I read somehwere that Morrison did not care for Led Zeppelin. How true is this? I think Zeppelin is overated but its i
-
willson_x — 18 years ago(November 21, 2007 06:45 PM)
From everything I have ever seen, Jim was not a competitive guy, as far as music was concerned, he couldn't give a beep about the industry, and believed in live performances becoming experiences. Led Zeppelin never had any of that mystique about them. No one gives a sh!t that you can rewind "Stairway" backwards to hear- clear as crystal- satanic messages. Oh wait, did I forget to say It's pretentious?
O.K, everybody likes the odd Zeppelin song in some fairness, however, if Jim didn't like some of their music, it was for his own reason. Why don't we use channelers to find out and clear this important question up.
We can decide on out own, through our own judgement why Jim didn't1354 like Led Zeppelin. My theory is Jim thought they were too pretentious, and not deep enough: their music doesn't hit me at the Level the Door's music does, or even Jim's voice alone. The Doors were very spiritual, and Led Zep were good musicians, but they had no substance, or anything you could grasp hold of. Have you noticed how most Led Zeppelin fans are old rockers who haven't woken up yet, or extremists of any social, outcasted stereotypes e.g. Nerds, Metal heads, sexually repressed. But Jim and The Doors reallly brings you a feeling of belonging to a different world, or a more REAL world: there is something spiritual about it, that's what's so unique and tempting about them. Anyone who knows more than just hearing them once on the radio/ T.V./ Myspace will see past the artifice and hype, and really appreciate it and the style it comes in. If anything, Jim mastered the art of shamanism more than Jimmy Page. I won't write anymore till I get some fan response. Oh I lied, one more thing, Jim was sexier than any musician in this century, and was free: beyond the ways you and I could dream t be, mainly because he was an intellectual and seemingly had platonic amounts of self control. -
lukejbarnett — 4 years ago(July 04, 2021 01:58 AM)
so dumb. a person saying that doesn't deserve a reply. led zeppelin love em or hate em is one of the most important and best bands of all time.
exactly i'd go that far. id' go as far as saying even the beatles can't compare to or measure up to led zeppelin bc they were all geniuses when it comes to playing musical instruments. so the musicianship of led zeppelin is factually second to none.
the closest as far as musicianship is pink floyd and the who. i think the who is a step below pink floyd and led zeppelin and i think it's a tie between pink floyd and led zeppelin.
queen is close musicianship wise to pf and lz.
exactly the beatles in some ways get more credit than they deserve one place is musicianship. they couldn't play any of the complex arrangements in the music of lz or pf or the who or queen.
exactly so many dumb hair metal bands just stole lz sounds and ideas in the '80s.
lukejbarnett -
NYrevo — 17 years ago(May 19, 2008 12:25 AM)
i have heard of them, and listen to them alot. they are nothing at all like the doors. there sound is completely different. the doors sound was, and will always be completely and eternally unique and amazing.
"Have i had you before?then don't call me by my Christian name" -
Jabronidude469 — 19 years ago(June 28, 2006 09:00 PM)
amaster, ur an idiot who obviously doesnt know jack beep about music. The Beatles suck??? That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard in my life! They influenced every rock band for the last 30 beep years!
-
amaster88 — 19 years ago(July 06, 2006 01:25 AM)
Beatles are so over-rated, their sound and lyrics were so mediocre, they started out sounding great, but by '67 they sucked, they were too busy doing drugs, when they starting singing about a walrus and a yellow submarine, what the f-ck is ka ka ka jo? it's gibberish. The Beatles couldn't hold a candle to Cream or the doors or the stones. Dude the stones came out the same time the beatles did anyway, the beatles didn't influence the stones, the stones were influenced by the American blues scene.And if you wanna say something about rock, what about Presley or Jerry Lee Lewis? They were rock before the Beatles ever thought about forming a band. Led Zeppelin is okay in small amounts, but the radio ruined zep for me, I'm sick of hearing led zep this led zep that, they weren't that good, it's like saying Bad Company is a good band, mostly 12 year kids like the beatles and led zep, people with matured classic rock tastes like early Clapton before he got stupid and went solo, The Doors, the Stones, Deep Purple, Cream, Blind Faith, Pink Floyd. Everybody likes the Beatles becuase no body has their own taste in music, everybody has bland taste for music, and usaully people like the same thing, becuase they fear to be diffrent, to like diffrent music is to be diffrent yourself. The Beatles are bland, they offer no variation in their catalogue, just as does Led zep, they did the same thing over and over again, until they broke up on bad terms. Look at the beatles, they lasted 8 years, the stones lasted 40 years and are still going, they recorded a few tracks in 2002 that sounded great and fresh, but still diffrent from what they did in the 60's, if the beatles lasted to say, 1978, they would of been doing the same thing over and over again, and a listener with a brain would say the band was boring and void of diversity, same with zep, everything sounded the same up til '79, and by then they were so commericalized it did no good to change becuase they changed for the worst, and went soft. The doors had so much talent, good lyrics, diffrent yet appealing sound, Jim Morrisom was intelligent enough to actually write great lyrics, the Doors were a California band, which influenced their focus on desert themes, their lyrics actually spoke to the listener, the band still appeals to many teen listeners today.
