CDs in your player now

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by angryllama

Nah...Zeppelin is a somewhat direct line from the Beatles to everything after.

Hendrix influenced some players.

Clapton wasnt as much of an influence as he was influenced. If you like what Clapton does, you go beyond him to his sources, which are much better.

I love Robert Johnson and Albert King too, but I don't think anybody could buy the argument that Clapton hasn't surpassed them. Sorry. Also, when Clapton showed up at the studio to record Bluesbreakers with John Mayall and plugged his a Les Paul into those overloaded Marshalls, that is considered one of the foundational moments in rock. The ripple out from that moment is still reverberating.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Sorry. I have to give "most influential" award to the Beatles, by far. And when I say "by far" I mean on the cosmic level. Somewhere after that (maybe a solar system or two) comes the Stones, Hendrix, Clapton and then a comet's throw back (perhaps a couple of more star systems) comes Zep.

Interesting side note:

The sound engineer that did the work for the beatles where they sampled sound for the first time - worked with Brion Gysin & W. Burroughs on their cut-up technique - He took the audio-visual methods that needed to made for Gysin & Burroughs and applied it to the beatles.

B

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I love Robert Johnson and Albert King too, but I don't think anybody could buy the argument that Clapton hasn't surpassed them. Sorry. Also, when Clapton showed up at the studio to record Bluesbreakers with John Mayall and plugged his a Les Paul into those overloaded Marshalls, that is considered one of the foundational moments in rock. The ripple out from that moment is still reverberating.

Clapton at one time stated, that it takes more than one guitar player to play like R. Johnson and that clapton himself couldn't play the way Robert did.

Robert Johnson influenced Zepplin, the Stones and Clapton (cream, etc) - His influence is ginormous.

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Sorry. I have to give "most influential" award to the Beatles, by far. And when I say "by far" I mean on the cosmic level. Somewhere after that (maybe a solar system or two) comes the Stones, Hendrix, Clapton and then a comet's throw back (perhaps a couple of more star systems) comes Zep.

Only on some "cosmic level" do these rankings come close to working. Clapton as an artist is largely forgettable Roh, sorry. Especially compared to a Led Zeppelin. If you list influential artists musically, none on that list but the Beatles qualify as on Zeppelin's level.


And when you say "a comet's throw back (perhaps a couple of more star systems)," you're betraying an inordinant dislike of Zeppelin, such that it clouds your objective appreciation of the facts. Even the biggest Zeppelin detractors won't go near where you're at there. Because it's wrong empirically. Led Zeppelin has sold more records and spawned many more imitators (and isn't that the definition of "influence"? ) than the Stones, Who and Clapton combined. Clapton was far more a musician than an artist.

[BroncoBuff]

In fact, both Clapton and Hendrix - as artists - are largely forgettable.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Only on some "cosmic level" do these rankings come close to working. Clapton as an artist is largely forgettable Roh, sorry. Especially compared to a Led Zeppelin. If you list influential artists musically, none on that list but the Beatles qualify as on Zeppelin's level.


And when you say "a comet's throw back (perhaps a couple of more star systems)," you're betraying an inordinant dislike of Zeppelin, such that it clouds your objective appreciation of the facts. Even the biggest Zeppelin detractors won't go near where you're at there. Because it's wrong empirically. Led Zeppelin has sold more records and spawned many more imitators (and isn't that the definition of "influence"? ) than the Stones, Who and Clapton combined. Clapton was far more a musician than an artist.

No, I actually like Zep quite a bit (at least their first four albums, which I have). Maybe it's because I'm not a heavy metal fan (which is where most of Zep's influence reverberates). In fact, I don't like heavy metal even a little bit. (By heavy metal I mean the genre that contains AC/DC, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, etc. etc. etc. and all the stuff since). Zep's musicianship and their initial respect for the blues keeps them out of that trough, IMO. So the "influential artists musically" category for me is limited by the extent of the influence, and Zep's influence is limited to their genre. The only band I'd put up in the same cosmos with the Beatles, influentially speaking, would have to be Pink Floyd.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by amesj523

Clapton at one time stated, that it takes more than one guitar player to play like R. Johnson and that clapton himself couldn't play the way Robert did.

