Suggest a Led Zeppelin album?

GowienczykGowienczyk Pooper of Parties
edited April 2009 in History of Rock
Yeah! You heard me.

I hated what I've heard (ergo; very little) about Led Zeppelin and their "superfans" certaintly don't help my opinion of finding Page boring or (early) Plant pitchy and often flat. Change my mind by suggesting me a album by those weird guys from the 70s who influenced a good deal of heavy/power metal.

/somewat half-arsed post

It's been a few years since I listened to them fully, too. So don't ask me what I've heard. :p

BUT! I am giving them a new chance, so throw it at me.

Comments

  • QuinarvyQuinarvy Road Warrior
    edited January 2009
    a21schizoidman;1812897 said:
    personally id recommend Houses of the Holy or In Through the Out Door
    These are two criminally underrated albums (compared to other LZ ones)
  • My name is FezMy name is Fez Road Warrior
    edited January 2009
    I re-iterate Houses of the Holy and In Through the Out Door if you don't like LZ's early work.
  • Rockbandfan23467Rockbandfan23467 Headliner
    edited January 2009
    For Early Work, get II or The Album Commonly Refered To As Led Zeppelin Four.
  • GowienczykGowienczyk Pooper of Parties
    edited January 2009
    Early work sux.

    If I wanted to listen to blues, I'd listen to creative, original blues. :cool:
  • instantdeath999instantdeath999 Washed Up
    edited January 2009
    Houses of the Holy is probably their best.
  • dalcytedalcyte Opening Act
    edited January 2009
    From what i understand you like, go for Physical Grafitti.
    I mean if you find Page boring, chances are you're not going to be a huge zeppelin fan. But honestly, i can understand just not liking them because of the hype around them. They're great i think, but not as great as everyone hypes them to be. Tad overrated.

    If you're looking for their influence on metal, and looking for one album that defines that, you're not going to. Every album has a medly of songs that are blues, hard rock, folk rock, etc.

    Physical Graffiti is an example of that...because there are some big hard rock tracks on there, but some softer ones too. But sides 1 and 2 have some really good heavy rock tracks like the Rover, Trampled Underfoot, Kashmir, etc. Houses of the Holy would be good too for what you're looking for.

    One more thing:
    no blues pieces are creative, but they're all original at the same time.
  • GowienczykGowienczyk Pooper of Parties
    edited January 2009
    dalcyte;1813159 said:
    From what i understand you like, go for Physical Grafitti.
    I mean if you find Page boring, chances are you're not going to be a huge zeppelin fan. But honestly, i can understand just not liking them because of the hype around them. They're great i think, but not as great as everyone hypes them to be. Tad overrated.

    If you're looking for their influence on metal, and looking for one album that defines that, you're not going to. Every album has a medly of songs that are blues, hard rock, folk rock, etc.

    Physical Graffiti is an example of that...because there are some big hard rock tracks on there, but some softer ones too. But sides 1 and 2 have some really good heavy rock tracks like the Rover, Trampled Underfoot, Kashmir, etc. Houses of the Holy would be good too for what you're looking for.

    One more thing:
    no blues pieces are creative, but they're all original at the same time.
    Pffffft. :cool:
  • timmay9timmay9 Washed Up
    edited January 2009
    Physical Graffiti or Houses of the Holy.
  • CycoMiko138CycoMiko138 Rising Star
    edited January 2009
    Get Zeppelin III - it's got Immigrant Song, Out on the Tiles, and Since I've Been Loving You (which is an incredible blues jam).
  • wiiownsps3wiiownsps3 Banned
    edited January 2009
    Rockbandfan23467;1813023 said:
    For Early Work, get II or The Album Commonly Refered To As Led Zeppelin Four.
    this^^ IV is their best album IMO, then II. Also maybe get Mothership, it's like their greatest hits album :-)
  • SydfloydSydfloyd Unsigned
    edited January 2009
    Led Zeppelin III is my favorite of theirs.
  • Julio_Strikes_BackJulio_Strikes_Back Headliner
    edited January 2009
    Get Houses of the Holy. It has two of their most creative songs, The Rain Song and No Quarter.