-
amaster88 — 19 years ago(July 10, 2006 01:03 AM)
shut up, Morrison was drugged out all the time, I know that but the Doors music wasn't all silly and childish like the Beatles' music, I mean come on, a 10 year old kid could write better songs than the Beatles, and yeah they did do the same thing over and again, even if a song was good they would screw it up by bieng all silly, they had a song and they we're singig about a guy kiling himself in his car, and the song was all dark and cool sounding, than bam, the end of the song was silly and pointless. Led Zeppelin had a few good songs, but they had a lot of crap, I heard alot of their "other" stuff on the radio, and it sucked. you're right, the beatles didn't start sucking in '67 it was '66, after the yellow submarine bullsh-t,You'd be brain-dead to think "The Walrus" "Lucy in the sky with diamonds" or "Yellow submarine" or "sixty-four" were masterpieces. And hey fag, I don't listen to new rock, I leave the
a-shole of rock music for fags like you, so enjoy fagging out to gibberish brought to you by the Beatles. -
JustInItForTheMoney — 19 years ago(July 11, 2006 12:58 PM)
Just for clarification long drag on cigarette. The Beatles song you were referring to, amaster, is "A Day in the Life" and no one kills themselves in that song. I assume you're too straight edge or simply too young to understand that the phrase "he blew his mind out in a car" is about Paul blowing his brain out with LSD and then driving. Driving on acid isn't too tough, but it's distracting he didn't notice that the lights had changed. The song is about how Paul died, it was one of the great, outside-of-the-box ideas engineered by Lennon and the others. That said, that "weird stuff" at the end is not just supposed to be noise; that bit, when played backwards, repeated the phrase "Paul Is Dead". The Beatles were brilliant, and you've taken them out of context to explain the reasons you don't like them. An opinion is fine, but you need to learn more about the music and put it into some kind of context for yourself so that you might understand. They were going for light hearted, good feeling, peaceful music. They use simple chord progressions, yes, but there is a beauty in simplicity. Most great songs are not over complicated at all. Even Ringo, who essentially lacked musical talent, worked very well for what the band needed from their percussionist. There's a reason, bro, that the Beatles are, to this day, one of the number one greatest bands. Zeppelin is a good band, they were amazing rockers, but they aren't necessarily any better than the bands that influenced them. Sometimes psychedelics can inspire some of the most amazing art, so don't unjustly condemn the "drug bands" of the era.
RIP - Roger Keith "Syd" Barrett
Shine On. -
amaster88 — 19 years ago(July 12, 2006 12:16 AM)
Wow, saying Paul is dead means your brillant, the low threshold for talent some people have. I amdit I like a few early Beatles tracks like "ticket to ride" "Don't let me down". "A day in the life" was good up until the "trumphet" music started. Morrison is a much better song-writer, see the reason why everybody loved the Beatles in the 60's becuase the band wrote their music while dropping acid, and the music refelects the5b4ir bieng on LSD,
and while Jim Morrison dropped acid, the Doors music doesn't sound like a bunch of drugged-out dudes wrote it. The Beatles physcadelic sound apealed to the masses in the 60's, becuase the fans usaully had impaired judgements, therefore appreciateing the spaced-out sounds of the Beatles rather the genius that was the Doors. Same for Woodstock, most of the musicians sucked except for the Who and Crosby, Stills, and Nash, becuase impaired judgement allowed people to invite sub-par bands, why werent the Doors at Woodstock? Simple the genius of the Doors was under-appreciated. By 1967, The Beatles tryed to follow the San Francisco (Acid Rock) scene yet be original, yet The Doors bieng from los Angeles (Folk Rock scene) they didn't follow anybody's rules of current rock n' roll and did everything in their power to sound diffrent (Except for the Soft Parade album, every band has it's flaws) the beatles stuck by the rules and tryed to have the freedom of self-expression at the same time, making for one jumbled up mess. I just don't care for over-rated bands and musicians, becuase when bands or musicians are over-rated. a great band like The Doors or the Who or The Rolling Stones or musicians like Stevie Ray Vaughan or David Bowie go very un-appreciated.I'm sorry, Qotsafan, but when you assume a guy who has a diffrent opinion than you, likes Green Day or Linkin Park, two bands I f-cking hate, I'm gonna lash back, and you 2000should atleast spell my name right if you're gonna sh-t on me. -
amaster88 — 19 years ago(July 12, 2006 12:22 AM)
Also, how am I condeming "drug bands" when I love the Doors and Pink Floyd, they were drugged out of their minds and they had better musics and lyrics than the Beatles.
P.S.
Qotsafan, who the f-ck died and made you King sh-t on turd island for the message boards.