I've been more active on the forum lately as I am recovering from an injury, and certain things get posted that kind of get under my skin. There sometimes seem to be an attitude that there are certain things about music that all intelligent music lovers agree upon. In general, a lot of it has to do with statements about what music is good and what music is bad.

Lately, I've had more time to express myself and have been disagreeing more with some things that get posted and seem to be expecting general agreement. For example, I am not one who wants to join the consensus saying Led Zeppelin is a great band. I also don't want to jump in on the bashing of contemporary music as a wasteland.

Now admittedly, I don't really listen to much contmporary music. But that is one reason I can't just agree that it is all bad. Without evidence, I have to withhold my opinion. But it also seems to me that all contemporary artists are being unfairly lumped in with the so-called bad music of the most popular artists.

Beyond that, I'm not even sure what makes music good or bad. I guess music requires a certain talent and skill level and some people obviously don't possess it.  But just to say someone's music is terrible doesn't really explain it to me. Nor does saying a performer is a fraud. And often that is all I see. I understand we have opinions, but music is more than just broccoli which we either eat or spit out. Even the person who hates broccoli has to concede that it has health benefits. I am interested in knowing specifically what is bad about the music.

On the other hand, I think we also have to be able to explain what good music is. In my debate on Led Zeps originality, so many tried various ploys to excuse their plagiarism, i.e. they were young; others did it; they made the songs better, etc. I think we should be able to distance ourselves emotionally from music we love and defend it and in some way explain why it is good.

Admittedly, in the end it all comes down to personal taste. But I would like to see more specific criticism or praise.

Now, I will concede that Led Zeppellin is a rock band with a lot of notoriety. I really don't enjoy them very much. I don't enjoy the high pitched singing of Robert Plant as it doesn't really convey any emotion to me that I feel deep inside. I don't like the bombastic nature of many of their songs. I don't like any of the lyrics that refer to JRR Tolkeinesque fantasy worlds. I really don't identify with this band in any way. However, I do enjoy some of their songs. "Black Dog" is a particular favorite. I like the rythym of the song and how the band  stops for the vocals. The vocals still don't do much for me, but the band could play. This may even be a plagiarised song, but I do enjoy it on a certain level. "Rock and Roll" is another song I have to admit is a rock classic I enjoy. I just don't think they are as great as many others seem to.

 

 

 

Good topic.

Even as we may disagree about this particular band, LZ, we did partly determine that we each have our own personal criteria for what we like and don't like.  For instance, you favored songwriting and originality, while I leaned toward live shows and instrumental chops.

And yet these points are neither exclusive nor in opposition.  They only partially inform our choices and put some constraints around our preferences.  This is why we tend to categorize things to keep them in order.

So, for example, someone who doesn't get into improvisation and long jams might have trouble liking the Grateful Dead, for which they were known.  Oh, they might like Truckin' or Casey Jones - more conventional rock songs - but the 20+ minute jams would test their patience.

You mentioned Robert Plant's voice as a drawback.  (I've heard many say the same thing about Geddy Lee.)  And while I kind of agree about the lyrics being a little silly, I still think he has a sonorous, soaring voice that fits well with the "bombastic" tunes as well as some of the softer ballads - very distinctive.   Mainly, I ignore the lyrics and think of him as another instrument in the band.

So much of it is subjective, we then have to defer to "experts" to sort it out for us.  Then, it becomes an issue of whose opinion you trust: critics? musicians? your brother?

Personally, I took music lessons (piano) for a few years, so I can read music but never advanced even to the amateur level (a couple of high school bands).  I have a small amount of working knowledge, but my main experience has been in listening, attending hundreds of shows, and reading...like most fans.

When it comes to music. for me I describe good music as music I enjoy listening to (selfish).. Now when it comes to Led Zepelin when asked I consider it horrible music.. But I know there place in music history. I know thy are amazing musicians. have sold ton of records etc.. For me I just do not enjoy listening to them..I try not to criticize anyones tastes. What is good to them may not be for me,. What I love lsitening to probably is noise to many others. I have said many times hear to each his/her own.. Like I enjoy what many don't I love underproduced garage sound. While many love that crisp perfect sound.. Oh well.. Sure there are a few bands that I just cant stomach no matter what but should somehow give some credit to  (Train is definietly one)..I try to simplify music. If gets me musically or lyrically Im hooked.. otherwise I get sort of close minded.. Im just rambling now..

