Zep and their musical compatriots...

["Nicolas Santoli" <nsantoli@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ok..I've sat back and watched with amusement as the post have been 
flying
back and forth on which band is better and when whatever band lost 
their
"mojo"...and I've decided to put in my wooden nickel.

I suppose I should start with Zeppelin and the following question:

>What made Zeppelin the fantastic band that it was? You can have
>great musicians and still have a band nowhere near as good as Led 
>Zeppelin.
>What exactly made them the unparalleled band that they are?

I don't believe there is any one single answer to this question...to 
answer
it most appropriately...you have to realize that there are numerous 
reasons
why Zeppelin became the "fantastic band that is was!"  Several factor
contribute to the success Zep enjoyed:

1) Luck - yes...they were lucky...there were in the right place at 
the right
time
2) Talent - each member was undeniably a major talent in his own 
right and
the sum of each part indeed made the whole greater (or however that 
saying
goes..)
3) Diversity - each member had a diverse taste in music and brought 
that to
the table when writing songs!
4) Management - without Peter Grant Zeppelin may never have enjoyed 
the
success they did under his leadership!
5) Attitude - they had charisma, mystery, and a balls to the wall 
attitude!
6) Direction - Page had many clear set goals in mind and the band 
flourished
under his musical direction
7) Energy (sexual and otherwise) - especially in the early years 
their shows
were packed with energy and whether you are a male or not...you have 
to
acknowledge that it's there and the music is brimming with it!
8) Chemistry/Magic - whatever you want to call it...the boys just 
damn well
jibed (is that a word? Shar?) off one another - Page and 
Plant....Bonzo and
Jonesy...at times these pairs performed as if they were twins!

I could go on and on about what makes Led Zeppelin such a great band.
Undoubtedly, some of you will agree and some will not!! However, I'm 
sure
we'll all agree that they are undisputedly the BEST!!

So with Zep being on top...that leaves us to discuss the others!!

>How did the Grateful Dead make it so big.  There music is plain and
uninspiring.
>Boring to be more direct.

How could the Dead NOT make it big?? They are incredible!! However, 
you can
never understand/discover the Grateful Dead by listening to their 
studio
albums...you have to see/hear them live!! For them...it was all about 
the
live playing...the albums just helped to pay the bills!! A passage 
that
comes to mind is: "As every Deadhead knows, the Dead's studio records 
barely
scratch the surface of the REAL Grateful Dead Experience. The true 
magic is
found in and around the band's live concert performances."

>I think the Dead were quite a bit more inventive with jams than 
>Zeppelin.
>Zep did type I, guitar-lead jamming (with a few exceptions)... the 
>Dead
>would at times completely break away from the structure.

The Dead were definitely more inventive with jamming...hell...half of 
their
music (live) IS jamming...unlike Zep...which may have thrown in a 
noodle or
lick here and there yet usually stuck to the structure of the 
tune...the
Dead could play a song once at 4 minutes or play it another time at 30
minutes...and although they had their hallmark jam songs (Dark Star, 
St.
Stephen->NFA, Eyes of the World, etc.) they could, would, and 
did...jam /
improvise every song in their catalog and beyond!!

For Zep...the musical improvisation was more tightly structured and 
limited
to only a few songs (DaC, NQ, WLL, HMMT...) and some of these were 
medleys
and not what I'd classify as pure musical improvisation...

>i dont knock people who like them but when they >break away from the
"structure" which must be quite often.....it sounds like incoherent
gibberish.

It's true that at times some of the Dead's jams sound like 
"gibberish" but
that is in fact what it is...almost all Dead shows contain a section 
of
"Drums" followed by what is termed "Space"...this is where the Dead 
are
improvising to the fullest...there is no structure!! They just try to
achieve the celestial...sometimes they succeed...sometimes they 
fail...

However...not all the Dead jams were "space" and they actually had 
several
"jam" patterns they followed...ie. Spanish Jam, Darkness Jam, Mountain
Jams...these were all free jams centered around a certain chord 
patterns and
that also incorporated tunes from other artists the band enjoyed...

>n my opinion the Grateful Dead were one of the best, if not they 
>best live
>band ever.  We're talking about a band that never played the same 
>setlist
>twice-that's why people followed them on tour, a band that really 
>jammed,
>and that could entertain a crowd like no other.

I'd have to agree...definitely one of the best....

But if they're so good why do I like Zep better?

The Dead definitely contained many of the same elements as
Zep...however...they just didn't / don't have the attitude or sexual 
energy
that Led Zeppelin emitted...I love the Dead for the cerebral genius 
their
music employs...but Led Zeppelin just plain and simple KICKED ASS!! 
The Dead
played many of the same styles as Zep (folk, country, blues, jazzy) 
but I
don't think they ever tapped into the Rock and Roll energy like Zep
did...and deep down inside I think that sex appeals more than the
cerebral...to anyone...no matter what you might say!!

>Maybe it's because I'm getting older but I find more and more that 
>the same
>U2 songs I hated in the 80's are songs that I kinda dig now.  I 
>always
liked
>Sunday Bloody Sunday though.

I really can't say much about U2...I've never liked them...I don't 
even like
'Sunday Bloody Sunday'...I think it's a boring song...

>If you want  a boring one, play Ummagumma. disc 2, the studio
>part of the album.  Now that is boring!  Or, play Atom Heart Mother, 
>that's
>also boring!  But TDB, please...!

Although disc 2 of Ummagumma was not a very successful hit...it did 
give
some insight into each member of the band and hence is valuable to
understand them as a whole and how the band progressed over time. If 
you
don't know...each member was given a certain amount of time to 
compose their
own section of that second disc.
Hence it was not created by Pink Floyd as a whole but by each member
individually.

Atom Heart Mother however, is, in my opinion, a musical masterpiece 
and I've
not heard many bands duplicate a piece like it since...Yes and King 
Crimson
being those closest in line...

Floyd sort of went opposite of most other bands and went from the
improvisational to the tightly structured...which of course has to do 
with
Syd Barrett's departure (ousting) from the band...they went from Art 
to
Architecture...no longer painting the canvas with broad sweeping 
strokes of
Syd's delight...but skillfully graphing and penciling each composure 
with
Water's technical penchant...which...if you collect Floyd boots 
you'll know
that as they grow later in years they become more and more a
like...especially the Wall which was so choreographed that by the end 
of the
tour the band played by rote!!

>The Doors (released two LP's after Morrison died, but perhaps they 
>should
have >quit after the second album, or sent Morrison into detox).

I disagree with this statement...throughout their career the Doors 
released
many great hits...not just the first two albums...some examples 
being: Peace
Frog, LA Woman, Soft Parade, Riders on the Storm, etc...I even like 
the
album of poetry they released after Morrison's death that the rest of 
the
band put music to...

Anyway...I guess I've taken up a bunch of time and space...and if 
you've
made it this far...thanks for readin' my input...

Some other great live bands to check out:

Allman Bros. Band
King Crimson
Jimi Hendrix
SRV
Parliament / Funkadelic
Yes

- -Nic