Robert Johnson influenced Zepplin, the Stones and Clapton (cream, etc) - His influence is ginormous.

Clapton is a humble fellow. Of course he'd say that.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Clapton is a humble fellow. Of course he'd say that.

I've had some of the best guitar players i know try to play R. Johnson - and they can't - they feel he did sell his soul to the devil.

Just sayin'.....

[bombay]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Only on some "cosmic level" do these rankings come close to working. Clapton as an artist is largely forgettable Roh, sorry. Especially compared to a Led Zeppelin. If you list influential artists musically, none on that list but the Beatles qualify as on Zeppelin's level.


And when you say "a comet's throw back (perhaps a couple of more star systems)," you're betraying an inordinant dislike of Zeppelin, such that it clouds your objective appreciation of the facts. Even the biggest Zeppelin detractors won't go near where you're at there. Because it's wrong empirically. Led Zeppelin has sold more records and spawned many more imitators (and isn't that the definition of "influence"? ) than the Stones, Who and Clapton combined. Clapton was far more a musician than an artist.

When speaking of the Beatles, anyone who was around in the '60's would surely agree with what Rohirim actually said: everyone was light years behind them in influence, sales, the whole baliwick.

I don't get this whole Led Zeppelin vs. the rest of rockdom thing that seems prevelent on this forum. Is it unique to here? When Led released their first album in 1968, it was like nothing I'd ever heard before and I thought, and still think, that it's a seminal album in rock history.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

No, I actually like Zep quite a bit (at least their first four albums, which I have). Maybe it's because I'm not a heavy metal fan (which is where most of Zep's influence reverberates). In fact, I don't like heavy metal even a little bit. (By heavy metal I mean the genre that contains AC/DC, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, etc. etc. etc. and all the stuff since). Zep's musicianship and their initial respect for the blues keeps them out of that trough, IMO. So the "influential artists musically" category for me is limited by the extent of the influence, and Zep's influence is limited to their genre. The only band I'd put up in the same cosmos with the Beatles, influentially speaking, would have to be Pink Floyd.

A good bit of Sabbath isn't "metal" - it's hard blues rock. I'd say they had "darker" songs at times.


Hey, if you want bands that changed music... The Stooges.

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by bombay

When speaking of the Beatles, anyone who was around in the '60's would surely agree with what Rohirim actually said: everyone was light years behind them in influence, sales, the whole baliwick.

Clearly this is correct.

I don't get this whole Led Zeppelin vs. the rest of rockdom thing that seems prevelent on this forum. Is it unique to here? .

Well, there are two of us that revere Led Zeppelin, and then the rest are wrong

When Led released their first album in 1968, it was like nothing I'd ever heard before and I thought, and still think, that it's a seminal album in rock history

Yes it was, and yes it is.

I am wont to say that the entire timeline of popular music can be divided into two parts - before and after the first sound on that record, the percusssive double stop power chord (fittingly an 'E") on "Good Times Bad Times." Nothing was ever the same in music after that.



FWIW, I spent a couple hours writing a justification of my "Led Zeppelin I changed music forever" thesis awhile back in this post that compares what other groups were doing in November 1968 when Led Zep I was recorded: http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpos...9&postcount=70

[bombay]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Well, there are two of us that revere Led Zeppelin, and then the rest are wrong



I am wont to say that the entire timeline of popular music can be divided into two parts - before and after the first sound on that record, the percusssive double stop power chord (fittingly an 'E") on "Good Times Bad Times." Nothing was ever the same in music after that.



FWIW, I spent a couple hours writing a justification of my "Led Zeppelin I changed music forever" thesis awhile back in this post that compares what other groups were doing in November 1968 when Led Zep I was recorded: http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpos...9&postcount=70

I can't say I revere Led Zep although their first effort completely blew me away. I read your 'thesis' and while I'm in agreement on what the 1st album meant to the genre, disagree with your assesment of most of the other albums you 'reviewed'. Specifically Truth, Electric Ladyland, and Wheels of Fire. I loved all of those efforts and can still listen to Truth and Electric Ladyland on occasion, although Wheels doesn't hold the appeal it once did. CTA is irrelevant to me, and I thought you pretty much nailed The Allmans and Black Sabbath. John Lennon once cited listening to the first Allman brothers album as a signal that the Beatles' time had come and gone.

