Led Zeppelin

Rock & Roll Hall of Famer

Category: Performer

Inducted in: 1995

Inducted by: Steven Tyler and Joe Perry

Nominated in: 1995

First Eligible: 1995 Ceremony

Inducted Members: John Bonham, John Paul Jones, Jimmy Page and Robert Plant


Inducted into Rock Hall Revisited in 1995 (ranked #8) .


Essential Albums (?)WikipediaAmazon MP3Amazon CD
Led Zeppelin II (1969)
Led Zeppelin (1969)
Led Zeppelin III (1970)
Untitled (Led Zeppelin IV/ZOSO) (1971)
Houses of the Holy (1973)
Physical Graffiti (1975)
In Through The Out Door (1979)

Essential Songs (?)WikipediaAmazon MP3YouTube
Dazed And Confused (1967)
Communication Breakdown (1969)
Babe, I'm Gonna Leave You (1969)
Heartbreaker (1969)
Good Times, Bad Times (1969)
Ramble On (1969)
Whole Lotta Love (1969)
Immigrant Song (1970)
Misty Mountain Hop (1971)
Going to California (1971)
When the Levee Breaks (1971)
Battle of Evermore (1971)
Rock And Roll (1971)
Stairway To Heaven (1971)
Black Dog (1971)
Over the Hills and Far Away (1973)
Kashmir (1975)
All My Love (1979)

Led Zeppelin @ Wikipedia

Led Zeppelin Videos

Comments

234 comments so far (post your own)

LED ZEPPELIN IS THE BEST BAND EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Trev on Sunday, 07.30.06 @ 12:17pm


no skynyrd is

Posted by steven on Friday, 11.10.06 @ 23:30pm


Skynyrd? Are you kidding me? My vote goes to Zeppelin (even though they aren't my personal favorite) "Over the Hills and Far Away" is the most beautiful song ever.

Posted by Judy on Saturday, 11.11.06 @ 00:59am


ok, there are not even words to decribe Led Zeppelins greatness! Skynyrd is good, dont get me wrong, but, my god....Robert Plant, Jimmy Page, John Bonham, and John Paul Jones should be worshiped as gods!!!

Posted by Aaron on Saturday, 11.18.06 @ 20:02pm


Led Zeppelin would have been inducted into the hall in the first year it was created. Few bands can claim the range of influence that Led Zep can. Definitely in the top 5 Rock Bands of all time, and my personal #1. Bonham's death was one of the most tragic moments in Rock and Roll, and if it weren't for that, I believe that Led Zep would have continued for years after.

two songs...

Stairway to Heaven...

Rock and Roll...

Can you top those? I think not.

Posted by Ryan on Wednesday, 12.20.06 @ 01:29am


Ryan wrote,

<<Led Zeppelin would have been inducted into the hall in the first year it was created. Few bands can claim the range of influence that Led Zep can. Definitely in the top 5 Rock Bands of all time, and my personal #1. Bonham's death was one of the most tragic moments in Rock and Roll, and if it weren't for that, I believe that Led Zep would have continued for years after.

two songs...

Stairway to Heaven...

Rock and Roll...

Can you top those? I think not.>>

Unforgiven, ONE, Fade to Black (any 1 will do)....
Enter sandman, Master of Puppets, Creeping Death For whom the Bells toll, Battery, (any1 will do)

ALL HAIL METALLICA


Posted by Tony on Saturday, 01.20.07 @ 13:53pm


Tony wrote,

Unforgiven, ONE, Fade to Black (any 1 will do)....
Enter sandman, Master of Puppets, Creeping Death For whom the Bells toll, Battery, (any1 will do)

ALL HAIL METALLICA


Mettalica are awesome true, but Zeppelin are gods. Achilles Last Stand (blueprint for metal drumming), Whole Lotta Love(vocal gymnastics what metallica lacks) and the Zeus inspired track Kashmir. Do I need say more?

Posted by Ted on Saturday, 02.3.07 @ 13:24pm


<<Mettalica are awesome true, but Zeppelin are gods. Achilles Last Stand (blueprint for metal drumming), Whole Lotta Love(vocal gymnastics what metallica lacks) and the Zeus inspired track Kashmir. Do I need say more?>>

I think they are both gods, but I like a bit heavier sound and I'm 33 so I grew up listening to Metallica. Met is working on thier 3rd generation of fans as far as longevity at the top spot in the rock/metal genre. Metallica also has a wide range of sound from ultra heavy to full symponys. I truely think they are far more creative then 99% of the bands out there. Its true Robert Plant can sing Circles around Hetfield.. but noway can he growl like Het.. ever :-)

Posted by tony on Friday, 02.16.07 @ 10:20am


okay 2 things, every album Metallica has released after the black album has been extremely sub-par. secondly, skynyrd is great but jimmy page, john bonham, john paul jones and robert plant are the best at their instruments and robert plant is an excellent vocalist. also most Metallica songs aren't as good as Zeppelin's songs. Zeppelin laid the blueprint for heavy metal especially with songs like immigrant song, whole lotta love and achilles last stand, DO NOT GET ME WRONG METALLICA IS AWESOME. they are my second favorite band next to Zeppelin. but Zeppelin did not release a bad album their whole year and thanks to St. Anger, Metallica can't say that.

Posted by bob on Tuesday, 03.13.07 @ 16:38pm


led zeppelin was amazing ! they were defintely one of the best bands ever !

Posted by raquel on Friday, 03.16.07 @ 09:08am


Led zepplin is the band that had the biggest influence on rock n roll I've never heard them play and I'm 13

Posted by Lucas on Saturday, 03.17.07 @ 04:02am


"jimmy page, john bonham, john paul jones and robert plant are the best at their instruments"

Hendrix is better than page
Neil peart (Rush) is better than Bonham
John Entwhistle (The Who), Geddy Lee (Rush), and Jack Bruce (Cream) can all play bass better

Led Zeppelin is still the greatest rock band there eveer will be

Posted by Rock on on Monday, 04.16.07 @ 14:16pm


TONS of guitarists are better than Page, many drummers are better than Bonham, and Plant is just plain terrible, as are most of the singers who imitated his style.

JPJ was the best of the four.

I don't know why people like IV so much, either. The first three are easily the best output, rip-offs aside.

Definitely earned their spot, but they have some of the most annoying fans of any band in history.

Posted by William on Monday, 04.16.07 @ 15:42pm


Looks more like a joke that you're arguing about Zeppelins.They are definite!

Posted by Shamurtiboz on Thursday, 05.10.07 @ 19:03pm


who ever said people were better than page, bonham, plant and jones i hope you have the time to read this. Jimmy Page- the greatest gutarist ever, hendrix was awesome and overall better than page but skillwise page is the best. John Bonham- hands down the greatest drummer of all time, unmatched in speed, power, skill, improvasation and rhythym and was able to drum this fast with the heaviest drumsticks avaliable. John Paul Jones- the most versatile skilled basist there ever was, and a genuis composer. Robert Plant- the quintessential frontmen and despite what anyone may say was perfectly suited to Zeppelin's style and anything else he decided to sing on. the only band truely full of irreplaceables.

Posted by bob on Tuesday, 06.5.07 @ 19:25pm


Once again: Zappa beats Page. Fripp beats Page. Lots of people beat Page.

Bill Bruford beats Bonham. Easy.

JPJ is good. Best of the bunch and a good multi-instrumentalist with the best solo work. Still nowhere near the best bassist.

Plant was a horrible singer, and I blame him for the popularity of shrieking, effeminate frontmen that populated the late '70s and most of the '80s.

Posted by William on Tuesday, 06.5.07 @ 19:53pm


I love Zeppelin, but to say that each individual in the band was the best at their craft is simply not true.

Page is unquestionably a great guitar player, but better guitar players? Try Jeff Beck. Jimi Hendrix. Duane Allman.

Bonham was awesome, a force of nature. But bob claims one of his attributes was "speed"? Better drummers? Try Keith Moon. Stewart Copeland.

Jones is talented. Better bassists? Try John Entwhistle. Jack Bruce. Chris Squire.

Plant was an icon. Of all of them, you have the best argument that he is the quintessential frontman. But William has a point in that his spawn is questionable.

Posted by Dezmond on Wednesday, 06.6.07 @ 08:17am


"TONS of guitarists are better than Page, many drummers are better than Bonham, and Plant is just plain terrible, as are most of the singers who imitated his style."

My response to that statement is one word:

SYNERGY

Posted by Anonymous on Friday, 07.6.07 @ 21:58pm


And? I was directly referencing the post above mine. I wouldn't even call them the most synergistic group, or the bes-sounding. In fact, by any measure you care to take, they fall short of the best. They're solid, and influential enough, but their fans instantly go nuts the moment you so much as imply that they weren't the "bestest groop evar."

Posted by William on Friday, 07.6.07 @ 23:52pm


I am not trying to pick another stupid fight here. I agree that they were not the "best" individually at their respective instruments, but was merely pointing out that putting them together as a group is what made them so special. i.e. the sum is greater than the parts..

As far as whether they are the "best" group I think is silly to real go into, because for some they are certainly and for others they are not...it is really a matter of opinion. Plus, saying a group is the "best ever" to me sounds silly and immature, like she or he is my "best friend." Fans can get passionate i.e. "FANatics"

It is also almost like the best group at what? Certainly, Zeppelin was one of the best at a blues/rock sound, but in many other respects were not the best.

Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, 07.7.07 @ 01:37am


okay, like i said page is unmatched in skill. bonham is the best unquestioned. keith moon isnt even second to bonham, peart is. and john entwistle? cliff burton was much better. second to jonesy. and plant is the best vocalist. he didnt tell the shitty imitaters to go out and sing like crap.

Posted by bob on Saturday, 07.14.07 @ 23:15pm


It's all about the Beatles

Posted by Ron on Thursday, 08.2.07 @ 23:10pm


I'm just pointing out that although Zep was very successful, they weren't the first successful British band. Also, they could have continued. Keith Moon, the drummer for the Who, died in '78, two years before Bonham died, yet the Who managed to outlive Zeppelin, find a new drummer, and continue until today. Their bassist even died 5 years ago and they're still around. Kind of makes Zeppelin seem not as great, doesn't it. Also, Stairway to Heavan is a good song, but it's somewhat overrated because Page played it on a double-neck guitar. Definately not Zeppelin's best. The last three minutes are awesome though.

Posted by MaulYoda on Friday, 09.14.07 @ 18:42pm


However, their influence on Rock is undeniable and therefore are a no brainer on whether or not they should be in. However, the first year the Hall of Fame opened is pushing it. The first batch of British bands to be in there are The Beatles, then The Rolling Stones, then The Who, then Jimi Hendrix, and finally Led Zeppelin. You have to wait 25 years anyway, so Zep wouldn't be in, at the earliest, until 1993, 7 years after the musuem opened.

Posted by MaulYoda on Friday, 09.14.07 @ 18:46pm


MaulYoda, the fact that the who replaced keith moon and john entwhislte deters from there greatness. there new album is just horrible. the who died with keith moon. led zeppelin could not replace a drummer like bonham. they wou;dnt survive. its like the yankees this year. without a-rod theyd be dead. led zeppelin had arguably the greatest influence on rock. they did with limited time. the who kept going. and it didnt work so well.

Posted by bob on Saturday, 09.29.07 @ 20:50pm


This whole idea that a single band member is so integral to the whole thing makes absolutely no sense. If it was really all over after Bonham died, they woulcn't have had solo careers, and they wouldn't be doing reunions.

