1. Win a Broadcaster or one of 3 Teles! The annual Supporting Member Giveaway is on. To enter Click Here. To see all the prizes and full details Click Here. To view the thread about the giveaway Click Here.

Why do rock stars hate Led Zeppelin?

Discussion in 'Music to Your Ears' started by BeatlesAreMyJam, Jan 4, 2015.

  1. ItchyFingers

    ItchyFingers Tele-Afflicted

    Posts:
    1,651
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2013
    Location:
    Ottawa Ontario Canada
    I liked them from day one through Led Zeppelin 2 and then lost it.
    I was there when the first album was released. It was great at the time.
    I never got into the Stones at all. I can't explain it. It's just personal taste I guess.
     
  2. ac15

    ac15 Poster Extraordinaire Ad Free Member

    Posts:
    7,180
    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Location:
    CHICAGO, IL.
    Yeah, as if that short descending passage in the Spirit tune is the entirety of Stairway....
     
  3. bricksnbeatles

    bricksnbeatles Tele-Afflicted

    Posts:
    1,695
    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2014
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    Because Zep rulez!!!!!!
     
  4. getbent

    getbent Telefied Silver Supporter

    Posts:
    40,486
    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    Location:
    San Benito County, California
    most interviews of rock stars.. especially the keith richards/pete towsend type interviews are just elaborate versions of 'made you look' that was kind of fun when you were like 11.
     
  5. AirBagTester

    AirBagTester Friend of Leo's

    Posts:
    3,871
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2010
    Location:
    Maryland
    Oh really? Well I heard from a friend who once ran into Charlie Watts that Charlie said that Mick said Paul McCartney didn't like Led Zeppelin fans who think PRIMUS SUCKS. Why do rock stars hate Primus so much?
     
    kookaburra likes this.
  6. Larry F

    Larry F Doctor of Teleocity Vendor Member

    Posts:
    16,722
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2006
    Location:
    Iowa City, IA
    I bought their first album, and my band learned a fair number of songs from it. But we soon lost interest in playing most of those, as each song seemed to be about one thing, leaving little room for contrast. The press portrayed them as Riot House hedonists, where groupies and partyists were part of the same package. By the time of the second album, they seemed to be a kids' band.
     
  7. papa32203

    papa32203 Tele-Holic

    Posts:
    943
    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Location:
    Surprise, AZ
    and tons of money...
     
  8. Brad Pittiful

    Brad Pittiful Doctor of Teleocity Ad Free Member

    Posts:
    18,234
    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Location:
    Philly Burbs
    primus sucks!
     
  9. papa32203

    papa32203 Tele-Holic

    Posts:
    943
    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Location:
    Surprise, AZ
    "They both know they're legends in the world of rock who've made decisive contributions to the genre."



    and tons of money...
     
  10. BeatlesAreMyJam

    BeatlesAreMyJam Tele-Afflicted

    Posts:
    1,417
    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2009
    Location:
    Wherever
    Pete and Keef aren't exactly poor. What do they have to be jealous about?? The Stones especially. Easily as big as Zep.
     
  11. sax4blues

    sax4blues Friend of Leo's

    Posts:
    4,465
    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, CO
    I have met a lot of original musicians who are not fans of watching other bands. My first thought was they are jealous, but really it seemed they were just very into their own thing.
     
  12. Biz Prof

    Biz Prof Tele-Meister

    Posts:
    323
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Location:
    Lillington, NC
    Could be this, in a nutshell. My mates and I were never rock stars, per se, but we played the same clubs, on the same Southeast circuit, that Hootie and Dave Matthews Band frequented. I never liked any of the original music from either of those bands, but they were all genuinely nice guys. I am glad that they found success and cashed in.

    No jealously here. We simply had more in common with heavy blues rock bands like Cry of Love and Badlands, who were all just a bit too far removed from either grunge or frat rock to enjoy sustained success in the early '90s.
     
    DougM likes this.
  13. Diamond Dave

    Diamond Dave Tele-Meister

    Posts:
    466
    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2014
    Location:
    Roanoke, VA
    If Zep had simply credited some of their more blatant plagarism, this would all be a non-issue. And everyone stole. John Lennon stole Come Together from Chuck Berry...as if the Beatles lacked for creativity.

    I don't think you can claim to be a rock fan and not acknowledge Led Zep's greatness. Their handful of blatant ripoffs aside, they have a massive body of phenomenal original work that justifies a solid argument for them being the greatest rock band of all time. As do the Stones.
     
  14. Tim Armstrong

    Tim Armstrong Super Moderator Ad Free Member

    Age:
    61
    Posts:
    19,376
    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2003
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    I wonder if the fact that Entwistle and Moon almost quit the Who to start a band with Page and Beck has anything to do with Townsend's disdain for Led Zeppelin?
     
  15. Mr. Lumbergh

    Mr. Lumbergh Poster Extraordinaire

    Posts:
    7,937
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Location:
    Initech, Inc.
    Oh, bigger by far. While I personally dig Zep more, the Stones have been able to keep their careers going for, what, 50 years now? That is absolutely unheard of!
     
  16. bertramladner

    bertramladner TDPRI Member

    Posts:
    86
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2014
    Location:
    Emeryville, CA
    Zep was my favorite band in 5th grade replacing the Beattles. Zep was more wild and rebellious than the Beattles….They lasted till Bob Dylan in 10th grade.
     
  17. TimmyM

    TimmyM Tele-Meister

    Posts:
    315
    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Location:
    Rialto, CA. USA
    All I can say is "to each their own", I have never been a Zeppelin fan but I still can't discount the fact that they were a good rock band with a tremendous following and some monumental songs. I guess it's a good thing that we are not all influenced by the same three guys or the rock world would be a dreadful, stagnant place.
     
  18. Obsessed

    Obsessed Telefied Silver Supporter

    Posts:
    25,135
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2012
    Location:
    Montana
    +1
    This is basically my reaction as well. Led Zep was big, but their music just not as long lasting as The Who and Stones. Almost a flash in the pan, right time right place sort of thing. However, I can see how any band would be jealous of Robert Plants' singing. Gotta admit at the time of Led Zep's first few albums, it is all I listened to, but now I still love The Who and Stones and except for learning one song of LZ for my sister's sake, I have not listened to LZ for decades.

    And yes, I love Jack White. Go figure.
     
  19. EuroBailey

    EuroBailey Tele-Holic

    Posts:
    566
    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2012
    Location:
    melbourne australia
    I would imagine more rock stars are influenced by zep then dislike them...
     
  20. sax4blues

    sax4blues Friend of Leo's

    Posts:
    4,465
    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, CO
    I'm not following the "flash in the pan" idea? Bonham died and the band broke up. There is no way to know but LZ could very well have continued for many years.

    The Who said they would carry on after Keith Moon but they broke up not long after LZ and didn't create any new music for 25 years even though they rehashed the same songs in reunion concerts and still do. How is that not flash in the pan?

    Now The Stones, that is staying power. More of a smoldering burn.

    For me I love all three, it never struck me I had to choose. But then I've been to more Ted Nugent concerts than Zep, Who, and Stones combined. :rolleyes:
     
IMPORTANT: Treat everyone here with respect, no matter how difficult!
No sex, drug, political, religion or hate discussion permitted here.