[evollove]

Originally Posted by rebeccagotcursedout

rambling blooze rock

Yep.

I've been giving a lot of classic rock a spin lately, and I'm really starting to resent how damn near everyone was doing some version of the blues at one point. Even Black Sabbath is basically blues slowed down and distorted. Nothing against the blues. Just gets tired after awhile.

---

Funnily enough I got a Zep compilation because I've never liked them as much as it seems I should. I've been trying, but I keep hitting the same snags:

-I don't like Plant's voice. Not saying it's "bad," just saying it's not to my taste. His lyrics are bad, however. His dick or some trippy bullshit--that's all he had to write about. And barely, since Willie Dixon successfully sued him for plagiarism.

-The drums are cool and huge but could you bring it down a notch, just once? For a measure at least? No? THUD THUD THUD THUD

-The occasional endless blues solo. Seriously, after Hendrix why the hell did anyone bother?

But I still want to ask: what's their absolute best album? It's not IV, is it?

[Severian]

Originally Posted by evollove

Yep.

I've been giving a lot of classic rock a spin lately, and I'm really starting to resent how damn near everyone was doing some version of the blues at one point. Even Black Sabbath is basically blues slowed down and distorted. Nothing against the blues. Just gets tired after awhile.

---

Funnily enough I got a Zep compilation because I've never liked them as much as it seems I should. I've been trying, but I keep hitting the same snags:

-I don't like Plant's voice. Not saying it's "bad," just saying it's not to my taste. His lyrics are bad, however. His dick or some trippy bullshit--that's all he had to write about. And barely, since Willie Dixon successfully sued him for plagiarism.

-The drums are cool and huge but could you bring it down a notch, just once? For a measure at least? No? THUD THUD THUD THUD

-The occasional endless blues solo. Seriously, after Hendrix why the hell did anyone bother?

But I still want to ask: what's their absolute best album? It's not IV, is it?

When I was into Zeppelin, my favorite was Houses of the Holy. I never really got very big into II or IV, but I and III also pleased me.

And I listened to the BBC Sessions album a lot.

But this was long ago... I hear them now, and I hear music that is notoriously devoid of wit, color, cleverness, humor, vision, personality and character. I truly hear the same depressing absence of studio ingenuity in every one of their albums. I just don't get it. I'm also morally opposed to swingin' dick music that uses the lyrics "Hey baby" and "pretty baby" and "oooh mama" and "pretty mama" and "oooh baby hey baby hey baby ooh mama hey mama pretty mama ooh baby baby oooh baby baby."

Maybe they did totally define the 70s. Great. That means they defined the worst decade in rock and roll history. The 70s were the decade when things went so utterly to shit, drowning in decadence and cliche, that an entire faction of music splintered off to revolt against the absurdity of bands like Led Zeppelin. So yeah, maybe Zep did define the time in history when rock and roll became so crappy that punk had to save it by burning it to the ground, League of Shadows style, and building something better out of its ashes.

I can live with that. Zep defining the all time low point of rock. Sounds about right.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

the period i mentioned covers 69 to 75. those were their years.

and they embodied both the glory and the excesses of that time

lou = sure fine but more of a troubador
can = brilliant but in their own planet
wire = fine if you like them, but they're from later. more "pre-80s" than "the 60s in overdrive".
the ramones = JOHNNY RAMONE FUCKING WORSHIPPED JIMMY PAGE
joy division = LATE 70s when zep had already turned to shit, besides *no fucking way*

get yourself a fat lp of led zeppelin's first album turn the amp LOUD drop that needle and listen to what they did to the blues with it. that album is a lot of blues covers, but DAT SOUND. who else can make it? !!!

don't listen to it in a miserable ipod with shit headphones

You seriously don't think I've heard Led Zeppelin's debut album? Come on, man. Everyone goes through a Zeppelin phase, even if it only lasts a minute. I'm no different.