    And I agree with the guy that said most blues isn't creative.
  • hermosotrozohermosotrozo Unsigned
    edited January 2009
    even i have liked the "Houses of the Holy" album...rest i feel were just okay..!
  • kashmir95kashmir95 Unsigned
    edited January 2009
    Led Zeppelin I
    and Physycal Graffiti
  • onidragononidragon Road Warrior
    edited January 2009
    Avoid In Through The Out Door, it's a prime example of what happens when keyboards are misused. For what your thinking, I'd say spring for Physical Graffiti. Or Houses of the Holy. You might even like Presence.
  • BubBub Generic Person
    edited January 2009
    I'm not really a huge fan of their later works (In Through the Out Door, Presence, and Coda) but Led Zeppelin days-Physical Graffiti days are their best. Led Zeppelin was a great blues-rock album more than a hard rock album. Led Zeppelin II was more hard rock oriented. Led Zeppelin III was very acoustic oriented except for songs like "Immigrant Song". Both Led Zeppelin IV and Physical Graffiti returned back to the more hard rock oriented sound of Led Zeppelin II.
  • BubBub Generic Person
    edited January 2009
    Sorry had to make another post that continues off my other one. I can't edit it. Anyway I forgot about Houses of the Holy. It is somewhat hard rock oriented but also had taken a lot of influences from other genres (take D'yer Mak'er for example).
  • Julio_Strikes_BackJulio_Strikes_Back Headliner
    edited January 2009
    Bub;1816528 said:
    I'm not really a huge fan of their later works (In Through the Out Door, Presence, and Coda) but Led Zeppelin days-Physical Graffiti days are their best. Led Zeppelin was a great blues-rock album more than a hard rock album. Led Zeppelin II was more hard rock oriented. Led Zeppelin III was very acoustic oriented except for songs like "Immigrant Song". Both Led Zeppelin IV and Physical Graffiti returned back to the more hard rock oriented sound of Led Zeppelin II.
    Coda was made up of album rejects from their early days; only a few were from In Through the Out Door.
  • jrcronlakersjrcronlakers Road Warrior
    edited January 2009
    Gowienczyk;1812860 said:
    Yeah! You heard me.

    I hated what I've heard (ergo; very little) about Led Zeppelin and their "superfans" certaintly don't help my opinion of finding Page boring or (early) Plant pitchy and often flat. Change my mind by suggesting me a album by those weird guys from the 70s who influenced a good deal of heavy/power metal.

    /somewat half-arsed post

    It's been a few years since I listened to them fully, too. So don't ask me what I've heard. :p

    BUT! I am giving them a new chance, so throw it at me.
    Why do you need some one else s opinion in order to make a choice. If you thought plant was pitchy before I am sure the same recording with still sound pitchy to you today. Just sit down and listen to every album beginning to end. One a day so you don't get to over loaded. Then you can decide for your self. Side note Houses of the Holy is my fav. Then 1, 2, 4, PG, 3, Coda, ITtO, Presence.
  • thedoorsdkthedoorsdk Road Warrior
    edited January 2009
    I'll throw another vote in for Houses of the Holy, which is the only Zep album that I feel is exceptional from start to finish.
    Their first four albums bore me as a whole, though there are a few tracks off each that I find interesting. Houses is where they really stepped out of the shadow of their blues-rock predecessors and began to make good on the experimentation they started with III.
    I also enjoy Physical Graffiti, though the fourth side of the original vinyl is pretty much all filler. From Custard Pie to about Ten Years Gone, however, is all amazing.