[Hogan11]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

FWIW, I spent a couple hours writing a justification of my "Led Zeppelin I changed music forever" thesis awhile back in this post that compares what other groups were doing in November 1968 when Led Zep I was recorded: http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpos...9&postcount=70

I responded to that post in kind and you never got back to me on it....

[BroncoBuff]

Sorry Hogan ... i'll do that later tonight.

Bombay ... I like Truth and Electric Ladyland too, I really really do. But those "reviews" I wrote were entirely based upon: "Creation of the nascent hard rock/heavy metal genre," or contribution to that creation. In short, groundbreaking s o u n d.

Truth has great guitar (obviously), and is easily comparable because it included much of the same type music (and one identical cover song) of Zeppelin I ... but it sounds so sparse ... it doesn't smack you in the mouth like Zep I, not at all. Wheels of Fire is sparse-sounding too. Obviously Cream are excellent musicians, but the album sounds like a simple trio, whereas Zeppelin was far broader and more powerful sounding. Far more. (Also Clapton's distortion sound then was the primitive "muff box" sound. I and most guitar players wince when they hear that.)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

PERFECT ANALOGY (well, imperfect, but illustrative): The automatic transmission in your car is an INSANE invention that is more complicated than you'll probably ever know. The automatic transmision alone has more parts and is more complicated that the rest of the entire car combined. Most of us know that.

But does anybody talk about the inventor of the AT? Or about what kind of AT they have in their car? No, of course not. They might mention AT in passing, 3 or 4 speeds, but it's never the main topic. On the other hand, the MAKE and MODEL of cars are up for endless debate and discussion. Which are the most influential designs? How the Cadillac advanced the luxury automobile as a whole, or how the Chrysler Imperial as an answer to the Caddy was just a bit too ahead of its time, etc etc. They all USE the insanely revolutionary and complicate AT to make their cars better, but the closest you'll come to talking about the AT is saying how "smooth" the ride is.


Jimi Hendrix = automatic transmission
Led Zeppelin = Cadillac

That's a pretty good analogy.

In my original posts, I gave Hendrix credit for being an innovator, but I also noted that other players were already passing him by during his lifetime.

Same thing happened to Eddie Van Halen, who revolutionized rock guitar at another moment in time: it didn't take long for the Steve Vais and the Yngwie Malmsteens to catch up to him and then pass him by.

[bombay]

[QUOTE=BroncoBuff;2029277]Sorry Hogan ... i'll do that later tonight.

Bombay ... I like Truth and Electric Ladyland too, I really really do. But those "reviews" I wrote were entirely based upon: "Creation of the nascent hard rock/heavy metal genre," or contribution to that creation. In short, groundbreaking s o u n d.
Truth has great guitar (obviously), and is easily comparable because it included much of the same type music (and one identical cover song) of Zeppelin I ... but it sounds so sparse ... it doesn't smack you in the mouth like Zep I, not at all. Wheels of Fire is sparse-sounding too. Obviously Cream are excellent musicians, but the album sounds like a simple trio, whereas Zeppelin was far broader and more powerful sounding. Far more. (Also Clapton's distortion sound then was the primitive "muff box" sound. I and most guitar players wince when they hear that.)[/QUOTE ]

Ok, I can pretty much agree with that. As far as groundbreaking stuff, Led Zeppelin and the Allman Brothers at the Fillmore East are the only albums on your list that fit. Truth was great - it's too bad Beck and Rod Stewart didn't work together more. Beck could potentially have had the same sort of influence of Page and Clapton had, had not... whatever.. ego? caused him to want to release album after album without vocals. Stewart, of course, after a nice run with Faces, became a lounge singer. But yeah, back to your point, Led Zep one was truly groundbreaking. Black Sabbath may have been influenced to some degree by Zep on their first album as well, but they sort of broke the mold, snorted it, and proceeded to scare the hell out of damn near everyone.

