Is it just me or Led Zeppelin (or rather half of the band) were simply bad too many times LIVE? *

I saw them at the Fillmore East in '69 and Central Park in '70 and I remember them as 2 of the greatest concerts I ever went to. The energy level of the band was unmatched, but both times they were trying to prove themselves to the world. Both venues were small which also helped. The energy level of Zep 1, I always thought, was a good indicator of the band in those days. I saw them at MSG in '73 and '77 and there was a definite drop off. They were huge stars by this time and it showed. Retardedly long solos made them look self absorbed. Considering what the band was going through as time went on, it wasn't surprising the energy of earlier Zep couldn't last.

 

I don't agree with your assessment.

 

My math isn't what it was...half of Led Zeppelin songs are bad 90% of the time? That puts then at about a 60% success rate. Not to shabby.

 

Well LZ albums are better than every Billy Joel record and McCartney's NEW. Whatever else doesn't really matter now, does it?

 

For the fist few years the Zep boys were hungry and keen to prove themselves as a live act. After that... not so much.

 

Maybe with their records selling like hotcakes they didn't really see the need to put on tight perfect shows.

 

If you saw them in Santa Barbara in 1969, you saw them with Jethro Tull (IWT). Pretty mindblowing at the time!

 

They were a great live band. I saw them twice and wouldn't trade those experiences for anything in the world. I can't think of anyone who sees a band live that expects the studio album to be played during the concert. It's a whole different experience. We're they bad? No, and certainly not 90% of the time.

 

Somewhere between the US tour (May-June, '72) and the Japan Tour (October, '72) Plant blew his voice out majorly and couldn't hit the high notes anymore after that. By Japan he's having serious problems, but by the end-of-year UK Tour - forget it - he's completely lost his voice and it's over for that era of Zeppelin, where they could go anywhere musically with nothing stopping them.

So the How The West Was Won live release, the BBC Sessions, and Led Zeppelin I - thru -Houses Of The Holy (basically, 1968-mid-1972) are the material with Plant at full voice and is largely the era for which Zeppelin has their mighty reputation. (The Song Remains the Same movie and soundtrack are Plant with his post-damaged voice - he's singing mid-ranges to make up for it - and it's just not a good representation of prime Zeppelin).

I can believe it.

 

Sometimes what is cool, daring, out there, mystically mystifying, rocking beyond rocking....after the passage of time...floats away...leaving not quite so much.

But they were the ultimate in coolness and rock and roll for a period in the seventies.

 

They were spotty live. From 1975 on you have to cherry pick. Before that, aside from gigs burdened by sick or injured members, they delivered the goods.

 

They're not as mighty as I once thought they were.
Your #1 and #2 bands easily top them, IMO.

 

Saw them at MSG 1970 (afternoon show) and 1971 (stage collapsed) , both times they were amazing, it wasn't about hitting the notes right, but getting the feel down. Goddamn they could bring it, throwing in covers of "For What It's Worth" and"'American Woman" in their medleys. Really, in those days the vibe when they hit the stage was magical, they were a thing to behold. It was easy to forgive them the occasional bum note.
As far as "Moby Dick" goes, great time for a pit stop.

 

Bonham was a god but he could be pretty sloppy sometimes. I can imagine JPJ looking at him and having a good laugh when he would come up with those crazy fills, many times losing completely the tempo in the process. But hey, this is Led Zeppelin!

 

You were born in 1991? Then you have never seen any classic band live and you are talking out of ignorance.

 

Amazing live band thru 75 then a bit spotty after with moments of greatness. To me they are easily the best live rock and roll band ever.

 

He's giving his opinion. It might be uninformed but it's still his opinion and he has a right to it; whether he's seen a 100 live bands or zero, he can still formulate an opinion and express it, no?

 

Virtuoso means nothing me mate, it's about Rock N Roll.

 

Ignorance? Well, that's just an insult.

 

Greatest troll ever!

 

Okay, okay, you've seen them live, I get it. I do envy you terribly.

Alright, do not tak me seriously. This is not the first time I displease you with my opinion. )))

 

Ignorance: "lack of knowledge or information."

 

I am not trolling ferchrissakes. I do consider that most of the time they were awful live or not so bad but not even close to the level of musicianship as heard on the studio albums. And this has been bugging me all my, relatively short, life.

 

So, pro-shot footage and soundboard audio does not give me enough knowledge or info regarding their level of musicianship. Boy, this makes me laugh.

 

Seems to me he has knowledge and information; he just doesn't have the experience. That said, he can still formulate an opinion, however, misguided others might judge it to be.

I have no dog in this fight. I expressed my opinion and that's it. Good luck, DLeet!