Posted by William on Sunday, 09.30.07 @ 06:58am


it is rediculous for regular joes like us to argue the point Zeppelin has sold over 100 million albums in America alone and were major influences of many great bands what more needs to be said.

Posted by Randy on Tuesday, 10.2.07 @ 08:45am


Yeah, it's ridiculous. More money obviously makes them irreproachably better people. What a revelation!

Posted by William on Tuesday, 10.2.07 @ 11:05am


that doesn't matter william. what does matter is that the MORE an album sells, the BETTER it is. yeah...

Posted by liam on Tuesday, 10.2.07 @ 11:16am


william, a band member is integral. especially in led zeppelin. could you replace a jimmy page or a john bonham? hell no. what if you took hendrix out of the jimi hendrix experience? id say hes pretty integral. the way you typed that made you sound like a moron. every memebr of led zeppelin was integral to what made it great.

Posted by bob on Friday, 10.26.07 @ 17:56pm


My point was that obviously Page, Plant, and Jones didn't think their music careers were over just because Bonham died. And for the record, Bonham was not Page's first choice for drummer anyway, nor is him being dead stopping their current "reunion" show. Argue quality however you want, but a band is a collective. The final product is not the sum of its parts. When non-musicians try to tell musicians what they can or should be doing, it's absolutely laughable.

So shut up, kid.

Posted by William on Friday, 10.26.07 @ 18:44pm


To All: Don't even bother to "argue" with William - he is never wrong - I forgot, what do they call that again? - oh yeah, opinionated, arrogant...

Posted by Anonymous on Friday, 10.26.07 @ 19:55pm


What's there to argue? Flat-out telling a musician that he or she should call it a day just because another band member died is kind of arrogant, to think you can dictate what that person should be doing.

Do you disagree, or are you just antagonizing as usual?

Posted by William on Friday, 10.26.07 @ 22:08pm


"Flat-out telling a musician that he or she should call it a day just because another band member died is kind of arrogant"

True, but he was not saying that at all -

he was merely pointing out that band members - like Bonham - are sometimes key to a BANDS success. I don't think he ever said they could not go on to solo careers....

Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, 10.27.07 @ 01:33am


Except it was said in a way that implied that no band should ever try to continue on without the original lineup. And you know what? I'm not one of the people that considers Bonham "irreplaceable." In fact, my list of irreplaceable musicians is very short, and usually has more to do with songwriting than instrumental technique because out of the hundreds of thousands of musicians in the world, there are certainly others who can do whatever you need done. People are more attached to the person than the playing, which is understandable, but I don't have to agree with them.

Posted by William on Saturday, 10.27.07 @ 03:32am


I don't think he suggested anything pertaining to "solo" careers. But, I agree that just because one band member leaves it does not mean that the band cannot go on. That being said, the issue to me at least is it really depends upon which band member. To me, the most important band members that identifies a band, IN GENERAL OF COURSE, is the lead singer, then guitarist, then bassist, and then last the drummer. So, in the example of Zeppelin - I agree that you could lose Bonham and still maintain the appeal, identity and greatness of the band. A great example of this is with Metallica - they had to replace Cliff Burton. The band "went on", so bob is wrong in many respects. That being said, when it comes to the front man / lead singer of a band, that is a different story. Could anyone imagine the Stones being the Stones without Mick Jagger? So, again it depends upon the band and which member you take out.

Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, 10.27.07 @ 07:42am


"That being said, when it comes to the front man / lead singer of a band, that is a different story"

But that is not what Bob was arguing. Bob argued that;

"a band member is integral"

Any band member. I'll ask; Would anyone have cared had the Smiths ditched Andy Rourke and Mike Joyce? I'm sure it would have upset a few people, but the band itself could have continued.

But when Johnny Marr left in 87, the band fell apart.

It doesn't depend upon the band, but upon the member

Posted by liam on Saturday, 10.27.07 @ 10:08am


Bob, your Jimi Hendrix Experience example was silly.

It is ridiculous to say that with the loss of a certain band member that the rest of the band can't go on. Come on. Bands can even change singers and continue on. Look at Van Halen. While I prefer the David Lee Roth-era material, I am still glad that the Sammy Hagar stuff is out there, I like some of it.

Anon makes a good point that it can depend on the band and the person. I also agree that the songwriter is probably the most crucial element to the identity. The Who, one of my all time favorite bands, could survive and evolve with the loss of Moon, Entwistle and even Daltrey. But there would not be much point without Townshend. He writes the songs. Even more than Zeppelin, The Who was made up of four very distinctive and individual musicians. Keith Moon was one of the greatest drummers in rock (in my own pantheon, he is second only to Stewart Copeland), and Entwistle was the greatest rock bassist ever. But they evolved with the loss of each of those supposed essential pieces. Did the band change fundamentally each time? Yes. But so what. As a fan, I found it fascinating to listen to how they had to adjust and evolve. Was anything post-Moon as good as The Who in their prime? Probably not. But I am still glad they tried. A handful of songs post-Moon, like "Eminence Front", "You Better You Bet", stand up to prime Who. Do I feel their legacy is diminished because they carried on? No. Their legacy is enhanced because "Eminence Front" exists, it is enhanced because of the kick-ass tour that I saw last year. I say rock on.

Personally, I think that Zeppelin probably had more gas in the tank after Bonham died. I would have been interested to hear what might have come next. I am disappointed that they didn't try. In no way would it diminish what they had already accomplished.

Posted by Dezmond on Saturday, 10.27.07 @ 10:12am


As with everything, there are of course exceptions to the general truth that bands can absorb the loss of a member and "go on" under the same banner without it seeming like an empty and blasphemous sacrelege.
Bands that come to my mind as requiring all their original or current members to seem worthy of their name:
1. The Beatles
2. Rush
3. The Police
4. Talking Heads
5. Genesis (I know, the irony..)
6. U2
7. ZZ Top
8. Sonic Youth

Posted by shawn on Saturday, 10.27.07 @ 11:40am


i'd also put:

9. The Stone Roses
10. The Beastie Boys
11. Joy Division

any others?

Posted by liam on Saturday, 10.27.07 @ 11:51am


Dez, your points are well taken - but I think Bob's point was that once a "key" band member is gone it is just not the same. But, you are right, changing and evolving with losses is part of life. I think his point was that you CAN go on, but is it really the same?

C'mon, take Mick Jagger out of the Stones, and they could certainly attempt to go on - but as far as I'm concerned, they are done. He is just to key to their entire identity, feel, sound, and persona. Like I said, some bands have such key figures that if you take them out - the band dissolves - end of story. Like Liam brought up the Smiths, could you really have the Smiths without Morrissey? No way. But, it is true that in many cases (as with Metallica) you can sometimes go on and do very well. Your point with Van Halen is actually a very good one and does show that bands can even go on losing a key front man, although VH then evolved more into a pop-friendly rcok band, as opposed to the earlier years - but hey, good for them.

And, with Bonham (as a drummer - in my opinion the least important), Zeppelin would have been fine. And, yes even as a Rush fan, I say the drummer is least important as it pertains to this conversation. There are a few exceptions (i.e. Rush, Police, Who) where if you take the drummer out, you do lose something signficant from the band, but in most cases, drummers do not mean much. i.e. - does anyone care if Mickey Hart or Bill Kreutzman is not playing the drums for the G.D.? I would even propose that the Beatles would have been just as succesful without Ringo - I know I would probably be lambasted for saying it, but stick in any session drummer on, Love Me Do, etc., and would anyone care?).

Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, 10.27.07 @ 17:40pm


I actually mentioned Johnny Marr.

Posted by liam on Sunday, 10.28.07 @ 08:00am


I guess we all kind of agree in a sense, but where we disagree is whether it is worthwhile to continue on. Again with The Who, Keith Moon was absolutely integral to their sound. He did not merely keep time, his drumming was brillantly manic and often out of control (in a good way, but also showed that John Entwistle was that much greater a bass player. Could you imagine being in a rhythm section with Keith Moon?!) When Moon died, it was never going to be close to the same. But it was worthwhile to try to move on, and the loss of Moon actually allowed The Who to explore some things that probably would not have worked with Moon. It was interesting to hear Kenny Jones'minimalist drumming on a few albums after the cacophany of Moon. Better? Hell no. Worthwhile? Sure. Zack Starkey (the current Who drummer, Ringo's son, and miles ahead of Ringo as a drummer) is much closer to Moon, but Starkey has more technical skill than Moon (but less manic genius).

Anyway, so I agree that things fundamentally change, but that makes it interesting, even if it is not as good.

Shawn and Liam's lists are interesting, but even there I'd say some of those bands could continue on and still be worthwhile. With U2, each band member really contributes to the organic sound, but I'd still listen to them if they replaced Adam Clayton or Larry Mullen. Edge or Bono, however, would be a harder sell.

With ZZ Top, who I really like, they could still do what they do without Frank Beard. Maybe even without Dusty Hill. Without Billy Gibbons? No way.

Posted by Dezmond on Sunday, 10.28.07 @ 12:01pm


"I actually mentioned Johnny Marr."

Yeah, I know - I just went from there.

Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, 10.28.07 @ 12:19pm


Agreed Dez, obviously it goes without saying that any band can go on even if they lose a member - that is self-evident. But, the point is, is it really the same? Sometimes it is and even an improvement, but in other cases it could not be overcome with the loss of a key figure. Could you have the Stones without Mick Jagger? No way. Sure, they could go on, but it would be a farce. See, with Van Halen, the loss of Roth could be overcome because the true legend and force behind VH is of course Eddie Van Halen.

Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, 10.28.07 @ 13:15pm


Yes, yes... enough already - (do you mean an African or a European swallow?? It could grip it by the husk!) - any band CAN go on under its old name; hypothetically ALL members of a band could vacate and new musicians can take the stage/studio and call themselves The Who, the Rolling Stones, The Replacements, da-da-da. The pertinent question is: at what point of loss/change SHOULDN'T a given band forge forth with the original birth certificate? There is obviously a key member(s) of any band whom intrinsically define their essence and hence whose departure would render the remaining bodies a perceived sham or at least a pale ghost.

As for Van Halen - that was an anomoly of mythical proportion. I still sometimes don't believe what I saw. Daivd Lee Roth was as foundational to that version of VH as Eddie. The band that existed with Hagar was, in my mind, simply a completely new entity - an independent band from the '78-'84 VH that happened to also acheive huge success. The Van Halen name was, of course, mammoth marketing leverage and clearly fueled the Van Hagar launch and acceptance - but 2 seperate bands, despite 3 members the same.

Posted by shawn on Sunday, 10.28.07 @ 14:15pm


Anon, I wouldn't have used Mick Jagger as an example, since nearly every studio album they've made since the 70's has been insignificant.

But i'll agree it would be hard to imagine the Stones without they're front man

Posted by liam on Sunday, 10.28.07 @ 14:19pm


william, it was in no way tpyed or even close to implying anything you just said. and bonham should be on any list of irreplacable musician, seeing as hes the greatest drummer of all time. and who are you to say who i am or what i do. ive been playing guitar and drums for 10 years. whose on your list of irreplacables huh? and look at metallica, they replaced cliff burton, what happens? they go down hill. john entwhistle was integral to thw who, as well as keith moon, and when you eplace someone who as less skill it takes away from a bands sound and in the case of a band like the who, you get accustomed to roger, pete, keith and john. then the latter 2 die and a sound youve grown used to changes, which is what i mean when a band continues without certain members. what if you went to listen to rush without neil peart? what if the doors decided to reunite and replace jim morrison? how do you find someone to come even close to matching the genuis of jim morrison? can you answer that? and kid? thats the best insult in your repetoire? lame.