[Los Broncos]

Originally Posted by amesj523

I've had some of the best guitar players i know try to play R. Johnson - and they can't - they feel he did sell his soul to the devil.

Just sayin'.....

And Robert Johnson wasn't even the best.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Of course, it's all subjective...

Absolutely.

What makes one of us a Hendrix man and another a Page (or Beck or Clapton) man is ultimately as subjective as what makes an ice cream lover prefer rocky road ice cream over vanilla swiss almond.

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

but IMO musicians have to have something else besides technical proficiency to reach the level of (for want of a better word) master.

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Let's call it "voice."

By "voice" do you mean tone, touch, phrasing, an original concept, some combination of all of these, or none of the above?

The term "voice" can mean different things in music.

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Alvin Lee was super fast but that was his entire schtick. Everbody watched him and went, "Gee." Small voice.

I don't think Alvin's speed was some sort of "schtick" - I think it's how he truly felt the music. The guy was amped up! And if you really study his playing, you can unearth all sorts of interesting 50s rock, blues, and jazz influences in his playing (just as you can identify the blues, Motown, and R&B roots in Hendrix's playing.)

If you say speed was Alvin's "schtick," then you could just as easily say feedback or dive bombing with the whammy bar were Hendrix's "schticks."

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

They call Clapton "Slow Hand" but his "voice" has been huge over the last four decades. Hell, just listen to "Have You Heard" on the Bluesbreakers album when Eric was about 18.

I strongly disagree. Clapton's ability to market himself and to mine the same safe, comfortable/profitable white boy blues niche has been "huge" over the last two decades. Clapton's "voice," meanwhile, became a caricature of itself a long time ago. In fact, Clapton is a perfect example of the often inverse relationship between celebrity and talent/innovation/actual musical achievement.

There are many British guitarists of Clapton's generation who are significantly more talented and more accomplished musicians (e.g., Jeff Beck, Robin Trower, Peter Frampton, et al) but who receive far less acclaim and recognition.

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I love Jeff Beck's playing. He's a technical powerhouse. But his "voice" pales next to Clapton's (IMHO).

Once again, this is purely subjective, but I disagree insofar as Beck has a very unique "voice" and playing style, and he has been just as influential as EC - just ask almost any famous guitar player nowadays.

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

When you talk about Hendrix, you talk about a guy with a huge voice, a voice that pretty much redirected the music of his time.

I give him credit for being a major innovator, but Page's "voice" and Led Zeppelin's music proved to be much more influential when you consider that it spawned an entire genre (or sub-genre) of music.

[Rohirrim]

I guess we agree it's entirely subjective.

What I mean by "voice" is that musician's entire persona plus that indefinable current that rises from within and comes through their music and over which they have no control. It is them. It is their voice. It's why they hear what they hear and why they play what they play. It's why Clapton loves blues and Knopfler loves Western swing. Who knows where it comes from? It's that thing that happens when a kid hears something for the first time and not only discovers that he loves music, but he loves that music, and not only that, he's going to learn to express himself through that music.

I wonder if you've ever seen Clapton live? I've seen him a few times. It might alter your opinion considerably.

[Hogan11]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Sorry Hogan ... i'll do that later tonight.

These were the posts in question:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpos...9&postcount=26

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpos...8&postcount=29

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpos...9&postcount=30


Even though they are over a year old, they still stand as my takes....funny enough, I still haven't revisited the Jeff Beck Group's Truth yet (which I should've, that's on me). I look forward to your responses to them.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I guess we agree it's entirely subjective.

What I mean by "voice" is that musician's entire persona plus that indefinable current that rises from within and comes through their music and over which they have no control. It is them. It is their voice. It's why they hear what they hear and why they play what they play. It's why Clapton loves blues and Knopfler loves Western swing. Who knows where it comes from? It's that thing that happens when a kid hears something for the first time and not only discovers that he loves music, but he loves that music, and not only that, he's going to learn to express himself through that music.

Gotcha.

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I wonder if you've ever seen Clapton live? I've seen him a few times. It might alter your opinion considerably.

I've seen all of the guys we've been discussing live at least once.

