who saw one of the Zeplins three hour shows, I can attest, that was the worst three hours of my life, besides the last root canal I had.Three cords into any song and the band forgot what they were playing, after one hour the boos were as loud as Pages stack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Beatles were doing three shows a day, while writing new stuff. Led Zepplin was stealing old blues guys songs....and speaking as someone who saw one of the Zeplins three hour shows, I can attest, that was the worst three hours of my life, besides the last root canal I had.Three cords into any song and the band forgot what they were playing, after one hour the boos were as loud as Pages stack.

 

 

Well that'd certainly be another difference - imagine a Beatles concert with thousands screaming their lungs out in ecstasy and a lone voice up the back going "boooooo" - nope, can't see it [laugh]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...