    You might also enjoy Presence. While I feel that it is a weak album overall, it does feature one of their most interesting songs (Achilles Last Stand), and has a somewhat different feel than their earlier work. A lot of people really like this album, which surprises me, but it may very well do something for you.
  • metalhead27metalhead27 Road Warrior
    edited January 2009
    I'm one of those people who find early Zep overrated and their last couple of albums underrated (Presence in particular), but IV is what Zep is all about. If you don't find that album exciting you're just not going to get into Zep that much.
  • GowienczykGowienczyk Pooper of Parties
    edited January 2009
    My overall output on Houses of the Holy:

    It wasn't horrible, but I wouldn't say it was great either. But some tracks standout (in a bad way); seriously as a soul fan, listening to The Crunge makes me cringe. What ever went through their minds that they could write soul? Augh. The Song Remains The Same (and The Ocean) both seem overly sloppy. Which would be fine if they were a post-hardcore, noise rock or experimental rock group from post-1979.

    Yeah the 1970s sound doesn't work well with sloppy instrumentation. In my opinion, anyway.

    Although, I feel their folk-rock (and hard rock/acoustic songs) contributions on this album are good. So it's something I could listen to. So I wouldn't say I understand why people love them, I can understand that I don't find them tripe anymore (not completely! Just don't sing soul!).

    But that's all I have to say about that.
  • instantdeath999instantdeath999 Washed Up
    edited January 2009
    Gowienczyk;1832268 said:
    My overall output on Houses of the Holy:

    It wasn't horrible, but I wouldn't say it was great either. But some tracks standout (in a bad way); seriously as a soul fan, listening to The Crunge makes me cringe. What ever went through their minds that they could write soul? Augh. The Song Remains The Same (and The Ocean) both seem overly sloppy. Which would be fine if they were a post-hardcore, noise rock or experimental rock group from post-1979.

    Yeah the 1970s sound doesn't work well with sloppy instrumentation. In my opinion, anyway.

    Although, I feel their folk-rock (and hard rock/acoustic songs) contributions on this album are good. So it's something I could listen to. So I wouldn't say I understand why people love them, I can understand that I don't find them tripe anymore (not completely! Just don't sing soul!).

    But that's all I have to say about that.
    I also dislike "The Crunge".
  • GowienczykGowienczyk Pooper of Parties
    edited January 2009
    instantdeath999;1832282 said:
    I also dislike "The Crunge".
    They butchered soul music in that song. :(
  • LolicatLolicat Road Warrior
    edited January 2009
    Listen to the first disc of Physical Graffiti. It's the only one I can bothered with, and even then only because I connect it with 1984. Still, it has solid enough tracks.
  • KingProgdorKingProgdor Road Warrior
    edited January 2009
    Lolicat;1832304 said:
    Listen to the first disc of Physical Graffiti. It's the only one I can bothered with, and even then only because I connect it with 1984. Still, it has solid enough tracks.
    I can agree with this. Seems like the second half of the album was just really really bland. 'In the Light' is the only song I think was really worth listening to.

    Had they arranged the album differently it probably would have been better, but the really solid tracks were placed altogether instead of spreading them out.
  • LolicatLolicat Road Warrior
    edited January 2009
    KingProgdor;1832312 said:
    I can agree with this. Seems like the second half of the album was just really really bland. 'In the Light' is the only song I think was really worth listening to.

    Had they arranged the album differently it probably would have been better, but the really solid tracks were placed altogether instead of spreading them out.
    If you look at the recording dates, the second disc just feels like they had a lot of cut-offs and cucked them all on the one album.
  • KingProgdorKingProgdor Road Warrior
    edited January 2009
    Lolicat;1832338 said:
    If you look at the recording dates, the second disc just feels like they had a lot of cut-offs and cucked them all on the one album.
    The more I think about it, it would have been better to just release it as a single album. Still woulda sold like mad.
  • LolicatLolicat Road Warrior
    edited January 2009
    KingProgdor;1832354 said:
    The more I think about it, it would have been better to just release it as a single album. Still woulda sold like mad.
    They really just wanted to make a double album, as far as I'm aware. I only really listen to the first disc if i ever put it on.
  • GowienczykGowienczyk Pooper of Parties
    edited January 2009
    I'll consider that, thanks.
Sign In or Register to comment.