I enjoyed some of Clapton's work with Cream, Derek and the Dominos, and his early solo works, but not enough to buy any of his records. The Cream years were more creative, in my estimation, than the white boy blues niche he eventually settled into (if I want to hear authentic blues guitar I'll go right to the source, e.g., Robert Johnson, Muddy Waters, Albert King, Albert Collins, et al - I don't need to get it second-hand from some white English cat.)

As far as guitar players go, Clapton is one of the most predictable, repetitive, and boring players I can think of. He is little more than a pentatonic/blues box player who has been recycling the same, old, tired blues licks for decades.

JMO.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

No, I actually like Zep quite a bit (at least their first four albums, which I have). Maybe it's because I'm not a heavy metal fan (which is where most of Zep's influence reverberates). In fact, I don't like heavy metal even a little bit. (By heavy metal I mean the genre that contains AC/DC, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, etc. etc. etc. and all the stuff since).

I'm no metal fan either - I can't stand that stuff.

Jimmy Page was (rightfully) none too pleased whenever anyone tried to apply that label to Led Zeppelin.

You're correct in pointing out LZ's influence on the development of heavy metal, but, as we know, and as you alluded, heavy metal was just sort of a bastardization of one facet of Led Zeppelin's music.

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

....Zep's influence is limited to their genre.

Not really.

You have rappers/hip hop guys sampling the riff from "Kashmir," acoustic singer/songwriter types doing "Going to California," grunge and alternative rockers citing Zeppelin as an influence, etc.

But here's the most important thing to keep in mind when you're talking about Led Zeppelin and "genre" - Led Zeppelin was so multi-faceted (i.e., drew from and effectively fused so many different musical styles) that the band defied and transcended genres - that's what made them great, and that's why kids are still buying their records and learning their tunes decades later.

[Hogan11]

Originally Posted by TailgateNut

"Pine point trail ride" and "No Good woman" by Beau Jocque and a few good ones by Rockin Dopsie Jr and the Zydeco twisters who where the band at a private party I attended while in Nawlins last week.

Hey TGN...you probably won't see this unless you use your search option, but I found some rare footage of Beau Jocque on you tube....have to follow the URL though as the creep who posted it disabled the embed option.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgkAhZ3pRMw

Man, that guy was huge!!

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I love Robert Johnson and Albert King too, but I don't think anybody could buy the argument that Clapton hasn't surpassed them. Sorry.

Um, no. Calpton certainly had access to gadgetry that Johnson could never have dreamed of, but just isolating the guitars...sorry, there is no comparison. Johnson might be the greatest of all-time. He made it sound like two people were playing at once. Modern rock 'n' roll probably wouldn't exist without Johnson's groundbreaking work either...as Clapton himself would tell you. In fact, by his own admission he never could work out some of Johnson's licks.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Gotcha.



I've seen all of the guys we've been discussing live at least once.

I enjoyed some of Clapton's work with Cream, Derek and the Dominos, and his early solo works, but not enough to buy any of his records. The Cream years were more creative, in my estimation, than the white boy blues niche he eventually settled into (if I want to hear authentic blues guitar I'll go right to the source, e.g., Robert Johnson, Muddy Waters, Albert King, Albert Collins, et al - I don't need to get it second-hand from some white English cat.)

Like Page? Or Beck?

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

As far as guitar players go, Clapton is one of the most predictable, repetitive, and boring players I can think of. He is little more than a pentatonic/blues box player who has been recycling the same, old, tired blues licks for decades.

JMO.

I couldn't disagree more. I'm sure Page could put five notes where Clapton puts one (and would) but IMO Eric puts the right one in the right place, more often than not. That's what I want from the music I listen to; Meaning. I realize there are all kinds of fingerboard acrobats out there, I've met quite a few, but there aren't a whole lot that can put the right note in the right place and convey a depth of feeling in the music. IMO, that's what Eric has pursued his entire career. Your attack on him, and his style, is nothing new. Hell, the fingerboard acrobats have been resentful of his success since he started. Usually they wrap up their argument by saying something along the lines of, "Well, his audience must be stupid." I've always said, for sheer snootiness, you can't beat musicians.