But I think a solid argument could be made that Pink Floyd defined the 70s. They were not without their own flaws, but they were always vastly more interesting than Zeppelin. Hell, so was the Who. Oh, and the Dead. Jimi Hendrix Experience. Dylan. I'd take Springsteen & the E Street Band over Zeppelin any day, and I am not even a fan. Neil Young. Hey, even Fleetwood Mac. Way better than Zeppelin.

[evollove]

You get me and then you lose me.

Tom Waits as a significant 70s figure is so ridiculous, symbols didn't even bother to reply.

And Fleetwood Mac? Seriously? You're forced to a desert island and can take either Houses of the Holy or Rumors and you're seriously going to take Rumors? I dunno. Cockrock versus fagrock is a tough call, but cockrock might win by a nipple hair.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by evollove

Yep.

I've been giving a lot of classic rock a spin lately, and I'm really starting to resent how damn near everyone was doing some version of the blues at one point. Even Black Sabbath is basically blues slowed down and distorted. Nothing against the blues. Just gets tired after awhile.

well yes. classic rock is blues-based rock and it gets superfuckingtiredrepetitive. especially after DECADES of cultural stagnation.

it's kinda like eating pepper on *everything*. ufffff!

but still it's not without intrinsic merit or even greatness. you just need some distance & fresh ears.

Originally Posted by evollove

Funnily enough I got a Zep compilation because I've never liked them as much as it seems I should. I've been trying, but I keep hitting the same snags:

yes they have their defects no question. part their own part a product of their era. what music doesn't.

Originally Posted by evollove

I don't like Plant's voice. Not saying it's "bad," just saying it's not to my taste. His lyrics are bad, however. His dick or some trippy bullshit--that's all he had to write about. And barely, since Willie Dixon successfully sued him for plagiarism.

ha ha ha ha. yes the lyrics ARE bad. besides his dick he wrote about hobbits and vikings and other teenage shit. i'm lucky being a non-native speaker that this doesn't stand out so much. for me they're all about a certain SOUND.

willie dixon sued them for ripping off some lyrics. he got money-- good for him. the least relevant thing about them in any case.

Originally Posted by evollove

-The drums are cool and huge but could you bring it down a notch, just once? For a measure at least? No? THUD THUD THUD THUD

okay-- here i have to say-- your speakers need reconing

Originally Posted by evollove

-The occasional endless blues solo. Seriously, after Hendrix why the hell did anyone bother?

i really don't know why anyone bothered. das clone accused page of "guitar noodling". there's some of that in them of course but guitar noodling lives on. what would marquee moon would be without a little guitar noodling? okay maybe that's not a "blues solo" but still, noodling. i hear a guy trying to play like jimi page.

Originally Posted by evollove

But I still want to ask: what's their absolute best album? It's not IV, is it?

i wouldn't know about absolutes. my favorite is their first one because it's the first one i heard at the recommendation of one of my older cousins. i had never heard anything like that and they blew my mind. just like evol did for me with sonic youth-- there are arguably better SY albums but i got imprinted by evol and that's that.

and yes the early 70s was the era of whole concept albums and zep sort of ask to be judged that way, but instead i've grown to listen to certain features of their music. details like the buzzing guitar in "how many more times" or the the guitar wailing in dazed and confused or the famous bass line in "the lemon song" or the whole thing in "when the levee breaks" and bonham's drum solos and things like that. they give me an intense feeling in the chest like neil young said analog music should.

i really abhor the whole "classic rock" ideology that has encrusted around this genre though-- radio stations playing the same things over & over for 60 years with no end in sight. there are several of those stations around where i live. it becomes an intolerable audio prison. i generally can't stand this music much but i occasionally return to it because there's some inalienable good in it.

so i try to listen to this without prejudice and with open ears. can't always pull that off. e.g. i can't listen to stairway to heaven ha ha ha.

Originally Posted by Severian

I'm also morally opposed to swingin' dick music that uses the lyrics "Hey baby" and "pretty baby" and "oooh mama" and "pretty mama" and "oooh baby hey baby hey baby ooh mama hey mama pretty mama ooh baby baby oooh baby baby."

i hear that. i have the same moral quandary with bitchez-and-money music and the glorification of brand names, crime, etc.