Posted by bob on Wednesday, 11.7.07 @ 17:45pm


"and look at metallica, they replaced cliff burton, what happens? they go down hill."

Really? "And Justice for All."

Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, 11.7.07 @ 18:35pm


and justice for all was dryer than death valley. its sound quality poor, the base was none existent, and after was the bacl album aka we sold ouot and sub-par hard rock and as if those werent enough, st. anger. so in all reality they went downhill.

Posted by bob on Wednesday, 11.7.07 @ 19:13pm


"seeing as hes the greatest drummer of all time"-bob

This nullifies the rest of your point because it is BS. Superlatives are for high school yearbooks, not legitimate criticism.

"and look at metallica, they replaced cliff burton, what happens? they go down hill."-bob

And for a number of other reasons, most importantly straying too far away from the thrash sound in which they were both comfortable and competent. Regardless, how does this tangent even relate to my earlier point?

"what if the doors decided to reunite and replace jim morrison? how do you find someone to come even close to matching the genuis of jim morrison? can you answer that?"-bob

Jim Morrison was a decent songwriter, a good singer, and a terrible lyricist. I repeat: terrible lyricist. It's like he was trying to put Walt Whitman poetry to music but failed because he's not Walt Whitman. Of course with bands like The Doors whose fans are irrational idolists, even if they found someone as good or better, no one would admit it.

Posted by William on Wednesday, 11.7.07 @ 19:45pm


william, you obviously have no concept of anything. given your previous comments i thought you intelligent enough to be able to interpret an opinion when its typed. thats stupidity on my part i guess. and that tangent was in refernce to a different comment. and straying from their roots netted them a check for more money than the yankees payroll. and as for jim morrison, easily one of the greatest singer/songwriters of the rock era let alone music in general. of course you seem to think whatever bullshit that comes of your mouth is the truth, as evidenced by your " doors fans are irrational idiots" comment. how do you gather something like that? thats like saying all black people like fried chicken and all jews care about is money. and wheres this list of irreplaceables?

Posted by bob on Wednesday, 11.7.07 @ 20:39pm


"william, you obviously have no concept of anything."-bob

Well obviously, because you say so.

"given your previous comments i thought you intelligent enough to be able to interpret an opinion when its typed. thats stupidity on my part i guess."-bob

What exactly is wrong with you? I never said it wasn't opinion, just that it's BS and not worth saying.

"and straying from their roots netted them a check for more money than the yankees payroll."-bob

So? I can't even figure out what you're arguing at this point. One minute you're saying they're shit because Cliff died, then the next you're talking about how successful they were after the fact. Make a cohesive argument, please.

"and as for jim morrison, easily one of the greatest singer/songwriters of the rock era let alone music in general. of course you seem to think whatever bullshit that comes of your mouth is the truth,"-bob

Irony of ironies. Why is your appraisal more true than mine, exactly?

"as evidenced by your " doors fans are irrational idiots" comment. how do you gather something like that?"-bob

Crack open a dictionary. I called them idolists, not idiots. I think that's fair criticism considering the casual music fan's abject worship of the "rock star" persona. It's the same reason many fans of Ozzy Osbourne hate Dio-era Sabbath, even though Ozzy contributed much less to the band than Iommi.

Posted by William on Wednesday, 11.7.07 @ 21:35pm


no seriously, you have no idea what your typing do you? you implied more than once that your opinion was fact. and i was saying, cliff left and they started playing hard rock dissappointing all their fanbase. so they continue at the cost of their fans and them doing that proves that their in it for the money. and why are you under the illusion that your appraisel is more true than mine? just dont type okay? nothing good comes out of it. its just a bunch of bullshit.

Posted by bob on Thursday, 11.8.07 @ 13:40pm


"its just a bunch of bullshit."

Legible, comprehensible and coherent bullshit, though, and I don't think that ever goes amiss

Especially when we get about 1000 comments which mirror your's, bob, in 'structure'.

Posted by liam on Thursday, 11.8.07 @ 13:53pm


"..so they continue at the cost of their fans and them doing that proves that their (sic) in it for the money." - bob

Yea, it must be that. Couldn't possibly be that they love creating music - being musicians and all, I mean.

Posted by shawn on Thursday, 11.8.07 @ 14:10pm


liam, its, typed. of course its legible. and its just him trying to force his opinions on others. and i dont care to take the time to structure my commentd i just type. who really cares? and shawn, thta is it because they started playing a completely different type of music when their fans wanted the kind they used to play. they wanted one thing got something else. see the problem? they sold out. they dont love creating music, they love seeing money roll in, being sell outs and all.

Posted by bob on Thursday, 11.8.07 @ 14:41pm


"they started playing a completely different type of music when their fans wanted the kind they used to play. they wanted one thing got something else. see the problem? they sold out. they dont love creating music, they love seeing money roll in, being sell outs and all."-bob

Their money comes from fans. How exactly do they make money by selling music no one wants to hear?

I do not like anything Metallica did post-'80s, but I don't think any band is beholden to its fans. They do what they wanna do, and for some perverted reason, that happens to be many peoples' definition of "selling out" (They don't make music like I want anymore!). Dylan was called a sellout for going electric, after all.

Posted by William on Thursday, 11.8.07 @ 16:37pm


william, by switching styles and going mainstream, they sold out. they adapted to what they viewed as succesful music and they then tried to play it. and it created a new fake fanbase of posers, at the expense of the true fans. i am one of those peole who thinks that justice and balck album werent very good and becuase of that i stopped caring about anything new from them. make sense?

Posted by bob on Thursday, 11.8.07 @ 18:13pm


You feel "betrayed" by Metallica because they went a different musical way - OK. Fair enough. But don't you think the phrase "sellout" is so trite as to be almost void of meaning? They were very successful up to the point uyou say they changed, so what could possibly lure them over to the greedy sellout darkside; are you suggesting that Cliff was the only member holding them to their true character - as if the others were always chomping at the bit to "sellout" and "go mainstream"? That makes no sense.

Posted by shawn on Thursday, 11.8.07 @ 18:36pm


They did not sell out?

One answer: "Nothing else matters"

My wife, who hates heavy metal music like Metallica, suddenly became a fan after hearing this song and some others - enough said folks. BTW, I am in no way judging them for this...nor am I saying it was wrong, but lets call a spade a spade...

Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, 11.8.07 @ 18:41pm


So are we to deduce from your post Anon that that is your definition of selling out (gawd how I tire of the phrase) - having a hit song?

Posted by shawn on Thursday, 11.8.07 @ 18:53pm


No, not saying that at all. Nothin' wrong woth hits. However, in the case of Metallica, they left their "roots" and put out a pop, slow song to "increase market share" - I am sure it actually read that way in the "marketing plan" from the business executives at the recording label....look, I am not saying it is a bad thing, it is what it is....virtually everything in our society and most comes down to one thing...the almighty dollar...

Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, 11.8.07 @ 19:09pm


anon, you proved my poinjt exactly. since metallica was no longer playing their renowned thrash metal and trid to go mainstream, people like your wife became fans well people like moe stopped caring. that just proves im right.

Posted by bob on Thursday, 11.8.07 @ 20:09pm


No, it proves that they had a new sound, which never needed proving. As for the reasons for choosing that new sound, you're conjecturing. You don't actually know. Maybe they "sold out," as you say, or maybe they just wanted to try a new sound (inconceivable, right?). I don't know for sure, and I highly doubt you're privy to special information, so just saying it's so doesn't prove squat.

Posted by William on Thursday, 11.8.07 @ 20:32pm


Of course no one knows "for sure"...but it seems that widening their audience was the direction they took. Yeah, it is possible they were trying a "new sound", but I guess it was just coincidence that the 'new" sound was slowed, softer and much more palatable to a mainstream audience. You decide.

But, like I said, who cares. If I were a musician, I would want to sell as many CD's as I could. I don't think I ever heard of anyone in any profession that said, "I hope I (or we) make less money this year."

Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, 11.8.07 @ 21:03pm


william, so you find it some what convenient the kind of music they developed a sudden interest in was mainstream rock? so well its possible logic and common sense dont seem to think so. and they thinned their audience when people went expecting thrash but got crap.

Posted by bob on Friday, 11.9.07 @ 13:37pm


Bob, here your are wrong. They did not "thin" their audience...in fact it was quite the contrary. When they changed their sound, the became much, much bigger. Now, it may be true that they lost some of their "older" fan base, but to say that their later CD's resulted in a thinning or waning interest is statistically false. That is the first supposed "sell-out" album (i.e. Black Album), sold 15 million copies in the US, which was by far their biggest album.


Posted by Anon on Friday, 11.9.07 @ 13:51pm


anon, how many of those people do you think just bought the album thinking it would be like their older stuff? and the posers who bought it becuase it was #1 on the charts? do you see what im trying to say?

Posted by bob on Friday, 11.9.07 @ 16:31pm


"anon, how many of those people do you think just bought the album thinking it would be like their older stuff?"

Some, but many of the new audience and purchasers came from them hearing their "pop" songs on the radio. If you remember back to that time, all you heard was Metallica on the radio. But, I agree that your argument is supported later because their album sales steadily diminished after that album...

Posted by Anonymous on Friday, 11.9.07 @ 17:04pm


anonymous, while that is a valid point i think it was metalheads expecting something akin to master of puppets. and yes the sales decreased dramatically. i dint think many people where flocking to the stores to buy st. anger after it was released. do you?

Posted by bob on Friday, 11.9.07 @ 19:06pm


"bands like The Doors whose fans are irrational idolists"

I'll bet that every artist has irrational fans. Even Oasis.

Posted by l i a m on Monday, 12.24.07 @ 12:20pm


TONS of guitarists are better than Page, many drummers are better than Bonham, and Plant is just plain terrible, as are most of the singers who imitated his style.

JPJ was the best of the four.

I don't know why people like IV so much, either. The first three are easily the best output, rip-offs aside.

Definitely earned their spot, but they have some of the most annoying fans of any band in history.

Posted by William on Monday, 04.16.07 @ 15:42pm


And Zeppelins critics are not annoying gee wiz you sure got me their pal.

Posted by zepfan on Saturday, 01.5.08 @ 19:04pm


Once again: Zappa beats Page. Fripp beats Page. Lots of people beat Page.

Bill Bruford beats Bonham. Easy.

JPJ is good. Best of the bunch and a good multi-instrumentalist with the best solo work. Still nowhere near the best bassist.

Plant was a horrible singer, and I blame him for the popularity of shrieking, effeminate frontmen that populated the late '70s and most of the '80s.

Posted by William on Tuesday, 06.5.07 @ 19:53pm

William you're the guy that said Led Zeppelin fans were annoying I hope you’re done posting I just starting reading this thread.

Posted by zepfan on Saturday, 01.5.08 @ 19:07pm


Could anyone imagine the Stones being the Stones without Mick Jagger? So, again it depends upon the band and which member you take out.

Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, 10.27.07 @ 07:42am

To add to your point

Queen proposed a collaboration with Rodgers, in which he would sing lead vocals on a European tour. Rodgers thus joined Brian May and Roger Taylor, with the group billed as Queen + Paul Rodgers and they subsequently toured worldwide in 2005 and 2006. The participants clearly stated, including on Brian May's own website, "that Rodgers would be "featured with" Queen as: "Queen + Paul Rodgers", not replacing the late Freddie Mercury".

