JuliusCaesarAggie said:
Best live album would just be a vote for second place. First place is already locked up:
Are men not allowed to vote on that one?
JuliusCaesarAggie said:
Best live album would just be a vote for second place. First place is already locked up:
Zombie Jon Snow said:
^^^^^brings to mind another vote......
BEST ALBUM COVER ART
In this case I'm not sure.....except Pearl Jam is dead last among these four. Three of those are iconic covers.
PS - I haven't voted yet.....gonna take me a while to decide. Those were my Top Four. Ugh.
FYI Of the 119 voters - 5 had those as their top 4.
BowSowy said:
Really tough choice, but I know that this:Chipotlemonger said:
Ten
is the absolute wrong choice.
Chipotlemonger said:BowSowy said:
Really tough choice, but I know that this:Chipotlemonger said:
Ten
is the absolute wrong choice.
Looks like a pretty good portion of voters disagreed with you.
BowSowy said:
Lowest vote getter, so I think my statement was true.
Quote:
According to Guinness World Records 2009, the concert holds the world record for the "Highest Demand for Tickets for One Music Concert" as 20 million requests for the reunion show were rendered online.
62strat said:
I have to bring up something that hasn't been said yet. Songwriters.
Nearly half of LZ 1 are not original songs composed by someone in the group, and some consider black mountainside heavily borrowed as well, making it more than half the album. Covers. This has to discount it some.
GnR was all new material entirely written by members of GnR, with two songs receiving credit from guys who were in bands with the guys from GnR before it formed.
PJ ten is about half gossard and half ament, with the others pitching in for a few songs. No outside sources.
Boston takes it a step further and it's nearly all written by Scholz, with Delp penning 1 song solo and contributing with Scholz to 1 other song. That's the most impressive. It's all new material from basically 1 dude. But, I don't think it's the strongest album and didn't have the impact on rock that AFD did.
So since GnR is all new material from members of GnR or former bandmates of GnR members, they deserve it.
I'll say it bluntly.. sorry, Zeppelin can't get all time best debut when half the record isn't original.
I'm not sure what you mean in 1 by saying they played it like no one else, and it is unmistakably theirs. Covers are supposed to sound like the band covering it. It would be stupid to cover a song and try to sound exactly like the original. Type O negative covers neil young, the beatles and jimi hendrix, and it sounds exactly like type o negative and their 'invented' style and they frequently add parts, rework the structure, etc. Joe cocker covered little help from friends in a way that was undeniably his.. Same can be said with Marilyn Manson's big debut hit sweet dreams. It all doesn't matter, they didn't write the song. You have to deduct credit for this. It's way easier to rework an existing song into your style or sound than it is to write a new one.Zombie Jon Snow said:62strat said:
I have to bring up something that hasn't been said yet. Songwriters.
Nearly half of LZ 1 are not original songs composed by someone in the group, and some consider black mountainside heavily borrowed as well, making it more than half the album. Covers. This has to discount it some.
GnR was all new material entirely written by members of GnR, with two songs receiving credit from guys who were in bands with the guys from GnR before it formed.
PJ ten is about half gossard and half ament, with the others pitching in for a few songs. No outside sources.
Boston takes it a step further and it's nearly all written by Scholz, with Delp penning 1 song solo and contributing with Scholz to 1 other song. That's the most impressive. It's all new material from basically 1 dude. But, I don't think it's the strongest album and didn't have the impact on rock that AFD did.
So since GnR is all new material from members of GnR or former bandmates of GnR members, they deserve it.
I'll say it bluntly.. sorry, Zeppelin can't get all time best debut when half the record isn't original.
I have no problem with your perspective - if that matters to you.
However I will mention 2 things regarding that.
1. It was still very original in that even if it borrowed from influences and even lifted chords, melodies and verses nobody had ever played it like that before or since. To me that's still "original". they created a sound, an entire genre and a legacy all their own. Nobody is going to mistake LZ version with Muddy Waters, Joan Baez or even blind Willie Dixon. It was something new.
2. That was a period in which nearly every artist was borrowing from others, or straight recording songs written by others. the Stones, The Who, even The Beatles all started out doing covers and heavily borrowing from others. the Beatles first album contained 6 cover songs and so did the next 3 or 4 albums. The Who had 3 covers on their first album, The Stones didn't even write many of their own songs until their 5th album Aftermath in 1966, they only had 1 original song on their debut and 3 on their 2nd album.
I do give a lot of credit to original sounds as well as songwriters. If LZ had not become prolific songwriters and done things that were completely original I'd discount them more. But that was just what was done then. Especially when recording albums by the seat of their pants like they did then - The Beatles first album was mostly recorded in a 12 hour period (10 of the 14 songs). Hard to do all original songs when you've got that kind of studio time. Likewise LZ first album was recorded primarily in a 36 hour period.
Tom Schulz took years in his own studio to make his sounds and write prolifically.
GNR - was a very active band on the LA club scene and west coast concerts opening for others well before they recorded their first album. In fact GNR put out an EP with some cover songs based off a recording company signing and $75K advance. they had almost a year to record that first album and all the studio time they wanted basically.
It was a different world in the 60s.
oh I agree, 90% of the American buyers probably thought these were all original works. Hell, I only know because of the advent of Wiki. I've never heard all these original versions of the songs, aside from the few snippets I listened to at the start of this discussion.aggiedata said:
The few points regarding LZ 1 covers
The songs crossed decades and genres. Blues was imported to England. England imported them back to the States as Metal. The young American folks buying the album never heard a single Wiilie Dixon song ever. They certainly didn't hear Jake Holmes. From a creativity standpoint, is it a knock on LZ they didn't write it? Maybe. But don't discount the process. I can't see anyone returning LZ 1 because it's full of covers. It just doesn't come across that way.
62strat said:oh I agree, 90% of the American buyers probably thought these were all original works. Hell, I only know because of the advent of Wiki. I've never heard all these original versions of the songs, aside from the few snippets I listened to at the start of this discussion.aggiedata said:
The few points regarding LZ 1 covers
The songs crossed decades and genres. Blues was imported to England. England imported them back to the States as Metal. The young American folks buying the album never heard a single Wiilie Dixon song ever. They certainly didn't hear Jake Holmes. From a creativity standpoint, is it a knock on LZ they didn't write it? Maybe. But don't discount the process. I can't see anyone returning LZ 1 because it's full of covers. It just doesn't come across that way.
But that doesn't matter, they aren't all original. Take it to the extreme, say the album was 100% reworked covers, but the American listener had no idea because they were all old English standards and blues tunes.. can it be in the running for the best debut album ever? With no original material? I really don't think that would be a discussion, because it shouldn't. This album lies in between this extreme example and an all original album, like Ten, AFD, and Boston.
Because of that, I really think it should not have been in the top 4. Jimi should have been, but all this cover business is probably unbeknownst or was not analyzed by those who voted. They simply saw Zeppelin and voted.
Quote:
On their first album, Led Zeppelin were still in the process of inventing their own sound, moving on from the heavy rave-ups of guitarist Jimmy Page's previous band, the Yardbirds. But from the beginning, Zeppelin had the astonishing fusion of Page's lyrical guitar-playing, Robert Plant's paint-peeling love-hound yowl, and John Paul Jones and John Bonham's avalanche boogie. "We were learning what got us off most and what got people off most," said Plant. Yet the template for everything Zeppelin achieved in the 1970s is here: brutal rock ("Communication Breakdown"), thundering power balladry ("Your Time Is Gonna Come"), acid-flavored folk blues ("Babe I'm Gonna Leave You"). Heavy metal still lives in its shadow.
Junkhead said:
Willie Dixon