Originally Posted by Severian

You seriously don't think I've heard Led Zeppelin's debut album? Come on, man. Everyone goes through a Zeppelin phase, even if it only lasts a minute. I'm no different.

But I think a solid argument could be made that Pink Floyd defined the 70s. They were not without their own flaws, but they were always vastly more interesting than Zeppelin. Hell, so was the Who. Oh, and the Dead. Jimi Hendrix Experience. Dylan. I'd take Springsteen & the E Street Band over Zeppelin any day, and I am not even a fan. Neil Young. Hey, even Fleetwood Mac. Way better than Zeppelin.

i love most of those bands actually. some pink floyd is fantastic, some is kind of terrible. i have no love for fleetwood mac really nor springsteen-- i have tried but they didn't stick. the who was kind of entertaining but they never did much for me-- though moon & entwistle were great, i wish i could isolate their tracks. springsteen sounds to me like the band from some nightly talk show, and fleetwood mac is some sweet old pop and the lady had a nice voice but i can't hear much more in them-- am i wrong and if so what should i listen for? well, good drummer too but the stuff around it hmmm nah.

[evollove]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

so i try to listen to this without prejudice and with open ears.

Yeah! Lately my project has been to revisit classic rock stuff and try as hard as I can to listen as if for the first time. It's difficult and so far it's been pretty pointless. My old opinions just get entrenched. "Alright, CAN is still far better than YES. I was right all along."

---

Springsteen and E Street Band live in the 70s = unbelievably good rock n' roll

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by evollove

Yeah! Lately my project has been to revisit classic rock stuff and try as hard as I can to listen as if for the first time. It's difficult and so far it's been pretty pointless. My old opinions just get entrenched. "Alright, CAN is still far better than YES. I was right all along."

maybe you need drugs ha ha ha

it's hard for me to listen to classic rock because all my prejudices want to have a say

for example (speaking of the doors) i haven't listened to the doors since the previous century-- that's a fuckton of years. went to venice beach once and it's like time hasn't passed there-- repugnant.

but at the same time one has to admit, without the doors there are no stooges.

thruston at some interview is talking about what the stooges did with chicago blues, but-- the stooges got formed after iggy seeing the doors show if recall correctly, and the genealogy is plain as day. funny burial of ancestors.

Originally Posted by evollove

Springsteen and E Street Band live in the 70s = unbelievably good rock n' roll

i might look for some bootlegs. can't make any promises!

[Severian]

I think the White Stripes did a better variation on the blues than Zeppelin. They added color and texture, coming up with an unbelievable amount of combinations for a duo that favored red and black.

See, I think the supposed awesomeness of Zeppelin is self evident to rock fans. But I am not a rock guy. I've always liked music that came from either an infinitely more minimal (or more maximal) place. I'm a punk and lo-fi Bruce Banner carrying around a hip-hop and drum n' bass Hulk inside my psyche.

Zeppelin isn't part of my language. But I'm not gonna say you're wrong for liking them. So... U know.. Don't imply that I'm wrong for thinking Jpy Divison was twice the band Zeppelin was.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Severian

I think the White Stripes did a better variation on the blues than Zeppelin. They added color and texture, coming up with an unbelievable amount of combinations for a duo that favored red and black.

See, I think the supposed awesomeness of Zeppelin is self evident to rock fans. But I am not a rock guy. I've always liked music that came from either an infinitely more minimal (or more maximal) place. I'm a punk and lo-fi Bruce Banner carrying around a hip-hop and drum n' bass Hulk inside my psyche.