Posted by zepfan on Saturday, 01.5.08 @ 19:16pm


Two facts that can't be overlooked even though some of the titles of a few songs weren't properly credited concerning Led Zeppelin.


Led Zeppelin (1969) #6 UK, #10 US, US Sales: 11,000,000
Led Zeppelin II (1969) #1 UK, #1 US, US Sales: 12,000,000
Led Zeppelin III (1970) #1 UK, #1 US, US Sales: 6,000,000
Led Zeppelin IV'; 1971) #1 UK, #2 US, US Sales: 22,000,000
Houses of the Holy (1973) #1 UK, #1 US, US Sales: 11,000,000
Physical Graffiti (1975) #1 UK, #1 US, US Sales: 15,000,000
Presence (1976) #1 UK, #1 US, US Sales: 3,000,000
The Song Remains the Same (1976; live performances from 1973 tour) #1 UK, #2 US, US Sales: 4,000,000
In Through the Out Door (1979) #1 UK, #1 US, US Sales: 6,000,000
The following albums were issued after the band ceased recording:

Coda (1982) #4 UK, #6 US, US Sales: 1,000,000



I really get tired of those lame Zeppelin critics


Posted by zepfan on Saturday, 01.5.08 @ 19:32pm


http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_newguitar.html

Greatest Rock Guitarists

1. Jimi Hendrix* - Jimi Hendrix Experience
2. Eric Clapton - Yardbirds, Cream, Derek & The Dominos, Solo
3. Jimmy Page - Yardbirds, Led Zeppelin, The Firm
4. Jeff Beck - Yardbirds, Jeff Beck Group, Solo
5. Eddie Van Halen - Van Halen
6. Stevie Ray Vaughan* - Stevie Ray Vaughan & Double Trouble
7. Joe Satriani - Solo
8. Ritchie Blackmore - Deep Purple, Rainbow, Blackmores Night
9. Steve Vai - David Lee Roth, Whitesnake, Solo
10. David Gilmour - Pink Floyd, Solo

Greatest Rock Drummers

1. Neil Peart (Rush)
2. John Bonham* (Led Zeppelin)
3. Carl Palmer (ELP)
4. Keith Moon* (The Who)
5. Terry Bozzio (Frank Zappa)
6. Ginger Baker (Cream)
7. Hal Blaine (Session man)
8. Danny Carey (Tool)
9. Bill Bruford (Yes, King Crimson)
10. Earl Palmer (Session man)

100 Greatest 'Male' Rock Vocalists


1. Freddie Mercury (Queen, Solo)
2. Jackie Wilson
3. Jeff Buckley
4. Sam Cooke
5. Robert Plant (Led Zeppelin, Solo)
6. Ian Gillan (Deep Purple, Solo)
7. Steve Perry (Journey, Solo)
8. Roy Orbison
9. Chris Cornell (Soundgarden, Temple Of The Dog, Solo)
10. Clyde McPhatter (Drifters, Dominoes, Solo)

Greatest Bass Players of All Time - Top 10 He is likely the most famous bass player of all time and while his bass lines may not reach the degree of difficulty of others, he is undeniably one most ...
www.journalism.ryerson.ca/online/javahub/words/lastfive.htm - 11k - Cached - Similar pages




9. JPJ Jimmy Page and Robert Plant were always the most famous and regarded members of Led Zeppelin. While Page was praised for his amazing creativity and talent, its worth noting that in the shadows of the two rock legends was bassist John Paul Jones. What was remarkable about Jones was that often play both the bass guitar and keyboards at the same time, using custom made foot pedals to play the keyboard. In a band of four musicians who were among the best in the business Jones was easily ignored during a long Page guitar solo but his talent is undeniable and a major part of what made Led Zeppelin one of the greatest rock bands of all time.





AVRev.com’s Top Ten
Rock Bands of All Time

category: Features
article date: July 2006
by: Jerry Del Colliano Jr., Charles Andrews, Howard Schilling, Jack Sonni and Ken Lopez
forum discussion: Click here to voice your opinion about this article

To celebrate the pending tenth anniversary of AVRev.com on July 1, 2006, AVRev.com has compiled its list of the top bands in rock history.

Band
1 to 100 1 to 50 1 to 550
U.S.
Sales
Songs Technical
Ability
Innovation Live
Performance
Consistency Random
Play
Total
1. Led Zeppelin 99 95 98 93 48 48 47 528
2. The Beatles 100 98 78 99 45 47 47 514
3. Pink Floyd 97 91 92 96 48 43 39 506
4. The Jimi Hendrix Experience 68 95 99 99 49 46 47 503
5. Van Halen 91 87 97 93 44 42 42 496
6. Queen 84 91 91 91 45 46 45 493
7. The Eagles 98 95 84 68 42 47 45 479
8. Metallica 92 84 87 87 46 39 33 468
9. U2 90 84 73 78 48 46 36 455
10. Bob Marley and the Wailers 59 92 72 93 44 47 47 454

The Judges
The group of five judges included three Baby Boomers and two Generation Exers. The Boomers include former Dire Straits guitarist Jack Sonni, as well as University of Southern California Thornton School of Music professor Ken Lopez and AVRev.com’s music editor Charles Andrews. Desktop speaker company XHi-Fi president Howard Schilling and AVRev.com founder and publisher Jerry Del Colliano, Jr. round out the group.

The Method and Categories
From a diverse list of 100 bands, judges ranked each band for each category. A perfect score is 550 points. Using the analytical tools that have become popular in high-powered fantasy sports, the AVRev.com judges rated bands based on a battery of criteria.

U.S. Sales: (100 points max) Sales numbers come from the RIAA’s website and are ranked from 100 to 1 (with the top score going to The Beatles). These numbers are based in fact and therefore were not voted on or changed in any way by any of the judges.

Songs and Songwriting: (100 points max) Songwriting is key to the legacy of any band. In addition to songwriting, judges were encouraged to judge a band on how they interpreted songs in performance. The Jimi Hendrix Experience’s version of “All Along the Watchtower” or Van Halen’s “You Really Got Me” reflect the respective band’s ability to remake a great song, written by someone else, as their own.

Technical Ability: (100 points max) All too often, music critics overlook a band’s ability to play their asses off (think reviews of Nirvana), but not at AVRev.com. Having chops is a fully ranked, 100-point category.

Innovation: (100 points max) The ability to define a genre or a sound or a technique, or to strongly influence bands that came after you, make up the parameters for the fully-weighted innovation category.

Live Performance: (50 points max) Some members of the panel of judges have actually played with or opened for a number of the bands on the list. Ken Lopez’s story of jamming with Jimi Hendrix at the Guild booth before the 1967 Monterey Pop Festival is an all-time classic rock story. Our team of judges look at how good a band is playing live based loosely on their draw, seeing the band live or watching them on video.

Consistency vs. Longevity: (50 points max) This is one of the most interesting categories, when you consider the role of the most critically acclaimed bands during the history of rock. Bands like The Eagles rank high in this category because they had a long run as a top rock band, yet knew when to hang up the spurs. The Jimi Hendrix Experience, despite their short run, also did well, considering their three studio records. Even when Jimi let Noel Redding (the bass player) sing – the song was good. The Rolling Stones have many a landmark record in their history, but they also have many a stiff. Consider your own grade for bands like Genesis and Van Halen, who tried to go for a third front man with disastrous results to an otherwise spectacular career.

Random Play (50 points max): This category allows the judge to vote on a band based on how likely he is to listen to a band’s songs if they were to come up on an iPod. Many respected bands suffer in this category, whereas bands that are quietly a guilty pleasure (think The Bee Gees or The Carpenters) can get high grades.

Bands That Never Got Considered
It was a tough job to assemble the list of bands for consideration. It was essential that bands from the early days of the 1950s through today’s most popular acts were considered. We looked for diversity in genre and type. We included bands that were reggae, electronic, strong country/crossover and beyond. We did not consider individual artists such as Elvis or Michael Jackson, because this is an exercise in looking at the best bands. In the event an artist was associated with a stable band, judges were instructed to only consider his or her work with that band. An act like Prince and the Revolution was aided in that category, since “the artist formerly known as a vegan symbol record company slave” isn’t being judged.

In the process of ranking bands, we have thought of a few we would have liked to add and we are confident you will have some good suggestions, too, which we will list. Click here to voice your opinion about this article. Here is a start to the list:

Posted by zepfan on Saturday, 01.5.08 @ 20:50pm


"And Zeppelins critics are not annoying gee wiz you sure got me their pal."-zepfan

If you haven't noticed, they're less numerous, less vocal, and in my experience less retarded.

If you want to shout praises to the moon until you get fanboy juice all over your keyboard without worrying about pesky "critics" ruining your fun with dissenting opinions, go find a Zeppelin fansite somewhere. Then everyone there can have fun agreeing with one another.

Posted by William on Saturday, 01.5.08 @ 21:59pm


If you haven't noticed, they're less numerous, less vocal, and in my experience less retarded.

If you want to shout praises to the moon until you get fanboy juice all over your keyboard without worrying about pesky "critics" ruining your fun with dissenting opinions, go find a Zeppelin fansite somewhere. Then everyone there can have fun agreeing with one another.

Posted by William on Saturday, 01.5.08 @ 21:59pm

Junior you make more noise as a Zeppelin critic than 250 drunken Zeppelins fans could. You ignore the facts; create your own polls lists and opinions based solely on your dislike for Led Zeppelin.

This area of the HOF comment site is for Led Zeppelin Inducted in 1995 I’d say that’s a pretty good place for Zeppelin fans to hang out and post any favorable comments about the Band share personal stories, throw around some cyber high fives and maybe even let out a few barbs and of course we welcome Led Zeppelin dissenters that can express themselves intelligently but the burden of proof isn’t on Led Zeppelin or it’s fans because the facts are on our side.

You apparently get off by making silly statements and insulting every Led Zeppelin fan that doesn’t share your crazy POV towards one of the all-time greatest bands. I understand Zeppelin isn’t everyone’s cup of tea however the rabid Zeppelin haters such as you are in a terminal state.

Flee from me keepers of the gloom


Posted by zepfan on Saturday, 01.5.08 @ 23:04pm


So saying Robert Plant has an affinity for histrionics isn't true, then? Of course, as Scaruffi says, different people can look at the same facts and arrive at different opinions. I don't see anything particularly great about that vocal style. I grant it has influence, but I blame it rather than credit it.

Your mistake is in thinking that because I criticize a band, I can't like it. Not true.

By the way, you have cited zero "facts" aside from sales (which only measure popularity). Critics' polls and best-of lists are merely semi-authoritative opinions. If you honestly believe that those lists are even REMOTELY close to being accurate, or that such a list could EVER be accurate, then we're on different planets.

Posted by William on Saturday, 01.5.08 @ 23:35pm




Okay enough William please find something you're good at besides being a pest.

Thanks

Posted by zepfan on Sunday, 01.6.08 @ 00:46am


I love it when random strangers walk into a room, start up an argument, and when confronted try to back out of the situation they started.

Try harder in the future.

Posted by William on Sunday, 01.6.08 @ 01:11am


Somehow, I don't feel it's completely "random".

Posted by liam on Sunday, 01.6.08 @ 09:39am


I cannot believe I just typed out a full and complete comment and it was not accepted. I am not doing it again. Stop with the comspiracy thinking Liam.

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 01.6.08 @ 10:48am


Aww, why?

You'll be telling me to remove the aluminium foil from the walls and ceiling next...

