Greta Van Fleet...Anyone?

From the lands of ice and snow.

 

For those who are looking for the non-Plant vocals, their early demos feature a (relatively) lower register.

Keep in mind these were all recorded when they were 14-18

 

Now they have a mag cover copying Queen. These kids just can't be original...

https://www.loudersound.co...of-classic-rock

 

Wow they are awful, this band could be the start of something worse than the Nu-Metal genre.

 

The singer's voice sounds "put-on" no matter what register it is in.
They are a suburban dad's wet dream. Classic Rock radio is anti-Rock spirit and these guys are the monster that tamed, spoon fed culture created.
Like the folks that are nostalgic about the good old days when Rock ruled: they wouldn't make compelling Rock artists and that's why this band is nothing like the music they're emulating. Anytime I hear/see a middle aged to senior dude talking about why this band is great they are revealing the actual lameness of this act.
Greta Van Fleet is about as dangerous or spirited as a life insurance commercial.

 

More of a nightmare for this suburban dad.

 

I think they're poseurs.

I don't care if they make music that sounds before their time, so long as it isn't imitative. Because they like/grew up on classic rock, they should do what comes natural, what's in their blood...but make it their own. However, if GVF are just making music to appeal to older dads, then that makes them nothing more than a nostalgia act. For all we know, the band could simply be cashing in on the fact that the singer's voice sounds a lot like Robert Plant/Geddy Lee.

 

The singer's outfits are appallingly tacky. He might as well join the Village People.

 

I'm pretty sure that was the editorial team's idea. It's also tongue-in-cheek.

 

Again I don't care if you hate them or like them the singers voice only sounds like Plant on a couple of songs and only certain aspects of Plants voice. I listened to the new album and he sounds nothing like Robert. Again just my opinion. My opinion on the album...it's ok nothing to write home about.

 

Right? That cover absolutely smacks of editorial team decision. I'd hardly blame the band for that one.

 

Tough crowd here (and I am a hardcore classic rock fan, having been 18 when Alice Cooper sung about that age) I finally check them out about a month ago while surfing on youtube -- in particular, their Austin City Limits appearance:

I didn't even plan to watch the whole show . . . but I did. I thought they did a fine job on their ACL appearance. The crowd was having a grand time as well. Comparing these guys to Led Zeppelin -- well, that is an incredibly high bar to begin with -- they ain't no Led Zeppelin, but they don't aspire to be either.

Yes, the singer's outfit is appallingly tacky. But what about all the spandex hair metal bands wore? The teased hair? Lots of wild and crazy stuff has been worn on stage.

It is so damn hard to make a dime in music these days -- unless you are a seasoned professional or a legacy act. I say save your criticism -- it serves no useful purpose here. If you like them, great; if not, let's just move on.

 

I agree about moving on, but the thread title kind of invites criticism, no?

 

It does . . . but let's not take the bait.

 

Kind of like The Black Keys channeling Faces, Little Feat, or Free.

If these kids don't come up with their own thing fairly quickly they will disappear soon.

 

I think they are alright. No autotune or other BS. I just ordered their first EP and the 2 EP CD. I already have their album and it's pretty good. My wife likes them. Anyway.....i say let them rock on. It's not like led zep were anything original by any means.

 

I wonder if all the critics have reached that conclusion after seeing them live. I saw them last summer, when they essentially opened for Foo Fighters (essentially, due to it was a music fest with multiple stages etc. GVF was scheduled as the act just before FF). I have never seen so many younger fans embracing a.....guitar solo, drum solo etc. Like they had never seen that before (and they probably hadn't). The venue was packed for a 630pm show, never expected that and after attending this festival since the 90s, I have never seen more fans for a show at that time (easily 15-20k). Roughly even split old/young. As to their music, they absolutely made everything their own, I think they had 1 or 2 covers in their ~75min set. It was rock, period. No Zep references/music. We walked away very impressed and it was nice to see younger folks enjoying the rock genre. We left impressed given their age and limited experience....

 

So, do you think the band went along with the editorial team's idea to mimic the cover of "Queen II", or the band were unfamiliar with the album cover and didn't know what they were doing?

 

I'm sure they were familiar with it, but I'm guessing they don't ask too many questions and are just happy to get another cover.

 

So, just another manufactured band, putty in the hands of the business. Say what you like about Zeppelin - and some are making the absurd claim they weren't originals - they did it on their own terms and rejected being manipulated by magazine editors and PR flacks.

 

I'm sorry I took the bait, you clearly just want to argue about this band. It's a magazine cover, it's not about "manipulation". I don't really have a dog in this fight, I just think there's a lot of middle ground between the cover being the band's sole idea and it being "manipulation".

 

I'm not trying to bait you. People have wondered whether this band is pursuing a deliberate strategy of aping the giants of seventies rock or whether it's just an unfair mischaracterization of a group of young men acting quite naturally for their generation. When they willing pose for a magazine cover that mimics what just happens to be the most high profile giant of seventies rock of the current moment, ie. Queen, perhaps we have our answer.

 

I walked away from the recent live show I saw similarly impressed. I wasn’t expecting that at all. I’m anxious to se where they end up, good or bad. This weekend they’re the musical act on Saturday Night Live. What they’ve achieved already is more than most.

 

GVF might not be a band of world-historical elite quality, but IMHO they are quite good and not deserving of the level of disdain and negativity that many folks express about them.

They are indeed aping Led Zeppelin in many ways - but so too is the criticism of them exactly the criticism of Zeppelin back in the day:

• They steal from their blues-based antecedents;
• They are a cartoonish, over-the-top caricature of their influences, lacking the authenticity and subtelty of their predecessors;
• The lead singer's voice is too high, grating, and out of control;
• The lead singer wears ridiculous, tacky outfits (and part of the undercurrent of the complaint is that the outfits are too feminine or fey), and dresses like a warmed-over hippy;
• They bring nothing original to the table, and lesser-known, lesser-hyped contemporaries are doing the same thing more tastefully and with more originality.

Now, I know folks will immediately protest with some version of, "Yes, but the critics were wrong about Zep and these guys don't have the light and shade"; or "the drummer is adequate but a mere shadow of Bonham, which is what made Zeppelin what they were"; or "Well, yes, the parallels in the criticism are there, but GVF really are copying Zep, whereas Zep was much more innovative in their take on the blues." But the fact remains that there's a lot of "get off my lawn" in the criticism of GVF - an inability or refusal to see how the gulf between us and GVF's fans is not at all different than the gulf between us as Zep fans and our parents' generation. They are so young, they still are evolving, and I think it's very interesting and encouraging that (as @LarryP and @sonofjim note) they seem to be better live than in studio. Give them time.

Finally, I would recommend checking out this GVF life performance on YouTube. It's a 26-minute version of their "Lover Leaver" track that of course shows their apery of Zeppelin (the song flat-out steals a riff from "Nobody's Fault But Mine"; and the singer does all kinds of Plant-like wailing and interplay with the guitarist) - but it also shows that, like Zep, they have the chops to stretch out a 4-minute studio track into a marathon, throw in medley bits, improvise sections, and so on. Are they as good as Zep on Zep's best nights? Of course not. But there aren't many contemporary acts I'm aware of that can do a long song version like this without it degenerating into (no offense) a Phish-like jam-band snoozefest.



Just my $.02 of course. Feel free to resume the hateration now.

 

Yes but Pagey paid dues for years before doing the retried boogie-woogie blues with 10,000 volts of pure distorted electricity added into the mix.

Years of dues from Zep members made the difference there.

But sure, they should shoot for a double album as the sixth one.