Zeppelin isn't part of my language. But I'm not gonna say you're wrong for liking them. So... U know.. Don't imply that I'm wrong for thinking Jpy Divison was twice the band Zeppelin was.

i think you're wrong because they're on a different scale. it's not an issue of taste. if you were to have said bowie i'd accept the difference as a matter of aesthetic preferences. shit, bowie defined the era and then the era to come--where zep was a kind of apotheosis of the 60s legacy bowie was leaping ahead to the future. but joy division as much as one might like them or as much as they might have influenced its successors is not in the same league as either of them.

eta: same goes for the white stripes who had 3 decades to come up with their own minor variation. and while that's not my scene google just showed me that lately jack white has been covering the lemon song w/ a spent plant as guest vocalist lolol.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

i hear that. i have the same moral quandary with bitchez-and-money music and the glorification of brand names, crime, etc.



i love most of those bands actually. some pink floyd is fantastic, some is kind of terrible. i have no love for fleetwood mac really nor springsteen-- i have tried but they didn't stick. the who was kind of entertaining but they never did much for me-- though moon & entwistle were great, i wish i could isolate their tracks. springsteen sounds to me like the band from some nightly talk show, and fleetwood mac is some sweet old pop and the lady had a nice voice but i can't hear much more in them-- am i wrong and if so what should i listen for? well, good drummer too but the stuff around it hmmm nah.

Fleetwood Mac just had a gift for melody. They are not my kind of band at all. But The Chain, especially that quiet bit near the end when the bass kicks in- rocks in a really dark, moody way. Lindsay Buckingham is a shredder... Like Peter Buck playing arena rock.

For the '70s, they were a surprisingly "no-bullshit" band. Yeah, there was drama and stuff, but their sound was not defined by their image. They weren't flashy or over the top (except Stevie, who is nothing if not both of those things combined, to the tenth power)... But honestly their songs were good, and I've always thought they deserved a more legendary status than they ended up with.

Listen Rumors and Tusk. I don't know. Knock yourself out. Fleetwood Mac was never supposed to be the focal point of this argument. Lol

[Severian]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

i think you're wrong because they're on a different scale. it's not an issue of taste. if you were to have said bowie i'd accept the difference as a matter of aesthetic preferences. shit, bowie defined the era and then the era to come--where zep was a kind of apotheosis of the 60s legacy bowie was leaping ahead to the future. but joy division as much as one might like them or as much as they might have influenced its successors is not in the same league as either of them.

eta: same goes for the white stripes who had 3 decades to come up with their own minor variation. and while that's not my scene google just showed me that lately jack white has been covering the lemon song w/ a spent plant as guest vocalist lolol.

Oh, shit I totally should have said Bowie!

I wasn't arguing that the 70s were defined by Led Zeppelin. I was saying that *my* rock and roll history (that is, the part of the story that is connected to the music I care about, and the bands and artists that had a direct influence on the music of *my* 80's and 90's) had nothing to do with Zeppelin.

But you're right that they were the biggest band of the decade... or one of them. I'm not arguing that Joy Division, the Stooges, Lou Reed, etc. were more popular or more iconic than Zeppelin. I'm just saying they defined the parts of the '70s that were significant to me.

But sure- David Bowie! Station to Station! Low! Diamond Dogs! Aladdin Sane! Whatever! It's all great. But still, Bowie didn't sell a fraction of the albums that Zeppelin did. He's never been that big on paper, just in life.

Also, I think American Beauty by the Grateful Dead might be, if not my favorite, then one of my favorite albums of that decade. Yet another band that had a massive, immeasurable impact on music and culture, but who were just a little too weird to sell 20 million (or 10, or 5 million) copies of any individual albums.

But if Bowie works for you, use Bowie. There's also Television, Talking Heads, the Clash, Elvis Costello... but let's face it, none of these bands equal Zepp's commercial success. Not if you combined them all.

I just don't swing that way pal. Big ass rock music is something I can only enjoy when it's steeped in irony or humor. I do however enjoy reading reviews of early Zeppelin albums, from Rolling Stone and wherever else. They are almost uniformly scathing, and really goddamn funny.

[!@#$%!]

ufffff. this is/was not about the commercial success-- i'm not discussing money. that's not what this was about at all.

but if you want to paint me that way then feel free to argue with that painting.

[rebeccagotcursedout]

anyone who's a non-Springsteen believer should check out live at Hammersmith 75. it's on youtube I think. you wont listen to his albums after that though.