Posted by liam on Sunday, 01.6.08 @ 11:14am


No, you can keep it there. In fact, it protects us from you when you are thinking too much. I hear it was the Gallagher Brothers who were on the grassy knoll in Dallas in Nov., 1963.

As for Led Zeppelin - they have been cited by musicians of every sub-genre in RnR as having been an extremely influential band. Is Page the best - no. I hear he still has nightmaes about Jeff Beck. Is Plant the greatest vocalist - no, but whether you like the style or not, he was extremely influential! (FYI - Any list that does not have Roger Daltry in the top ten has no creditablity). JPJ is an amazing all around musician and arranger. And Bonham certainly put down a hell of a backbeat. I applauid Zep that they did not continue after Bonhams death. I still cringe at Kenny Jones and the Who. But the fact is that these 4 musicians recorded music that will last into the next century. And there is no arguement on that!

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 01.6.08 @ 12:22pm


"I hear it was the Gallagher Brothers who were on the grassy knoll in Dallas in Nov., 1963."

Is there another pair of Gallagher siblings that I am unaware of? It's just that Noel (the elder) is 40, so you cannot be talking about Oasis.

Posted by liam on Sunday, 01.6.08 @ 12:29pm


Have you seen his original birth certificate? If you have not, then you cannot really say, can you? Besides, they have that third brother; the one who smashes watermelons with a sledgehammer.

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 01.6.08 @ 12:42pm


Led Zeppelin kick ass, PERIOD. It has nothing to do with who was better. It is all about how they worked together. Listen to "Achilles Last Stand". It's like a whole lesson about how dynamics work in a heavy metal band. The way that Jimmy Page and John Bonham work together on that song is perfect.

Posted by Zach Tankersley on Wednesday, 01.23.08 @ 14:23pm


Talk of "greatest guitarists" is certainly a constant point of interest...guess it depends who you like! Page definitely belongs in the top 50, but you could take those 50 and put them in any order you choose. Its easy to always put Hendrix at the top...sure, he was innovative, but Eric Johnson would blow him off the stage. A lot of people have never heard of Eric Johnson, but he'd definitely have to be lumped in to those 50 players. They're all great because they're all different! Les Paul once told Pat Martino "You have really great riffs & chops, you play great rhythm, but does your mom recognize you when she hears you on the radio?" Something to think about...

Posted by Terry on Sunday, 01.27.08 @ 18:19pm


I agree, Terry. A lot of guitarists can play better than Hendrix could. He was certainly influential but I mean, most of the people who always put him at #1 don't even know about blues or acid rock. They just put him up there because he died young and was black (I'm just saying).

Posted by Metalsmith on Wednesday, 03.5.08 @ 19:21pm


Oh and could someone please argue with me? I'd like to see 100 comments on this page.

Posted by Metalsmith on Wednesday, 03.5.08 @ 19:22pm


Well I am quite aware of Eric Johnson, but my vote will always be with the true enigma of Rock - Jeff Beck.

Since studio work can be different from live work, all I can say is having seen him share the stage with Page and Clapton, it wasn't even close. At least on that night. Jeff Beck is the man.

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 03.5.08 @ 21:18pm


Dameon...don't know if you've ever seen this, but it's always worth watching again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1f8cf-Dc4I&feature=related

Posted by Terry on Wednesday, 03.5.08 @ 21:33pm


Thanks Terry - I never saw that before. I would have killed to be at the performance.

Posted by Dameon on Thursday, 03.6.08 @ 06:42am


How did a 3rd band with a cheezeball singer and hack guitarist make it into the RnR HoF.

Jimmy Plagiarist stole many songs and almost all of their hits.

Watch LZ shows from his supposed heyday. The guy gets lost in lead breaks does not play in key, heck, does not play anything melodic.

Page is the most overhyped guitarist in Rock Music history and LZ the most overhyped band.

To make up for hack playing, Page wore magical costumes and danced about like a dorky marionette.

The RnR HoF is a joke. This fraud business has pretty-faced studio-enhanced POP singers as members.

The whole thing is a joke.

Posted by Charles the Hammer on Wednesday, 03.19.08 @ 16:36pm


Led Zeppelin RULES!!!

Without Led Zep a lot of the bands we've had in the past 30 years wouldn't have been. They themselves have said this.

If anything Led Zep PROVED how immense their appeal still is at the O2 this past December. And they still know how to blow the roof off! The “Nay-Sayers” can choke on a big fat one. :)

Have a nice day!
~Zoë

Posted by Zoë on Tuesday, 03.25.08 @ 08:14am


^^I swear to God, Led Zeppelin's fan base is annoying enough for me to second guess the fact that I actually LIKE some of the music they made. (They do have some really boring and sh*tty songs, however...."Babe I'm Gonna Leave You"? Whenever you're ready, Robert!)

Posted by Liam on Monday, 03.31.08 @ 13:19pm


That's an interesting thing for you to say, Liam, seeing that you are the one-man fanbase for so many boring and sh*tty punk bands.

Posted by Metalsmith on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 13:50pm


You seem to be assuming that you're any better.

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 13:52pm


The same could be said of you, my friend.

Posted by Metalsmith on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 13:54pm


"Singles Going Steady" is better than anything Led Zeppelin ever released.

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 13:57pm


Point being?

Posted by Metalsmith on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 14:00pm


That if I listen to "boring, sh*tty punk bands," Led Zeppelin must, therefore, be even worse.

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 14:01pm


Now that's an annoying fanboy.

Posted by Metalsmith on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 14:04pm


I actually like both groups, so where's the fanboy-isms?

I'm presuming that this is another failed case of "Metal > Punk".

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 14:14pm


Liam, life is nothing but one big case of Metal > Punk. But as for whether it's failed, well, we shall see. Actually, that has nothing to do with what I've been saying but since it's the only thing you're capable of understanding, we might as well argue about it.

Posted by Metalsmith on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 14:20pm


Nah, Punk is much more important than Metal.

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 14:25pm


I'd like you to finally explain why you think that.

Posted by Metalsmith on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 14:27pm


Uuuuuuh, I dunno, something to do with the fact that alternative evolved from punk, maybe? And something to do with the atrocities of Hair Metal?

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 14:29pm


Alternative? How in the Hell is that a good thing? "Alternative" rock is the biggest disgrace to rock and roll in history. You mean to tell me this whole time you've been advocating punk rock because the development of the upstart genre of the 90s makes it the most important music in the world?

Posted by Metalsmith on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 14:40pm


Oh, wow. I honestly gave you too much credit, it seems.

So you've never heard the term "'80s Alternative"? Well, let's watch together, as your reputation launch itself out of the window.

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 14:46pm


EDIT: "launches"

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 14:47pm


I'm flattered. I didn't know I'd developed a reputation. What difference does it mean, 80s or 90s alternative? Nobody listened to alternative rock in the 80s anyway, except for you and your little English punk friends. The rest of us listened to real bands like Bon Jovi.

Posted by Metalsmith on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 14:50pm


"Nobody listened to alternative rock in the 80s anyway,"

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt!!!! Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

Sounds like somone's trying to back track!

What. An. Idiot.

PS Bon Jovi? I always thought they were called "Talentless Bruce Springsteen Knock Off"

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 14:53pm


"Talentless Bruce Springsteen Knock Off"

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

What. An. Idiot.

I like your argument style.

Posted by Metalsmith on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 14:56pm


It's true. Set in stone.

I think I might print screen this page and keep it as proof to how intolerably thick you are.

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 14:58pm


Have fun.

Posted by Metalsmith on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 15:00pm


Idiot.

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 15:03pm


I know a lot of metalheads, and precisely none of them can even tolerate Bon Jovi, much less like it.

Posted by William on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 15:16pm


Liam, Metalsmith knows how to push your buttons. You're too easy.

Posted by mel on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 15:25pm


Anyone who thinks that alternative began in the '90s immediately disqualifies all their contributions to any musical discussion.

Posted by Liam on Wednesday, 04.2.08 @ 09:44am


Led Zeppelin RULES!!!

Without Led Zep a lot of the bands we've had in the past 30 years wouldn't have been. They themselves have said this.

If anything Led Zep PROVED how immense their appeal still is at the O2 this past December. And they still know how to blow the roof off! The “Nay-Sayers” can choke on a big fat one. :)

Have a nice day!
~Zoë

Posted by Zoë on Tuesday, 03.25.08 @ 08:14am

02 Zeppelin rocked again

ROCK ON Zoe LED ZEPPELIN 4 LIFE

CAN't Wait for the next gig

Until then I'll get watching video's on youtube

Posted by zepfan on Thursday, 04.17.08 @ 21:52pm


Led Zeppelin (1st album) had only been out for a few months when they played a concert as lead in, or support for Vanilla Fudge. They say that the Fudge really taught them a lot on that tour in 1969. Zep just destroyed Vanilla Fudge on that leg of the tour. It was just over for bands like the Fudge with these new groups coming out like Zep. I think Pagey was still playing that Fender Tele that he recorded the first album with, prior to the famous Les Pauls and SG. They were still young, hungry and real agressive when they played initially; eager to make a name for themselves. Later on, they returned to Alb. New Mexico, before more than 18,000 people at the UNM Pit Arena, in 1973. When Robert Plant and Zep came out on stage, he said," I damn well know we've been here before!!!!!!!!" They went on to play a great concert for longer than 3 hours.There was no lead in group at all! Plant sang all the vocals well,Pagey was spot on with the solos, JPJ was solid as always and John Bonham was extraordinary as usual. I only wish that some modern groups would take some direction and pride and act like Zep used to do.Playing for three and a half hours gives the fans their money's worth. Mark

Posted by Mark Glew on Saturday, 05.31.08 @ 17:08pm


Led zeppelin are the greatest and Stairway To Heaven is the greatest song ever written
Period.

Posted by papithefanbuoy on Monday, 07.7.08 @ 09:26am


Are you seriously trying to compare Zeppelin to Talica??? Their styles are completely different. Talica is way more heavy then Zep, so don't even try to compare them. I can name a lot of Metalica songs i don't like and i like all rock songs, but many of Metalicas song i don't like, but i cant name one Zep song i don't like. And i don't wanna see people sayin tht i don't know anything about music because i play drums, some guitar, some bass, some piano, so yeah. In my eyes Zep was the best of all time and always will be.

Posted by Mike on Thursday, 10.2.08 @ 14:47pm


Mike...you're right, there really isn't reason to compare Metallica to Zeppelin. Like you, I like some Metallica, and I can't think of a lot of Zeppelin that I don't like. I can see where, like Zep, Metallica at least tries to be innovative. I've dabbled in playing "Enter Sandman" and "Wherever I May Roam"...interesting songs. However, I wish I had a dollar for every time I've played Zeppelin.

I think Metallica is a very good, influential band...I've heard their new album is their best in years, I don't think they've reached "legendary" status like Zeppelin, though.

Time will tell...

