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

To me one of the things that might have hindered Zeppelin at times live was that Page layered the studio recordings with so many great complimentary guitar parts. Live he had to pick the main guitar themes or alternate the other parts in throughout the song. A prime example is "Ten Years Gone". Although Jones was trying to make up for that with his 3 necked guitar, the song always seem to be a bit hollow to me when Zeppelin did it live. The more recent Jimmy Page and Black Crowes version just sounded epic with all the electric guitar players on stage being able to play all the parts.
Point? A lot of the early great bands that really pushed the studio envelope had trouble recreating the magic just as good live.

 

They named their publishing company Superhype Music.
Kind of says it all for me. If you like Zep, good for you.

 

Not sure what the purpose of the post it. Let me feel it out a moment.
some hate'm, some love'm, some are just indifferent to 'em. Same as ANY group/artist.
So.....
But I see what you are getting at. You are a FAN. That is to say, you love their records.
AND, you even like them live AT THEIR BEST. That being the case, you are irritated that the
other 90% of the time that you've seen them (or heard bootlegs) they suck (your opinion)
live.
I could say "no, you are not alone." But that would not be honest. The truth is I've never heard
a live recording or seen them live (I tried four times between 69 and 75) that I found tolerable.
I saw them in S.F. during the first U.S. tour, promoting first album. Didn't like it. The guys I went with
said I was nuts. Matter of taste. that's all. Personally, since you hate them live most of the time, I'd be interested
in knowing what those exceptions, those GOOD live shows are, in case I want to give them another go.
I'm glad there were some shows you liked. I never found one.

 

You only say that TSRTS is a "wretched mess" because you have insufficient experience with narcotics.

 

I have to laugh because this is the exact criticism that I gave to my Zeppelin-loving friends when I was 13 and didn't want to like them because they were popular.

 

One hell of a wretched mess. Seriously?

 

I'll ask this and then check out tomorrow. The title says "...Led Zeppelin (well, half of it) were bad 90% of the time."

Is the half of Led Zeppelin John Bonham and JPJ because "they were sterile"? Is that the question?

 

No, he's trying to say that Page and Plant suck, probably because they're less sympathetic targets.

 

Seattle 77 off night? For Page maybe. But you get one of the best versions of No Quarter and Stairway. Moby Dick from that show is Bonzo's best.

 

I have quite a few of their bootlegs and I think they are rather boring live. I don't really need to ever hear another 20-45 minute version of Dazed And Confused. I used to like them more when I was younger than I do now.

There are many other bands that I would rather hear live.

They were pretty good in the studio though.

 

Why wouldn't they call it superhype? A clever marketing strategy which a product is advertised as the thing everyone must have, to the point where people begin to feel they need to consume it. Peter Grant was one of the best managers in rock and knew exactly what to do to make Led Zeppelin one of the richest bands ever. Grant was one of the first to do no singles and no opening acts. And Grant got the band one of the biggest advances in rock from Atlantic records. They did not call it Superhype too your meaning!

 

Purchased my first LZ in 1969 and like most of their studio recordings, especially I to IV but apart from some of the very early shows I've heard (69/70 BBC ) I find them fairly dull live.
I did see them once live during the 1975 Earls Court run and wasn't very impressed. Maybe it was the venue but there didn't seem to be a lot of energy in the performance.
To be honest I'd take Dr Feelgood at the Roundhouse over LZ at Earls Court any day of 1975.

 

Dr. Feelgood were great live, especially with Wilko Johnson.

 

Every time I hear one of those half hour jam songs, I can't help but think of the 5-6 songs they could have played instead.

 

But even as fans we should try to be a little objective, right? Zeppelin had some off nights. It's part of their history.

I see your painstakingly mixed and edited (w/ 2nd guitar part even overdubbed) version of "Achilles Last Stand" from the official DVD and raise you one raw and real version of the same from Seattle '77:

 

Sheesh. Go listen to the Ramones already. You'd get about 30 songs to the half hour.

 

Sometimes I feel the same way.

 

For live, profound....and well deep
Perhaps listen to Purple instead.

 

one of the few british bands that actually had a feeling for the blues. they are Good in my Book.

 

They were actually more blues rock than blues. If you want British blues listen to John Mayall or early Fleetwood Mac with Peter Green or maybe early Savoy Brown or Chicken Shack.

 

Is that missing the whole point? they were improvising which I like instead of a six minute bar for bar song off one of there albums. Stretch it out and see where it goes it's live.

 

Led Zep got more blues power than all of them. Its a band ive tried to dislike but they got the mojo.

 

Well, I see where you are coming from, yet I don't agree in this case. There is a difference between sloppy and slovenly. between relaxed/loose and
enervated/lazy. A great test case is Jimmie Rodgers, because I think this is what you are referring to. But to my ears Rodger's playing and it's peculiar virtues
has little to do with the mess Page lays down. Just my view. As always, I may be misunderstanding you.

 

If I want live jamming, I would rather listen to the Allman Brothers Band, Cream, Quicksilver Messenger Service, Frank Zappa, King Crimson, Ten Years After, Phish, Govt. Mule, Umphrey's McGee, Jefferson Airplane, Mahavishnu Orchestra, Return To Forever, Mountain, Widespread Panic, Allan Holdsworth, Soft Machine, The Dixie Dregs, Wishbone Ash, Derek And The Dominos, Jeff Beck, Santana, etc. They are just more interesting to me live than Led Zeppelin.

 

Sure, if you are capable of indeed taking it somewhere on the fly. Page, to my ears, was not. His "improvising" to me was just embarrassing precisely because he
wasn't able to go anywhere at all. result: boredom.