Led Zeppelin is just one of those bands. love em or hate em. I bust some Zep out maybe once or twice a year. they've just always been there. on the radio, hanging out playing cards with friends, at work on the radio(again). Black Sabbath def took some cues from the first and besides that one, III is pretty sweet too. im more of an Graffiti fan these days, but after hearing the Stooges years ago, they're my go-to 70's rock band. still are.

agree with Sev, the 70's really didn't start until punk or whatever you want to put under that umbrella: Ramones, Devo, Cars, Television, Bowie, Stooges, Wire, or whatever other band that subverted that old way to rock. most of those were pre-80's but, whatever. same thing is happening to hip hop these days. new beats and ways to rhyme.

still even today, people have a 1 dimensional view of how rock music should rock. they can take maybe an QOTSA album but can't wrap their heads around a Melvins tune. that's why Stoner Witch is the only one I take to work with me for the bubbys to hear.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

ufffff. this is/was not about the commercial success-- i'm not discussing money. that's not what this was about at all.

but if you want to paint me that way then feel free to argue with that painting.

What? Dude, I am not trying to paint you any way. I thought you thought I was saying Zepp didn't own the '70s because Joy Division did. That's ridiculous! Of course Zepp owned the '70s.

That's all I was saying. That and "Oh yeah, Bowie!!"

Sheesh brother, nobody's trying to paint you any way. I brought up commercial success because Zepp had it coming out of their dicks and asses for 10 solid years. It's true that they defined the decade in a massive way. The artists I listed had nowhere near the impact of Led Zeppelin.

That was my point. Just an attempt to clear up what I thought was a misunderstanding, and to make a concession, and give Zeppelin some credit for being beloved by an ungodly number of people all over the world.

Really- no offense. No painting. Nothing sinister intended or implied. Come on Slambang! You know the fractured piece of my psyche that lives on the Internet better than that!

[Drjohnrock]

Originally Posted by evollove

But I still want to ask: what's their absolute best album? It's not IV, is it?

As a Zep fanatic in my callow youth, my vote goes to Physical Graffiti, if only for the variety of sounds on it. Never got the point of Houses Of The Holy--3 good songs out of 8, IMHO.

[Drjohnrock]

Originally Posted by evollove

Yeah! Lately my project has been to revisit classic rock stuff and try as hard as I can to listen as if for the first time. It's difficult and so far it's been pretty pointless. My old opinions just get entrenched. "Alright, CAN is still far better than YES. I was right all along."

---

Springsteen and E Street Band live in the 70s = unbelievably good rock n' roll

There was a lot more music in the "classic rock" era than the "classic rock stations" that play the same stuff over and over and over again would lead people to believe. I'm starting to develop an interest in some of the second or third tier bands from that era, and in delving into lesser known stuff by the bigger acts. Bloodrock is starting to interest me--there was a lot more to them than their morbid hit DOA. And CCR's album tracks are quite good, in some cases rivaling the singles--It Came Out Of The Sky, Sinister Purpose, Wrote A Song For Everyone, Born To Move, etc. Moby Grape's more rock oriented stuff is pretty good, much better, IMHO, than the country-tinged stuff. And Marmalade might have been a one hit wonder in the US (Reflections Of My Life) but a few years later they released the Our House Is Rockin' album--which I don't think has ever been released on CD. More's the pity.

[Mortte Jousimo]

Is LA Woman generally regarded as a bad Doors album, or do I just not like the Doors? Both?

I love all the Doors albums, but Morrison Hotel & L.A Woman are the bluesiest Doors albums. I think general opinion is their first three albums are their best. If you want to listen non-blues Doors albums, I recommend Strange Days & Waitin For the Sun. I think Soft Parade is really much underrated, really like it´s "entertainmusic" influences (horns in Tell All the People, Touch Me, Runnin Blue) also it´s the most prog-influenced Doors-album (self-titled long song).

That means they defined the worst decade in rock and roll history.