Posted by Gitarzan on Thursday, 10.2.08 @ 18:36pm


The "Death Magnetic" album was the 5th #1 studio album for Metallica. It tied them w/Van Halen for second most by a metal group (as Billboard mag would describe metal). The only group above them is Zeppelin, with seven. If you like to put any stock in this, then they've got a real shot at surpassing them, at least from a strictly numeric 7 sales standpoint.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 10.2.08 @ 18:52pm


Top 5 Songs
1.Stairway to Heaven
2.Immigrant Song
3.Kashmir
4.All my Love
5.Rock and Roll

Posted by Mike on Sunday, 10.5.08 @ 10:51am


Here I my Top 5 Songs

1. Stairway to Heaven
2. Whole Lotta Love
3. Kashmir
4. You Shook Me
5. All My Love

Posted by Keebord on Sunday, 10.5.08 @ 10:57am


Mike-

I got owned on AC/DC because I opted for a little less Bon Scott than others? I think I'm pretty fair in my Scott/Johnson breakdown. Anywho, I'll toss in 5 for Zep myself, if nobody minds:

1. How Many More Times
2. Whole Lotta Love
3. What Is And What Should Never Be
4. When The Levee Breaks
5. Dancing Days

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 10.5.08 @ 16:14pm


Bon Scott is awesome. He's probably the best dead lead singer ever. Brian Johnson is also good but I think Bon is better. You were not fair to Bon. When you die Bon and Angus will taunt you Cheesecrop! Well getting back to Led Zepp where is Stairway to Heaven or Kashmir. Guess what Cheesecrop...SHAME!SHAME!SHAME!

Posted by Mike on Friday, 10.10.08 @ 16:19pm


ZOSO

Posted by Mike on Monday, 10.27.08 @ 13:26pm


HOUSES OF THE HOLY

Posted by Limits to Infinity on Saturday, 11.22.08 @ 21:46pm


ZOSO

Posted by Mike on Monday, 11.24.08 @ 14:17pm


Top 20 Led Zeppelin Songs (Cheesecrop, you are going to get owned on this one too):


1. Stairway To Heaven
2. Immigrant Song
3. Kashmir
4. All My Love
5. Rock and Roll
6. Black Dog
7. Over the Hills and Far Away
8. Lemon Song
9. D'yr Maker
10. The Ocean
11. Ozone Baby
12. The Song Remains The Same
13. Dazed and Confused
14. Whole Lotta Love
15. Moby Dick
16. Communication Breakdown
17. Good Times Bad Times
18. The Rain Song
19. When the Levee Breaks
20. Trampled Underfoot

Posted by Mike on Sunday, 12.7.08 @ 12:44pm


Now I'm pissed off, Led Zeppelin better be inducted in the hall of fame, they aren't just an influential Metal band, They are a huger than life Rock and Roll band!

Posted by A pissed of Metalhead on Friday, 01.2.09 @ 20:49pm


Dude - they were inducted

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 01.2.09 @ 21:17pm


They are overrated as hell. Deep Purple is 1000 times better and more innovative and influential.

Posted by Deepest on Wednesday, 01.7.09 @ 13:21pm


Now I'm pissed off, Led Zeppelin better be inducted in the hall of fame, they aren't just an influential Metal band, They are a huger than life Rock and Roll band!

Posted by A pissed of Metalhead
Dude - they were inducted

Posted by Dameon

Posted by S.R on Tuesday, 03.17.09 @ 18:41pm


Best band ever...? not really. it starts and ends with the Beatles

Best band of the 1970's...? you have a point there



and to all you 13 year olds who love to tout your age and your "wisdom" about how you love "old stuff" like Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, ect... get over yourself. You're not the first people to ever hear Led Zeppelin.

I was like you when I found Led Zeppelin when I was 15. I couldn't stop talking, reading, listening to them. They're still my favorite band at 19, mostly because they're my first band. But, you will move on to other music and actually get an appreciation for EVERYTHING! Listen to some jazz, some country and some classical music.

Get a worldly appreciation of music before you open your mouth and sound like you know everything when you obviously know jack.

Posted by Ben on Sunday, 06.21.09 @ 13:02pm


I double checked. Zep got in on their first nomination.

Posted by Joe-Skee on Friday, 09.25.09 @ 10:38am


I don't know why all that chit chat on these guys ?? they are already in ! Right Philip...?? LOL just kidding..It is good to look and talk about the past It helps up understand NOW..Plus these guys made great noise..


Posted by mrxyz on Friday, 10.2.09 @ 09:41am


DEEP PURPLE > led zeppelin

Posted by Purple on Thursday, 12.10.09 @ 01:24am


Deep Purple is a great band, but not as good as Led Zeppelin!

LED ZEPPELIN >>>> Deep Purple

Posted by Gassman on Thursday, 12.10.09 @ 07:45am


My vote in this battle of early metal practitioners: Purple>Zep.

Posted by Dude Man on Thursday, 12.10.09 @ 13:02pm


Hell, most of the frequent visitors might be surprised with me saying this but:

Deep Purple > Led Zeppelin

Posted by Liam on Thursday, 12.10.09 @ 15:59pm


Hm....that's a close one but Purple are a little bit more influential

Posted by GlamRocker on Thursday, 12.10.09 @ 16:04pm


Deep Purple is a lot better. Their latest two albums Bananas and Rapture of the Deep serve as a proof! Can't wait for the next release!

Posted by MyChemicalROMANce on Thursday, 12.10.09 @ 16:42pm


Led zeppelin is ok. I can listen to their Greatest Hits and enjoy it! But listening to them album by album is absolutely impossible for me...

On the other hand every Purple's album is a masterpiece! Everything Blackmore has done is!

Posted by Roberto on Friday, 12.11.09 @ 04:24am


IMO, Led Zeppelin way better than Deep Purple.

Posted by Paul in KY on Friday, 12.11.09 @ 05:55am


Deep Purple is better hands down

Posted by Dream Evil on Friday, 12.11.09 @ 09:30am


Deep Purple with their cool organ and driving beats takes me way farther than the Zeppelin.

Posted by classicrocker on Friday, 12.11.09 @ 10:02am


Can you guys all stop arguing about whether Deep Purple or Led Zeppelin are better. I mean, I don't have a problem so long as you explain your reasoning behind, say backing up Deep Purple over Led Zeppelin. Just saying "DP is better" No, Led Zep is better" is beginning to get annoying.

Posted by The Drummer on Friday, 12.11.09 @ 15:07pm


Apologies for the terrible grammar in that last post :)

Posted by The Drummer on Friday, 12.11.09 @ 15:08pm


Oh, Brother...let me give you guys a hand;

Led Zeppelin/Deep Purple = Apples/Oranges

Any more questions...????

Posted by Gitarzan on Friday, 12.11.09 @ 17:32pm


Deep Purple is just better in all terms. Blackmore is better than Paige, Morse is better than Paige; Tommy Bolin is better than Paige, Gillan is better than Plant, Coverdale is better than Plant, J.L. Turner is better than Plant; Glover is better than Jones; Hughes is better than Jones; JON LORD IS JUST A GOD; and Paice is better than Bohnam.

DEEP PURPLE IS THE GREATEST BAND EVER!

Posted by Hard Rocker on Saturday, 12.12.09 @ 01:59am


Deep Purple is the best band in the universe! They are most favorable rock band in Russia, together with Scorpions, Nazareth, Slade and Uriah Heep!

Long live Deep Purple!

Posted by MADEinRUSSIA on Saturday, 12.12.09 @ 03:14am


Why don't you guys go and praise Deep Purple on the Deep Purple page?

Posted by Milestones on Saturday, 12.12.09 @ 07:54am


Because it's absolutely not fair that Purple is not inducted, while Zeppelin is!

BUUUUUUUUURN!

Posted by In Rock on Saturday, 12.12.09 @ 08:56am


How exactly is that a "burn." Get off the internet and do your Grade 8 Science homework!

Posted by Milestones on Saturday, 12.12.09 @ 09:15am


I think "In Rock" needs to get out more

Posted by Bassmaster on Saturday, 12.12.09 @ 09:46am


hahaha Chill out, gentlemen! 'Burn' is a title of Deep Purple's album and a song from that album! I think In Rock just quoted it.

Posted by Liam on Saturday, 12.12.09 @ 09:50am


BLACK SABBATH ALL THE WAY!! THE DIO YEARS!!! Deep Purple is good, but Led Zeppelin just sucks! They have like 7-10 decent songs

Posted by Blackest Sabbath on Saturday, 12.12.09 @ 09:52am


deep purple sucks

Posted by deep purple sucks on Saturday, 12.12.09 @ 10:12am


In my opinion there are at least 22 Led Zeppelin songs that are better than anything Deep Purple has made. As far as being influential, I have no clue cause I don't play anything, I just enjoy the music. BTW, how many hits have Deep Purple made acoustically??? I don't know of any, but granted I don't know a lot of Deep Purple. Plus I like more bluesy rock, and Zep has way more of that, but thats more personal. Zep is just way better at doing different things. And the guy that said everybody Deep Purple has ever had is better than Page, Plant, Jones, and Bonham is insane. Doesn't he know Coverdale is just a total rip off of Plant's style anyway???

Posted by What can I do on Saturday, 12.12.09 @ 10:24am


I thought it might be a quote, but his attitude and the fact it wasn't in quotation marks lead me to believe otherwise.
If I jumped to conclusions, I apologize, if I was right, then...

Posted by Milestones on Saturday, 12.12.09 @ 12:57pm


Coverdale is 10000 times better than Paige! Just because bunch of snobs badmouth Whitesnake for being hair metal, does not mean anything! Deep Purple is better! and WhiteSnake is too!

Posted by White Snake on Saturday, 12.12.09 @ 15:14pm


To be honest Deep Purple, Rainbow, DIO, Whitesnake or Blackmore's Night are all 10 times better than led zeppelin. I mean Immigrant Song is cool, Black Dog is ok, but other than that.....

Posted by Brittish Steel on Saturday, 12.12.09 @ 15:44pm


Hey, Deep Purple fans...you guys didn't throw your underwear on stage when (and if) you saw them in concert, did you??? When you say "100 times better"...what scale is that based on? Sounds like something very elementary, if you ask me...

Posted by Gitarzan on Saturday, 12.12.09 @ 16:00pm


Blackmore's Night? that's reniassance fair stuff, doesn't have a lot to do with rock, now does it? Your credibility just went bye-bye...

Posted by Gitarzan on Saturday, 12.12.09 @ 16:03pm


"Blackmore's Night = 10x better than Led Zeppelin"....

...wow

Posted by Keebord on Saturday, 12.12.09 @ 17:54pm


I don't really see why everyone is freaking out over people having a debate. It's just an opinion. I definately don't view this as annoying.

And anyone who says Coverdale is a Plant ripoff, knows nothing. Plant based most his singing off Steve Marriott anyway.

Posted by Dude Man on Saturday, 12.12.09 @ 19:24pm


I wasn't freaking out Dude Man, I was just pointing out that somebody who claims Blackmore's Night is "10x better than Zeppelin" without backing it up isn't showing a lot of credibility.

Posted by Keebord on Saturday, 12.12.09 @ 19:44pm


No, I'm just saying that in general there is no need to complain over simple things like this. Though I would agree that Ritchie's current dungeons and dragons thing is eccentric to say the least. They actually covered the "Cotton eye Joe" band at one point...sigh.

Posted by Dude Man on Saturday, 12.12.09 @ 20:01pm


Hello everybody! Haven't been to this website in a long time!

Why are you guys dissing Blackmore's night so much? I mean, in terms of influence, it's not even a question, Zeppelin is bigger, but if somebody likes them more, they can express their opinion.

Posted by Child in Time 27 on Sunday, 12.13.09 @ 00:23am


They actually covered the "Cotton eye Joe" band at one point...sigh.

Posted by Dude Man on Saturday, 12.12.09 @ 20:01pm

Ah yes, the band called "Rednex."

ALRIGHT, time to set the record straight....

