Similarity, Tull/Zeppelin

I have heard some of those sessions and most of it was straight pop of the time.

 

Right, and I’m not sure if Mr. Anderson was able to correctly pronounce “baby, oh baby, baby”.

 

They may have sounded comical but they could have easily played those numbers,Zeppelin attempting to play Thick as Brick would have been an embarrassment,Tull were also flawless stage performers,the point being that the music of the two bands was is not only different but required different skill levels....also if Zeppelin did make the comment that Tulls music was dull then that says more about them than it does Tull since I don't recall Tull making negative comments about Zeppelin's music.

 

I've heard so many dull and disengaged Zeppelin performances on youtube and on bootlegs - a lot of mindless, uninspired jamming. Otoh, any Tull stuff I've alighted on, I've almost always stayed listening to the end - Ian was an incredible frontman and the band personnel in the 70s backed him to the hilt.

 

Well let’s be honest here. TAAB would have been a piece of cake for ol Plant, John Paul Jones and Bonzo. You are right though, Page would have caused a trainwreck.

 

Not really the point of the thread but guitar, bass, drums, keyboards, vocals and flute - members of Tull are conspicuous by their absence from lists of the all time great rock players.

 

Both could play the others' tunes. Neither would sound anything like the other while doing so.

 

Yes and they were superior musicians in terms of performance,i suppose next people will be saying that the Sex Pistols could have easily covered Thick as a Brick or Passion Play or that there are just as many chord,key and rhythm changes in any Zeppelin song as there were in Tull songs,im a fan of both but one was in purely musical terms way ahead of the other.

 

No its not the point of the thread,i responded to something that Zeppelin supposedly said about Tull,and as far as "great" rock players are concerned I guess it depends on how you define great.I think Rick Wakeman is a great piano player,i think Jerry Lee Lewis is a great honky tonk piano player.....but I doubt Lewis could pull off anything on Fragile or Close to the Edge while Wakeman could probably play honky tonk with one hand.I am also a huge Stevie Ray Vaughn fan but seriously doubt he could have covered a Yngwie Malmsteen another guitar player I like.

 

You know even less about honky tonk piano than you do about what it requires to be a top session musician. And some of the most boring music ever written has far too many key changes and time signatures (which, btw, it is necessary to master to even set foot in a studio as a serious session musician).

 

John Paul Jones: "Ian (Anderson) is a pain in the ass. We toured with 'Jethro Dull' once and I think he probably spoke three words to Jimmy or I at any one time. (Jimmy) had a title for a live album when Jethro was playing in L.A., Bore 'Em At The Forum."

 

And you obviously know even less about musicianship and the minor role it plays most of pop music,so how does playing pop music with fewer chord,key and rhythm changes require more or the same skill as playing complex music ?

 

Ian Anderson had a no nonsense approach to music so im sure the party Animals didn't care much for him,but Tull has a long legacy of great performances and if there are some bad ones they have yet to see the light of day......the same certainly cannot be said his critics.

 

I couldn't disagree with that more, and frankly, to me it just indicates that there's a lot about playing instruments that you don't really understand, which is sad if you're a musician with any years experience behind you (which I'm guessing you maybe are given your avatar).

 

Its your right to disagree but I can tell you that I get much more from my Guitar after 45 years playing intricate melodies with key changes and chord substitutions to enhance and develop the melody than I did 40 years ago playing open D,C and G progressions endlessly.....I am not arguing that complexity is the goal,i responded to what some musicians said about other musicians that was in my opinion poor taste.

 

You say "pop music" as if that means it must be easy to play. It's a fair bet you've never tried and would struggle to go into a studio and on the spot make a meaningful contribution to a recording, whatever the key or time signature or style of music that is required. If you were John Paul Jones, you might have the versatility - after all, he played jazz with John McLaughlin as a teenager and after Zeppelin became the choir master of Winchester Cathedral. But let me try a different track - Ian Anderson never had any trouble finding musicians able to play his material, judging by the frequent turn-over in his band. Whereas Zeppelin continuing was unimaginable without any of its members. So who do you think was a harder band to play in?

 

Given your comments I'm skeptical that you get much of anything from it, because you obviously don't understand a lot of the nuances of musicianship. You're thinking that how many chords you're playing (and the like), and/or whether they're simple triads versus more extended or altered chords is the whole story.

 

Plenty of people find the music of other people boring. I dare say you find some music boring yourself. No need to react by disparaging the abilities of those who don't share your eccentric taste for pointless complexity.

 

Most of it is/was

So now you want to be a smart ass know it all because someone disagrees with you

How much Jazz did Zeppelin play,can you direct me to it,also quote me criticizing John Paul Jones,i spoke of the BAND Led Zeppelin.

Has nothing to do with anything,the New York Philharmonic has no trouble finding musicians to play Bach and Mozart,i suppose you will tell they were simple as well,the decision to break up was made for personal reasons and friendships not because they could not find anyone to play drums

 

why has it always got to deteriorate to my band is better than your band.
they're both great bands. if they didn't like each other, so what?
as for doing each others songs ... who cares? i am happy the did their owns things in their own styles ... otherwise it may have sounded like modern day r (i refuse to add the "nb" because there is no and blues left in it) with virtually everyone using the recognised preferred bpm, the accepted grooves and formulas that have been stale for ten years now.

 

Who have I disparaged,again I responded to some comments made by people who should have known better (Zeppelin) music is indeed subjective but skill level and ability is not subjective,is the man who lifts a hundred pounds as strong as the man who lifts 500 pounds,likewise is Bob Dylan as good a Guitar player as Tommy Emmanuel,or as good a singer as Freddie Mercury was.

 

I have not said that,i said from the beginning that I am a fan of both bands....I responded to a comment made by one of them about the other.

 

i wasn't aiming at anyone in particular and hadn't even read your comment/s to be honest ... i gave up reading long before that
peace

 

...all that said, it doesn't mean they were "better".

 

Love both bands, I win! I recall an interview with Anderson where he listed Zeppelin as his favorite band aside from the Stones. There are similarities in the very beginning but Tull went in a very different path with Thick As A Brick and pretty much abandoned blues altogether for a good while.

Comparing the two is pointless. Both have incredible catalogs of work to enjoy. Doesn’t need to be any competition...