No. The Worst decades of R´N`r history have been 2000 & 2010 decades. These are the decades when R´n`R has really became part of entertaining business (I really hate Idols, Talents-competitions and all kind of Voice of Bullshits). Yes, I know there have been maybe the largest amount of indie/alternative bands, but can you show me any style that is not less or more retro-influenced? Even a one band or artists that make totally never before heard music? Seventies music went forward, it took directions never heard before (prog-rock, punk, well punk was partly retro when taking lots of influences from sixties garage). Specially in the start of decade there were lots of great bands nobody hasn´t mentioned in this latest discussion (Spooky Tooth, Mountain, Free, Ten Years After, Family, Fairport Convention, Colosseum, Blue Öyster Cult, Mott the Hoople, Traffic, New York Dolls, Nazareth, really many prog-rock & krautrockbands, also many bands from non-US & non-UK). I really hate eighties plastic drums & synths, but that sound was also something new. And in the eighties became Sonic Youth, Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds, the Cure, Tom Waits greatest era started. Nineties there was grunge even it recycled punk & seventies heavy. In the 2000-2010 there has been anything revolutionary in Rock, no youth movements like in the earlier decades. I am really glad if you can show I´m wrong because I really think youth movements in music are just great thing, I really don´t like when my kids are growing with idols and that sort of shit.

-The occasional endless blues solo. Seriously, after Hendrix why the hell did anyone bother?

I think you haven´t really listened Zeppelin studio-albums. Page doesn´t play lots of solos in them, in live situations yes (well In my Time of Dying yes, it´s just too long). I think IV is the greatest, I really love also Houses of the Holy (It´s my first Zeppelin-album). Physical Graffiti is overrated, the third side is really great.

I love Zeppelin, Floyd, the Who, The Doors. My order in those bands are: Floyd>the Who>the Doors>Zeppelin. I can´t understand these comments about the Who, I think it´s maybe the most important band of rock history. I mean it has done succesfully almost all the music styles (I think they were also pioneers in putting electronic elements into rock music, I think before Baba O´Riley & Won´t get Fooled again no-one has done those things). Have you all listened Tommy, Who´s Next & Quadrophenia whole through?

[Silver ✴ Rocket]

WALLS - Urals

WALLS return with their third and final studio album ‘Urals’

‘Urals’ is the closing part of a three album cycle that began with their self titled debut in 2010, and continued in 2011 with ‘Coracle’

This album is an accumalation of four years of studio exploration, inverting their signature sound into a new, more intense dimension, seeing the duo once again exploring futuristic vistas with their corruscating synth lines, spiralling guitar figures and howling distortion / noise.

Informed by the creation/curation of their burgeoning Ecstatic Recordings imprint that has seen them release music by kindred spirits such as Pye Corner Audio, Axel Wilner (The Field) and L/F/D/M (amongst others) as well as their own individual explorations (Natalizia's caustic minimal synth work outs as NOT WAVING, and Willis's lurid, ritualistic techno as PRIMITIVE WORLD) 'Urals' pushes the envelope a long way from the template they set out with on tracks such as 'Burnt Sienna' or 'Hang Four'

From the stumbling off-kilter groove of the title track, to the probing kosmische pulses of 'Altai' to the intense, ear-shredding acid of 'I Can't Give You Anything But Love, to the sublime synthscape paen 'Radiance', its clear that Willis and Natalizia are taking leave of the WALLS project at the top of their game.

Mastered by Sonic Boom (Spectrum / Spacemen 3) at New Atlantis Studios.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by Mortte Jousimo

That means they defined the worst decade in rock and roll history.