1. Led Zeppelin are in the RRHOF, and rightly so
2. Deep Purple should be in the RRHOF, it is truly a disaster that they aren't
3. Ritchie Blackmore is a genius and it's a time somebody recognized him for it
4. Jon Lord is an incredibly talented keyboardist (as I, "Keebord" can attest) and also is very deserving of the honor of being inducted
5. "In Rock" is a brilliant album as are a lot of DP's albums
6. "Child In Time" is one of my favorite songs
7. "Smoke on the Water" has one of the most classic guitar riffs ever recorded
8. Blackmore's next group Rainbow is also good, not sure about RRHOF though (convince me? You can't induct everybody)
9. Blackmore's Night is interesting, but RRHOF?
10. I have no problem with people liking Deep Purple more than Led Zeppelin, but remember, it's "apples and oranges" here
11. It's all subjective

I don't know why people have begun accusing me of disliking Deep Purple. I have the utmost respect for Deep Purple as well as for what Blackmore has accomplished in his career. And I was "dissing" Blackmore's Night, I was merely pointing out how incredible it is that someone can unleash such a profound statement as "Blackmore's Night" = 10x better than Led Zeppelin" and not back it up. I would like to known what the reasoning behind such a comment is

Hope that clarifies my opinions

Posted by Keebord on Sunday, 12.13.09 @ 07:59am


"WASN'T DISSING BLACKMORE'S NIGHT" is what I meant to say

LEAVE THE SILVERWARE ALONE FOR NOW

Posted by Keebord on Sunday, 12.13.09 @ 08:00am


Keebord, I don't think anybody was accusing you personally. It just kind of spiraled out of proportion like the snowball effect...

Anyways, I think i might have started this whole thing in my initial posts about the whole "Burn" thing. ROFL

sorry guys, the Rajah of Recipes will not however, admit he was wrong (For he never is, I kid, I kid), but apologies are sometimes acceptable

Posted by Milestones on Sunday, 12.13.09 @ 08:05am


"Keebord, I don't think anybody was accusing you personally. It just kind of spiraled out of proportion like the snowball effect..."
- Milestones

Well if they were, it was entirely unjustified! If anybody would care to read my old posts they would know my appreciation for Deep Purple as well as Blackmore's other projects

Posted by Keebord on Sunday, 12.13.09 @ 08:07am


In fact, I believe it was Keebord who was really pushing Deep Purple's nomination for the RRHOF a few months ago.

Posted by The Drummer on Sunday, 12.13.09 @ 08:10am


Thanks for that, Drummer. And yes I was, hopefully next year

Posted by Keebord on Sunday, 12.13.09 @ 08:10am


The longer I stay away from this site, the more bizarre it becomes. I cannot believe anyone is fighting over the issue of Zep vs Purple. They are both amazing bands, but the one difference that stands out is Zep were 4 guys and Purple stands at around a dozen. And that does make a big difference.

I will state that IMO, the classic line-up which included Gillian as lead singer could match up with any band, ever.

The gentleman who called Coverdale a copycat of Plant has no clue. Coverdale may very well be one of the great blues/rock vocalists in the history of RnR.

It is sad that the HoF continue to ignore the importance of Deep Purple. But then it only goes to show how lame the RnR HoF truly is. The annex in NYC is closing due to lack of interest. More precise would be the ridiculous cost. Cleveland will shut down as well, I hope.

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 12.13.09 @ 08:34am


"I cannot believe anyone is fighting over the issue of Zep vs Purple." - Dameon

Why is this so hard to believe?

Posted by Greg on Sunday, 12.13.09 @ 09:06am


Maybe it is because this conversation is so old to me. But then I am ancient and remember having this discussion in 1972.

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 12.13.09 @ 09:25am


That would be awesome, if Wenner and company did that, but......looking back at the sad induction of Sabbath.....How could they not induct Dio and Martin and Appice etc?
Those guys were keeping the band alive and continued influencing people!
When will Americans ever stop to look only into their own music market? Martin's and Dio's eras inspired tons of metal and hard-rock bands in Europe, South America and Japan! And still only the original 4 members were inducted...

As for Purple, any member left out would be a big offense!

Posted by Child in Time 27 on Sunday, 12.13.09 @ 09:49am


and please stop calling Coverdale a ripoff

Posted by Child in Time 27 on Sunday, 12.13.09 @ 09:51am


And Rainbow's induction should be a no brainer too. Personal feelings aside, I love them and they are one of my favorite bands ever, they deserve it. They've influenced the whole neoclassical/prog metal movement, power-metal, speed metal...you name it! Even AOR! Axel Rudi Pell, Angel Dust, Helloween, Blind Guardian, Malmsteen, Angra, Dream Theater and many many others have cited them as a big influence.

Posted by Child in Time 27 on Sunday, 12.13.09 @ 09:58am


There is no doubt which is why I don't understand the debate. They really aren't all that alike except for volume.

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 12.13.09 @ 14:33pm


I'm convinced this has nothing to do with Zep & Purple at all. Everybody here's just worked up cause the winter solstice is approaching.

It's like the cover of Zeppelin IV w/the old farmer carrying the sticks... just reminds everyone that crop season has come to an end. That guy realized it as well. That's why he had all those sticks.

He needed to build himself a nest.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 12.13.09 @ 14:41pm


Cheesecrop, I think you found the solution to the mysterious occurrences on the Led Zeppelin page over the last few days.

Posted by Milestones on Sunday, 12.13.09 @ 14:46pm


"Everybody here's just worked up cause the winter solstice is approaching." - Cheesecrop

Dammit Cheesecrop, you caught me!!!!

Posted by Keebord on Sunday, 12.13.09 @ 14:48pm


I've already weighed in on Zep vs Purple on the Rainbow page (yeah, I know - makes no sense at all. It did at 7:00 this morning).

Zep are in; Purple deserve to be there as well; Blackmore is awesome, but even I will not concede to Rainbow or anything else getting in. Let Richie in w/Purple.

One other thing - if you read my 7:00 missive on Rainbow, you'll know how I destroyed my apt. ceiling w/a broom to the strains of a particular Rainbow song. It made me flash back to another time I used the broom quite effectively. During a running of the old 56 filming of the Ten Commandments, I once poured leftover Easter egg coloring into the toilet & turned the tv volume up. When Charlton Heston uttered those famous words "Behold His Mighty Hand" before they parted the Red Sea, I held the broom over the toilet, uttered the same words, and parted the toilet bowl.

Fun w/a broom... (sigh)

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 12.13.09 @ 14:58pm


I don't know if this is the right place, but there's something I've been wondering about. Artists are eligable 25 years after their first album, but Led Zeppelin released its first album in 1969. It's the same with other artists (The Doors which first became eligable in 1993 but released its first album in 1967), while some artists such as LL Cool J (first album in 1985) became eligable exactly 25 years after the release of his first album. How exactly does the 25 year rule work, because shouldn't LZ have been eligable in 1994?

Posted by Dan on Saturday, 01.2.10 @ 09:27am


They were eligible in '94, which made them able to be nominated for the '95 ceremonies, I think! This has been discussed with other artists, too. Look at Madonna...she's inducted, and I don't think "hell has froze over" yet...

I'm pretty sure that's when she's eligible...

Posted by Gitarzan on Saturday, 01.2.10 @ 09:58am


I think artist are eligible after the release after their first single or song. Not after their first album. Many artist release their first single sometimes a year before their first album drops. So they can generate some kind of buzz to sell the LP.

Posted by Joe-Skee on Saturday, 01.2.10 @ 10:27am


I'm flattered. I didn't know I'd developed a reputation. What difference does it mean, 80s or 90s alternative? Nobody listened to alternative rock in the 80s anyway, except for you and your little English punk friends. The rest of us listened to real bands like Bon Jovi.

Posted by Metalsmith on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 14:50pm

First you basically say that all punk bands are useless and boring. That's your opinion, but to call them useless would imply they had no influence or importance, both of which are wrong, as the second wave of punk in the 70's brought rock back down to earth. Three or four chords is the foundation that R'N'R was built on, by the way. Then you say alternative is the worst; fine, if you think so, but that doesn't mean it wasn't important. Since you asked, 80's alternative (beginning with R.E.M. though some say alternative can date back to Bowie, The Velvet Underground or Joy Division) was not big, though R.E.M. had some hits late in the decade. It mainly relied on college radio and word of mouth for attention, and that was the time when most of the innovation was going on. Then in the 90's it got big (thanks to R.E.M. and then success was taken to bigger stages by Nirvana, Pearl Jam and Red Hot Chili Peppers, and Blur and Oasis in the UK.) As for nobody listening to it, that would explain why R.E.M. had some hits late in the decade, and why New Order found success on the US dance charts, right? What defines a band as "real" anyhow? If you're gone for good then I'm glad, because your ignorance is appalling.

Posted by Sam on Wednesday, 03.17.10 @ 19:58pm


It's impossible to come up with 20 worthy Led Zeppelin songs. Many lists you see presented contain songs that Jimmy Page plagiarized.

LZ have 5 to 6 good songs.

With the exception of Rock and Roll, most LZ fans would never recognize the good songs of LZ.

Why? Most LZ fans worship poseurs and know little about musical composition and musical performance.

1. Wanton Song
2. Rock and Roll
3. Hots on for Nowhere
4. Royal Orleans
5. Living Loving Maid
6. When the Levee Breaks

Posted by Charles the Hammer on Thursday, 03.18.10 @ 02:59am


Why? Most LZ fans worship poseurs and know little about musical composition and musical performance.

1. Wanton Song
2. Rock and Roll
3. Hots on for Nowhere
4. Royal Orleans
5. Living Loving Maid
6. When the Levee Breaks

Posted by Charles the Hammer on Thursday, 03.18.10 @ 02:59am

Speaking of knowing nothing about musical composition you apparently don't either because "When the Levee Breaks" was actually a cover. Yes, I am aware the "Stairway" intro sounds very similar to something Spirit did, and that they stole some lyrics from old bluesmen ("Whole Lotta Love", "The Lemon Song") but what else? Ever heard "The Battle of Evermore", "Black Dog", "Ten Years Gone", "Heartbreaker"? Those are some other great songs. And I know that's not the real Sebastian Bach, because SB has said that "Whole Lotta Love" gives him a hard-on :)

Posted by Sam on Thursday, 03.18.10 @ 15:36pm


Oh and I also stroked my Willie over pictures of Jimmy Page :O

Posted by Sam on Wednesday, 03.17.10 @ 22:52pm

Not me. There's a Gitarzan and Cheesecrop imposter around as well.

Posted by The Real Sam on Friday, 03.19.10 @ 20:23pm


Led Zeppelin is one of the few bands that actually deserve to be in the rock n roll hall of fame.

Posted by Ryan on Monday, 07.5.10 @ 08:37am


"One of the few bands?" Could you elaborate sir?

Sincerely,

The Real Sam

Posted by Sam on Friday, 07.9.10 @ 15:26pm


Willie Dixon,Anne Brendon,and the music publishers of the late Howlin Wolf among others have already successfully sued Zeppelin for plagerism.Now Jake Holmes has filed a suit for dazed and confused and regardless of outcome the song was written by him.Anyone can hear other examples on UTube where I and II have been almost completely pieced together from older recordings.This band may deserve to be in the hall,but the legacy is tarished.Had ignorant concert ticket and album buyers just bothered to check out the R&B section of record stores,no Zep stardom in 68-69.

Posted by RR HOF judge on Sunday, 07.11.10 @ 06:24am


RIP John Bonham, THIRTY YEARS GONE

Posted by Aaron O'Donnell on Saturday, 09.25.10 @ 14:00pm


Happy 65th birthday John Paul Jones and RAMBLE ON!!!!

