Led Zeppelin "didn't stand for anything"

A

anajo

New member
Hi, first time poster.

I wanted to talk about this since I've read it sporadically regarding the band over the years, usually in critical analysis' of the group.

I can't say that I can argue with it from a lyrical standpoint when you compare their lyrics to the subject matter in the lyrics of other Hall of Famers like the Beatles, the Who or Pink Floyd. Even the Stones with their ostensible bluesy roots rock had content that was far more layered with meaning than most notice when listening to them.

As a syrabol, they didn't stand for any particular sort of rebellion either. So I guess my question is does it really matter? While my love for the group has cooled since my teens and early 20's (I'd have to say that I actually like the Stones and the Who slightly better now) I still feel that they produced some of the finest played and produced rock albums ever.

Should the band lose "points" for simply being concerned with how the music is performed and recorded without any care for message? Voltaire said that art should seek to enlighten as well as entertain and if it fails to do either it isn't great art. (paraphrasing)

Did Zeppelin fail artistically in your minRAB? At least lyrically in syrabolically?
 
music at its core is meant to be heard, alot of times with lyrics not that important for the SOUND of the music and alot of people get that twisted.

so what if they didn't "stand for anything"? they helped to make rock music more than just power chorRAB and straightlined songs and to be honest i'd respect that more than a band with average music but who had a "message".
 
I've never seen that argument before .. Looks a bit to me like you've made up something to argue against. ;)

I like lots of music by banRAB that never really concerned themselves too much with messages. Just throw a glance at the many content Canterbury banRAB from the 70s. Or another example; I very much like the album Tarkus which is about a half-tank/half-armadillo. I don't think any of the sane people I know would stand behind the proposed argument you present and oppose (that LZ fails artistically).
 
to say Led Zep didn't stand for anything is folly.

they stood for sex, drugs, and rock and roll.

it might be a little chauvinistic at this point but it's what it was.

as for the idea that 'art' is already defined by the few for the masses, i can't get behind that one at all. regardless of what fancy name made a quote however long ago. for me real art can 'only' be defined by the masses. the human condition is not nearly as pretentious as most artistes would have us believe.
 
I really do not think it matters. Music is the art of musicianship, not political or philisophical enlightenment. I am not a huge Zeppelin fan, but even if I hated that band I would not deny that their musicianship on a technical level is up there with the best from their time. I can not really say much about their lyrical content, I have never paid close enough attention to be honest. The dozen or so songs I have heard by the band however do not seem to be lyrically lacking.
 
Well, if poetry or literature didn't have a meaning, then yeah, it would suck, but if the music sounRAB excellent, despite not having a real meaning, it's still great, because it sounRAB good- which is the point of music.
 
I think lyrics and subject matter really has nothing to do with Led Zeppelin or many banRAB place in music history. The Beatles have many songs with pointless lyrics 'Octopus Garden' ' I am The Walrus' 'Yellow Submarine' and that does not diminish their place in music history. Led Zeppelin has cemented their place in rock history regardless of what any critics say or if it's music that just appeals to most in their late teens/early 20's or whatever. There are many banRAB with strong messages that are never really acknowledged and not even that great of banRAB, Devo is one that came to mind right away.

I don't think Led Zeppelin failed artistically in the least, and in my opinion while some of their lyrics weren't necessarily significant I do think some of the lyrics painted a picture that went along with the music well, and added to their mystique.
 
they were a great band, but not really a legend in rock music. i doubt many of the great artists think of Led as being one of the best rock banRAB artisticly. they stole the riff for stairway.
 
Actually one of the things I like about Led Zep is that they never went political. There's this great confusing that music have to be political to be meaningful. It's true, their lyrics weren't always very strong, but Plant developed to quite a nice songwriter from III onwarRAB, which the Celtic influenced being quite evident. I think the lyrics on The Battle of Evermore and Going to California, for example, is on the same level or higher than anything The Beatles put out.
 
A band doesn't have to have a message. The only message they ever implied was Jimmy Page's "Light and Shade" technique of song creation.
 
I agree completely about them pioneering Metal and Harder rock, BUT Jimmy Page did steal the riff, or most of it at least. He admitted it years ago saying he stole it from a blues band in the south somewhere, he just sped it up and added about three notes.
 
I wasnt aware of this, but then again im not that much of a Zeppelin fan. I will, however, check Spirit out further, cause if they were good enough to influence a musician such as Robert Plant, they can't be bad.
 
it's a song called 'Taurus' by Spirit. it's pretty obvious. the band had opened for LZ at one point. Page liked what he heard and 'borrowed' it for Stairway. from what i've read the original guitar player didn't really give a crap. just happy that his music moved people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogTFdlbup24

if you don't hear the intro to Stairway at all about a minute into this clip from 6 years before LZ4 you really need to get your hearing checked.
 
Back
Top