Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Led Zeppelin I - March 15th 1969 Rolling Stone Magazine Album Review


Recommended Posts

I shared this with obvious intent to goof as well as to point out once again Zeppelin's thievery.

 

Boohoo.

 

And this is necessary why? Does anybody today Care that they stole? If you do, then You may want to see a psychiatrist. For some reason you feel the need to restate something that's been stated over and over again, about something that happen close to half a century ago. Is it necessary? No. Does it get people worked up and defensive? Yes, and you knew that when you started this topic. That's the textbook definition of a troll.

 

Good day,

 

-Ryan

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

****in' trolls. Most of the music you like wouldn't have been created without the influence of Zeppelin. Think before you troll.

what?   Reviewers and their reviews have always been, and always will be, utter bullshizzle. Nobody's opinion, then or now, can contend with Zep's legacy as the greatest rock band in history and th

I usually am! :)

The review is fairly typical of the mindset Rolling Stone was building and encouraging at that time. Its journalists seemed to have suffered some form of collective trauma caused by the Beatles arriving in '64, and spent most of the late 60s and 70s slagging off or minimizing anything British. A few years ago, someone gave me a "Rolling Stone history of Rock" published in the late 70s, in which devoted five pages to the Grateful Dead, seven pages to Bob Dylan and a page to Led Zepplin ( mostly uncomplementry). The Stones were the only other Britsh band that merited a mention. In fact, Zep garnered almost universally bad US reviews for all their work. Presumably Atlantic wasn't passing out enough money and drugs to the "music press"

Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is necessary why? Does anybody today Care that they stole? If you do, then You may want to see a psychiatrist. For some reason you feel the need to restate something that's been stated over and over again, about something that happen close to half a century ago. Is it necessary? No. Does it get people worked up and defensive? Yes, and you knew that when you started this topic. That's the textbook definition of a troll.

 

Good day,

 

-Ryan

 

It's good to you know where things come from, and to understand the insincerity of things created by people.

 

I recall a Troll being a "super natural" being, so I can dig it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any "trolls" on this thread. I see some people who have really twisted panties, while others are loose in comfort.

 

If a thread like this makes you upset, you might want to consider someone to talk to, perhaps a therapist.

 

 

I shared this with obvious intent to goof as well as to point out once again Zeppelin's thievery.

 

Boohoo.

 

 

humm....... when it comes to the "need for a therapist " the need to obsessively go on on on about your opinion regarding Led Zepplin and your unique veiw of copyright law comes to mind

Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is necessary why? Does anybody today Care that they stole?

 

Accusations of troll-ing aside, I do care: I do care that Led Zeppelin took songs from other artists, claimed they themselves wrote it, then made a helluva lot of money off of it.

 

Led Zeppelin sang a lot of old blues, but my guess is that some miffed people could write a pretty convincing blues song about Led Zeppelin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Accusations of troll-ing aside, I do care: I do care that Led Zeppelin took songs from other artists, claimed they themselves wrote it, then made a helluva lot of money off of it.

 

Led Zeppelin sang a lot of old blues, but my guess is that some miffed people could write a pretty convincing blues song about Led Zeppelin.

 

[thumbup]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finding out the depth of Zep's thievery was - for me - liking finding out my girlfriend had been cheating on me. I loved Led Zeppelin since I first heard "Over the Hills" on the radio (a true Zep original, BTW). Ignorance was bliss. The problem was, my guitar teacher is also a Zep fanatic, and is a musician who teaches and gigs to make ends meet. And what with him being a struggling singer/songwriter, his moral compass made him angry: "Since I've Been Loving You" became a LZ concert staple while Moby Grape languishes in relative obscurity. (If you don't know what I'm talking about, look it up...) While he still teaches me Zep when I want (I am, after all, paying the guy), he would rather teach me Jimi than Jimmy.

 

Perhaps I feel this too strongly. But then again, I am a musician... [tongue]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like "Over The Hills and Far Away" just as much as the next guy BUT the song's beginning kind of "makes/pokes fun of" early country/folk and doesn't really mesh the best with the other parts of the music in my opinion. At least that's what I feel when I hear that song anyway.

 

 

 

The older I get the more I'm a skeptic of cross-pollination or mixtures of genres. [rolleyes]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact- Rolling stone magazine is a pile of garbage. Zep or no zep comment lol

 

This I find the writers and the whole magazine insufferabe.

 

Their critics don't seem to take into account the fact that people may just like the music from bands they bash. They gave poor reviews to AC/DC when they started and it would not be another 30 years before they "honor them" with The cover.

 

Still, I have to disagree that the music I hear is strongly inspired by Zeppelin. Partially yes, heavily no.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing lower or as useless as a music critic. Who would want to waiste their time reading their crap when you've got beautiful Gibson guitars to play? I always wondered why these useless critics don't put out any excellent music for all to hear and to demonstrate to all how perfect music is supposed to be played. Instead, all you ever get is their useless opinions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I agree with both. Led Zepplin should have given proper credit up front, but they took other people's music to a whole new level, just as others did (think SRV). Sometimes it's done by accident. This is from http://www.musicintheabstract.org/:

 

Q: Did Rush get sued and have to pay royalties for their unauthorized use of Raymond Scott's "Powerhouse" in their 1978 recording "La Villa Strangiato"?

 

A: By the time Raymond Scott's publisher notified the band's management of the infringement, the statute of limitations had expired on the challenge. But Rush's management, out of deference to Mr. and Mrs. Scott (Raymond was still alive at that point), offered a one-time "penance" payment, feeling it was the ethical thing to do. All involved were happy with the resolution, and Rush has no further financial obligations. Under the settlement, they were not required to accord Raymond Scott partial songwriting credit on the piece.

 

Here is the part in question.

 

On the other hand I never listen to critics. If I did then I'd never be a Rush fan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very surprised that I appear to be the only who picked up on Mendelsohn's worst offence,it wasn't his review but his refering to Robert Plant being able to do a pretty good imitation of a "Spade", that word is the equivalent of the "N" word in Britain and is only used by people who would much rather be wearing white hooded robes than their usual garb.This alone gives him zero credence in my book and even less respect.Jan Werner would have most likely been editor at that time and I'm surprised that he allowed that word to go to print.Of course maybe he wasn't familiar with British euphemisms and didn't think that Mendelsohn's back-handed "compliment" about Plant's singing was a racial slur.It's no wonder that his review was inane, because there's no such thing as an intelligent racist so he would be incapable of writing a good review.

 

Back in the late 60s Rolling Stone was a decent magazine and one of the few publications that didn't shy away from doing commentaries that exposed the wrong doings of political figures and the government's day to day workings.With contributors who were among the best and most outspoken journalists in the U.S. and in the case of Hunter S Thompson,the most outspoken the world had ever seen,the magazine was respected as being a hard-hitting source of world news.These days Rolling Stone has become little more than what the Hit Parader,16,and Teen Magazine were in the 60s.The best use that R.S. could be put to these days would be to cover the bottom of a bird cage because it has become what is basically just another Justa Beaver et al fanzine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a KISS fan, I don't have to explain my hatred of the magazine. They not only give good bands credit, critics are useless anyway.

 

I mean, they never acknowledged Judas Priest, and they continue to be a forefront in heavy metal. So, THEY'RE IDIOTS! (except for a few, like David Fricke)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...