Posted by Aaron O'Donnell on Monday, 01.3.11 @ 04:38am


To be honest guys, LZ is way too over rated.

Jay-Z > Led Zeppelin.

Posted by The Real Sam on Sunday, 02.20.11 @ 10:47am


Led Zeppelin and Chicago lost the Grammy for Best New Artist to Crosby, Stills & Nash in 1970.

Posted by Roy on Sunday, 09.18.11 @ 06:45am


It's funny people are talking about Metallica and this is a Zeppelin page. How dare you and plus all you youngins of course you'll love your generation of music. But zeppelin is the best.

Posted by Salvatore Leone on Monday, 11.21.11 @ 20:34pm


This seems pretty damning. Is it possible to kick them out after they were inducted?

http://www.hark.com/clips/qmqjfdsztg-howard-stern-exposes-led-zeppelin-as-a-farce

Posted by astrodog on Friday, 01.13.12 @ 21:51pm


This one is even better:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyvLsutfI5M&feature=related

Posted by astrodog on Friday, 01.13.12 @ 22:02pm


I've heard of Led Zeppelin ripping off many artists and the "Taurus" lift from the band Spirit (who are very underrated, by the way) is the most well-known case. However, a few of those are news to me and frankly I'm not surprised.

What actually irks me more about Led Zeppelin though, is that being a serious film fan, I know several instances of various filmmakers wishing to use a LZ song in their movies, only to have either Plant or Page refuse to allow it. For instance, Richard Linklater named his movie "Dazed and Confused" after the LZ song and wanted to use that song in it but one of Plant/Page (forget which one) either flat-out refused or wanted ridiculously high royalties. Denying using a song may not be so bad, but what IS bad is that specific song was ripped off by Led Zeppelin in the FIRST PLACE. That'd be like stealing a guitar from a store and then trying to sell it for twice the price it originally cost!! Inflated ego has gotten to a lot of these Plants/Pages/Axl Roses/Stings/Bonos of the world, and they really have their heads so far up their can they can't see straight. (Not knocking these respective artist's music, just their egos)

Personally, I used to be a fairly big Led Zeppelin fan in High School but grew out of them. I think it was something about Plant's voice that got to me after a while, I hardly ever listen to them anymore. As opposed to say, Deep Purple or the Who who I was also a big fan of High School and still routinely listen to (Not Blackmore's recent work with Blackmore's Night though, ugh don't even get me started on that dungeons and dragons stuff...)

Anyway, I'm rambling. To answer your question "Is it possible to kick them out after they were inducted?" I don't think there is and even if there was, Led Zeppelin wouldn't exactly be in the top half of the "let's kick them out" pile. There are a few artists I personally would like to see kicked out of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and LZ isn't one of them (not even close), even if they were the male version of Joan Jett and the Blackhearts as far as being a glorified cover band go...

Oh, something else I wanted to mention, the following post by someone calling themselves, "The Real Sam" posted on Sunday, 02.20.11:

"To be honest guys, LZ is way too over rated.

Jay-Z > Led Zeppelin."

That's not REALLY you, is it Sam? Because despite all their faults, I think most would agree without question that:

Led Zeppelin > Jay-Z

What's next, some troll coming along saying Kanye West is the voice of a generation? Oh wait... someone DID say that on the Kanye West page...

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Saturday, 01.14.12 @ 08:29am


Just to clarify, even though I don't care for Jay-Z or Kanye West I do enjoy rap so if that last part of my post came across as me knocking rap just because I mentioned two rap artists, it was entirely unintentional.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Saturday, 01.14.12 @ 08:32am


Minor correction: In the third paragraph there should be an "in" before the second mention of High School.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Saturday, 01.14.12 @ 08:36am


It was more of a rhetorical question, but the extent of it is mind blowing. That Youtube video is in three parts. Dazed and Confused, for example, was the center piece of their live set. Whole Lotta Love. When the Levee Breaks. And on and on. It just kills your faith in everything they did. Next we'll find out that they lifted Kashmir from some traditional Morrocan folk song. This was a first ballot inductee, and you just wonder if the result may have been somewhat different if this issue had been more publicized back then.

Posted by astrodog on Saturday, 01.14.12 @ 11:39am


Yeah, i stil like them but when people say they are one of the ebst bands of all time i just feel like facepalming.

Posted by GFW on Saturday, 01.14.12 @ 14:20pm


I cannot believe some of the comments. Individually, there may be better guitarists and base players than Page and Jones. As a band I defy anyone to show me 4 better musicians playing together. They are the best rock band and daylight is second. If in doubt have a good listen to no quarter live on the song remains the same.

Posted by Brendan on Thursday, 03.1.12 @ 02:00am


In my eyes, Led Zeppelin trails only The Beatles for the most overrated band of all time. These clowns pioneered cock rock, what with Robert Plant running around the stage with his shirt open and showing off his toothpick-like torso to the world. Plant's gotta be one of the worst vocalists ever. His screeching voice could cause permanent hearing loss. Jimmy Page ain't all that special as a guitarist either. For truly great guitarists, I think David Gilmour John Deacon, and Brian May all stomp Page into the ground. Listen to Gilmour's opening guitar solo on Sorrow or May's and Deacon's dueling guitars on Tie Your Mother Down. Both make Page's sissy guitar-playing into a limp dick.

Oh, and the next person who calls Stairway to Heaven the alpha and omega of rock 'n' roll gets a punch in the face from me. It's too wimpy-sounding (I hate acoustic guitars), Plant's voice grates on my ears, and it's an all-around disaster. And yet the kids I know at college who buy into the "classic rawk" hype think it's the greatest song ever written. Unbelievable.

No wonder I tend to avoid most rock music from the late 1960s/early 1970s. Thank God that David Bowie, Alice Cooper, T. Rex, and Mott the Hoople came along and made rock 'n' roll exciting and edgy again.

Posted by Zach on Monday, 04.9.12 @ 18:01pm


Stairway to Heaven the alpha and omega of rock 'n' roll

Posted by Gassman on Monday, 04.9.12 @ 18:11pm


Stairway to Heaven the alpha and omega of rock 'n' roll

Posted by Gassman on Monday, 04.9.12 @ 18:11pm

Please tell me you're just being sarcastic.

I can name 100 songs that eat Stairway to Heaven for breakfast, but would have to carefully think about which songs I'd choose. I can, however, name one for now: Station to Station by David Bowie.

Posted by Zach on Monday, 04.9.12 @ 20:27pm


Oh come on, you can't disregard a whole instrument. Thats just stupid.

Posted by GFW on Tuesday, 04.10.12 @ 06:59am


"For truly great guitarists, I think David Gilmour John Deacon, and Brian May all stomp Page into the ground."

I was prepared to agree to disagree until you said that. I think John Deacon would be very surprised to hear that the instrument he played in Queen was lead guitar.

Posted by Sam on Tuesday, 05.8.12 @ 19:19pm


One problem with your post, Sam. I never referred to John Deacon as a lead guitarist. I'm familiar enough with Queen to know that his main role was bass guitarist. It still doesn't contradict my earlier argument about him beating the socks off of Jimmy Page.

Oh, and I need to retract my earlier statement about acoustic guitars. I admit that I said that in haste. Truthfully, I hate the hipster community's idolatry of the acoustic guitar, not the actual instrument itself. That's what I meant. My apologies.

Posted by Zach on Tuesday, 05.8.12 @ 21:56pm


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByUjZ80HGRU

Couldn't resist not posting this ;)

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Wednesday, 07.18.12 @ 09:29am


THE 2012 KENNEDY CENTER HONORS

Buddy Guy
Led Zeppelin
David Letterman
Dustin Hoffman
Natalia Makarova

Posted by Roy on Saturday, 09.15.12 @ 00:01am


Anybody watch the Kennedy center Honors? The tribute to Led Zeppelin was awesome. The other ones werent too bad either.

Posted by bojanthebest on Thursday, 12.27.12 @ 00:09am


If Dazed and Confused is a 1967 song, Led Zeppelin version is definitely a 1969 song!

Posted by Florian on Monday, 10.28.13 @ 04:38am


http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/does-it-matter-if-led-zeppelin-stole-stairway-to-heaven-20160614#ixzz4Bj6oFE7U

Does It Matter If Led Zeppelin Stole 'Stairway to Heaven'?

As iconic song goes to trial, legal experts debate the letter – and the limits – of music copyright law

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 06.16.16 @ 03:50am


Rate Your Music Users Who Think Led Zeppelin Are Painfully Overrated


http://rateyourmusic.com/list/finulanu/users_who_think_led_zeppelin_are_painfully_overrated/



This Band Is Everything That Is WRONG With Music, a Rate Your Music Site moderator,Benimal only says Led Zeppelin is the worst.



https://rateyourmusic.com/board_message?message_id=4217944&board_id=1&show=20&start=20


Posted by TR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 18:03pm


In this Music discussion Most Underrated/Overrated Artists on the site Music Banter this guy who even likes hard rock and heavy metal music said the first most overrated is Led Zeppelin and said in parenthesis, bombastic cock rock and nothing else.



http://www.musicbanter.com/general-music/24422-most-underrated-overrated-artists-8.html

Posted by TR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 18:05pm


I have found a lot of people on music forums who hate or don't like Led Zeppelin even some on heavy metal forums. And even some people who for some puzzling reason like their music,say they can't stand Robert Plant's awful screeching,screaming and whaling vocals.



The Boston Globe has an online article from March 2009,called I Confess I Don’t Like… written by all of their music critics and Luke O’Neil wrote that when people talk of classic bands they don’t like they’re really speaking in coded language.He said for example “I don’t like The Beatles.” is the same as saying,”I’m a liar” he said but when I say I don’t like Led Zeppelin there’s no subtext. He then says a lot of it has to do with Robert Plant’s fiendish helium-powered caterwauling. He says he tends to prefer bands with vocalists not police sirens in tight pants.He also said the lyrics which run the gamut unimaginative doggerel to too-imaginative fantasy goofs don’t help.



He then says sure they inspired a lot of great bands,but should we not then hold them accountable for the thousands of downright awful imitators they’ve inspired? Remember that whole hair metal thing in the 80’s? He says who do you think put the bustle in those dudes hedgerow? And grunge? He says that was basically goateed Led Zeppelin on Smack. http://www.boston.com/ae/music/gallery/we_should?pg=10



Rock music critic John Mendelson never liked Led Zeppelin either.



Van Halen in the late 70's early-mid 80's with David Lee Roth sounded a million times better! So do the Who,The Rolling Stones,The Eagles,etc and The Beatles are a zillion times better.

Posted by TR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 18:08pm


Zach, you are right about Led Zeppelin being the most overrated,but wrong about The Beatles.

Posted by TR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 18:11pm


Keith Richards never liked Led Zeppelin.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQePSwNkvbA



http://ultimateclassicrock.com/keith-richards-led-zeppelin-comment/

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 22:01pm


Pete Townsend says he never liked Led Zeppelin's music


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTJywZoG_bw

Posted by JPGR on Saturday, 01.14.17 @ 22:03pm


Zeppelin was the second greatest band to be inducted, after the Stones

Posted by Luke Madigan on Monday, 05.8.17 @ 16:17pm


Leave your comment:

Name:

Email:

Comments:


Security Question:

Which letter is Springsteen's band named after?
 

Note: Emails will not be visible or used in any way, but are required. Please keep comments relevant to the topic. Any content deemed inappropriate or offensive may be edited and/or deleted.

No HTML code is allowed.




This site is not affiliated with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum.