Reader comments
Zeppelin book attempts to debunk fables

Dread Zeppelin | 12:25 a.m. Oct. 17, 2008

They so quickly became caricatures of themselves it was hard to take them seriously.

DerZeppMeister | 8:36 a.m. Oct. 17, 2008

Dread, nothing could be further from the truth. Zeppelin was an ever-changing outfit, constantly exploring new musical territory. Hearing Plant introduce songs during the '75 tour, it becomes obvious that each album the band released was a little snapshot of where they stood musically at that time.

People try to dismiss Zeppelin as bombastic and cliched, but that's not how they were. Listen closely and you'll discover nuance, musical shading, dynamic hard and soft texturing, and, of course, the three musicians were all virtuosos.

As good as the studio albums are, Zeppelin were unsurpassed as a live group. Night after night, tour after tour, you can hear subtleties that would have escaped lesser bands (Rolling Stones, anyone?). It was never rote performance. It was always about exploration and innovation.

Zeppelin were above classification. The same album that brought us "Black Dog" and "When the Levee Breaks" delivered "Misty Mountain Hop," "The Battle of Evermore," and "Going to California." The album that brought us "Kashmir" and "Trampled Underfoot" also brought us "Bron-Yr-Aur" and "Ten Years Gone." Zeppelin have a staying power that few bands can match.

Hindenburg Down | 10:56 a.m. Oct. 17, 2008

Robert Plant = Caterwauling Crooner
Jimmy Page = Preening, Posing Prima Donna
John Paul Jones = Solid but forgetable* (*see Page/Plant reunion tour)
John Bonham = Dead

Comments continue below

Blimpies' Specials | 11:15 a.m. Oct. 17, 2008

Yea, and what was that D'yer Mak'er thing all about?

Stairway to Mediocrity | 12:22 a.m. Oct. 18, 2008

Styxx with better musicianship.

Pageisgod | 4:10 p.m. Oct. 18, 2008

I don't understand how any rock fan would not love Zeppelin. Excellent musicianship and a very diverse catalog. The "Houses of the holy" album is better than most rock bands entire catalogs.

A Whole Lotta Duds | 9:36 p.m. Oct. 19, 2008

We saw Led Zeppelin play at the Salt Palace before there was a stage in the building. Zeppelin played on portable 3'-5' risers. Seated on the first row of seats we wanted to leave after the first couple of songs but couldn't after being wedged in by the pressing forward unwashed masses.

After an hour and a half of Plant's torturous shreaking, finally free, walking South on West Temple some wasted troglodyte behind me belched out the all-time classic line, "I pledge allegiance to Jimmy Page."

That's how this rock fan became, and remains, Zeppelin-adverse.

MaDMiG | 11:29 a.m. Oct. 20, 2008

How is it that a band that had such a tremendous influence in music AND culture can be denigrated by anyone. Can any other band state that they themselves were responsible for ONE-THIRD of Atlantic Records' sales in the height of their career? And as for the lifestyle, nobody could ever actually live up to that image- not even them- SO WHAT? I will always remember LED ZEPPELIN for what they did in my life, or as Dave Grohl mentioned in the ROLLING STONE article, They became GOD to me in a time that I didn't believe in GOD. But unfortunately this culture tends to kill its gods.
So Be It- So Mete Be It!

#2 and Counting | 1:29 p.m. Oct. 20, 2008

It's all a matter of taste. Personally, I think Dread Zeppelin was right.

MaDMiG | 4:23 p.m. Oct. 20, 2008

Taste is one thing, facts are another.

DerZeppMeister | 4:39 p.m. Oct. 20, 2008

A Whole Lotta Duds: I have that show from '73 on CD. It's a fine performance, including an impromptu performance of "Georgia On My Mind." It's not their fault you got wedged in.

Cheez Whiz better than Bleu | 9:35 p.m. Oct. 20, 2008

madmig: What facts?

Celine Dion has sold more records than Peter Gabriel. That's a fact.

Is Celine Dion a better artist than Peter Gabriel? Your call but...that is personal taste.

I found Led Zeppelin to be laughable. My taste. 122 million albums doesn't change my musical tastes.

If record sales are the only criteria the Dixie Chicks are better than Jimi Hendrix.

The Booner Years | 10:00 p.m. Oct. 20, 2008

DerZeppMeister: the show referenced by A Whole Lotta Duds was 1969 or 1970 not 1973.

We wanted to leave for no reason other than (we felt) the performance (Plant, especially) was awful.

Anonymous | 6:12 p.m. Oct. 23, 2008

Cheez Whiz better than Bleu

What are you trying to say?

If subjective analysis is your only criteria for assessing musical ability/influence then there will be those who indeed believe that the Dixie Chicks are better than the overrated "sideshow" performer antics of Hendrix.

Yet, you seem to be implying that it is a given that Jimi Hendrix is better than the Dixie Chicks, based on your subjective taste theory no logical critique can be formulated....it all falls at individual taste/opinion.

Well hey, I think that Ethiopia has a stronger economy than Japan and I think a Corolla will out perform a Porsche....sometimes we need to go beyond subjective views and logically arrive at conclusions....record sales/volumes must carry some weight in an analysis of musicians.

A Whole Lotta Bing | 12:42 a.m. Oct. 25, 2008

I have been beaten into submission. "I pledge allegiance to Jimmy Page and to Bing Crosby."

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.