No. The Worst decades of R´N`r history have been 2000 & 2010 decades. These are the decades when R´n`R has really became part of entertaining business (I really hate Idols, Talents-competitions and all kind of Voice of Bullshits). Yes, I know there have been maybe the largest amount of indie/alternative bands, but can you show me any style that is not less or more retro-influenced? Even a one band or artists that make totally never before heard music? Seventies music went forward, it took directions never heard before (prog-rock, punk, well punk was partly retro when taking lots of influences from sixties garage). Specially in the start of decade there were lots of great bands nobody hasn´t mentioned in this latest discussion (Spooky Tooth, Mountain, Free, Ten Years After, Family, Fairport Convention, Colosseum, Blue Öyster Cult, Mott the Hoople, Traffic, New York Dolls, Nazareth, really many prog-rock & krautrockbands, also many bands from non-US & non-UK). I really hate eighties plastic drums & synths, but that sound was also something new. And in the eighties became Sonic Youth, Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds, the Cure, Tom Waits greatest era started. Nineties there was grunge even it recycled punk & seventies heavy. In the 2000-2010 there has been anything revolutionary in Rock, no youth movements like in the earlier decades. I am really glad if you can show I´m wrong because I really think youth movements in music are just great thing, I really don´t like when my kids are growing with idols and that sort of shit.

-The occasional endless blues solo. Seriously, after Hendrix why the hell did anyone bother?

I think you haven´t really listened Zeppelin studio-albums. Page doesn´t play lots of solos in them, in live situations yes (well In my Time of Dying yes, it´s just too long). I think IV is the greatest, I really love also Houses of the Holy (It´s my first Zeppelin-album). Physical Graffiti is overrated, the third side is really great.

I love Zeppelin, Floyd, the Who, The Doors. My order in those bands are: Floyd>the Who>the Doors>Zeppelin. I can´t understand these comments about the Who, I think it´s maybe the most important band of rock history. I mean it has done succesfully almost all the music styles (I think they were also pioneers in putting electronic elements into rock music, I think before Baba O´Riley & Won´t get Fooled again no-one has done those things). Have you all listened Tommy, Who´s Next & Quadrophenia whole through?

Like I said, I think the Who got off to a great start. I used to have a pretty comprehensive oral history of the British Invasion and the years that immediately followed... It's not really fair to compare the Who to Zeppelin (which I have admittedly done in this very thread)... Stylistic differences are too big to ignore. They were essentially part of the tail end of the British Invasion era. Their music was more whimsical, psychedelic and scene-specific than Zeppelin's, and also, because of their contributions to the development of the synths and electronics, I think they were a good deal more musically adventurous.

I gotta say though... I hate Tommy. I hate Who's Next. Never dug A Quick One. Learned to love the Who Sell Out, and later learned to tolerate Quadrophenia, and I had a soft stop for Who Are You.

I think history has made a bigger deal out of the Who than was completely necessary. They had a lot of hiccups, and they didn't release anywhere near as much music as their contemporaries. The Beatles, Stones, Kinks, later Hendrix, the Dead, bands that played with them and toured with them. Zeppelin definitely whomped their asses on a cultural relevance scale, but I think their early years were spot on. Their were full of this crazy, frenetic energy... A little "woo-woo" and a bit "hippie-dippie" at times, but still they represented a wild eyed pill popping pre-punk era in youth culture, and I have to respect that.

Townsend was always trying to push the envelope and fulfill his destiny as a great composer and musician, but he got hung up on that shit. Hung up on his own legacy. So half of the moves he made were flat out fumbles. He never just went with the flow, and played from the heart. He played and composed from the head, and that's why their ambitions fell flat. Tommy was a massive mistake.

He's a bitter old cunt too. Probably because the Beatles seemed to create the exact kind of enduring, archetypal musical statements with ease, like, a couple times a year. They almost casually churned out these masterpieces that could be viewed as concept records, or just appreciated on a song by song basis. I expect the Who believed they could fill those shoes when the '70s kicked off, but they've released a mere 11 albums since their 1964 inception.

The '70s were full of a lot of bands occupying the cultural space that previously belonged to one. I find the entire decade depressing as hell.

Like post-Nirvana alt-rock on a global scale.

[Severian]

I also find the Doors unlistenable, even though I occasionally get Alabama Song stuck in my head. They were the absolute worst.

God help us can we talk about something other than arena rock?
We can talk '70s, but Jesus... let's focus on something - anything! - else.

How about Kraftwerk? Eh? Or Can? Or ... Shit, how about MARS? Zappa? Bitches Brew?