I was trying to think of the extremes of my eclecticism, and leafs kind of hit it:

I love the Sex Pistols, and I also love Steely Dan.

And lots in between.

 

Nothing like narrowing it down...  :P

 

 

 

 

I can't help but notice that you are referring to me in your thread ... but that's okay.  :)

I am editing my post for lack of relevance in content.  Sorry I got off track, but I will pick up in another comment box.     Thanks.   :)

.

First of all, I love Led Zeppelin.

As I stated on the other thread I don't place in them in the top 5 greatest, but likely in the to 6 or 7. They are also not in my top 10 personal favorites. Maybe not even in my top 20 favorites. I love hundreds of artists. Literally.

I have fondness for Heavy Metal, Prog,New Wave, Punk , Blues and Alternative among other subgenres. There is not enough time for me to really get in depth about what is "good" and what is "bad." We have clashed before about my dislike of Disco.... I do not consider it "bad music." I do not dance, this why I have no desire to listen to "dance music." I prefer music that is more cerebral. This is why I am more apt to refer to Progressive as "good music."

Led Zeppelin is definately not "bad" music. Too many people love it , so it can't be bad. It has survived the test of time. It transcends generations. It crosses over the line between Metal, Prog and Classic Rock.

Disco is not "bad music." Too many people love it, so it can't be bad. It has survived the test of time, It transcends generations.

Disco is music that I despise. Rap is not music, you can be the judge of "good" or "bad." It is social commentary with a repetitive bass beat....not very creative , all sounds about the same. These are my opinions. I can't tell others what to like. This does not make these types of music "bad."

Remember Monty Python and the Holy Grail?...the old man fron scene 27?...who returns at the bridge of death?....he asks 3 questions. The last one is "what is your favorite color?"....one of the knights gets it wrong and gets swept over and plunges to his death. Here's a different version:

What is your name?

What is your quest?

What is your favorite kind of music?

Some people like blue , some like red.

Some people like Rock , some like Country.

None of this makes any color a "bad" color. Or any music "bad" music.....but, there is lots of music that I personally can't stand. There is way too much that I really love too.

"What is your favorite color?"

"Blue....no purple.........yeeeeeeeeeahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!"

I don't have a problem with opinions, but sometimes some things are said in a way that seems to me to be definitive statements that don't seem to allow for opposing points of view. I have never been personally offended by any of this, just frustrated at times because I like to understand the reason for opinions in order to discuss why. I enjoy debate so if someone says that something is terrible (or great) I like to know why.

If I make a statement that all blues sounds the same is that my opinion, or a fact? There actually is some truth to that statement, and I have no problem, as a blues fan, admitting it. I always joke with my wife that the blues is only one song but what a great song!

Saying singing is off-key or screeching or rough may also have elements of fact and opinion. I went to a Dylan concert and his harmonica was off-key and sounded horrible. It is a fact it was off-key but an opinion that it was horrible assuming one could enjoy off-key music.

On the other thread I had to keep pointing out that Led Zep basically ripped of other artists because most everyone seemed to let their positive opinion of them want to defend them against this charge. But it is a fact, if you listen to the music. Someone else did the research and I found it on the internet. It was not my opinion. 

I realize nothing is pure when it comes to plagiarizing in music but in the case of Led Zep it seems especially egregious and I think it is a valid criticism of them. I have also pointed out how CCR copped from Scotty Moore; Jagger sang like Don Covay, Elvis Costello used riffs from Abba and David Bowie. This happens alll the time to different degrees.

But Zep could have gone two ways. They could have been a blues cover band putting their own stamp on it or used the basic blues as a base to write their own songs. Most other bands gave credit where it was due. They chose to put their names on songs that weren't really theirs.

 

 

I love your post, devildavid!

 

And Matty, I would really love to see a poll of how many people actually *like* Geddy Lee's voice.  Just thinking of it in my head is giving me that nails-on-a-blackboard cringe feeling.  I'm not a big Led Zep fan, but I think Plant would win that voice-off.  :)

 

 

In response to devildavid's comment:

 

I don't have a problem with opinions, but sometimes some things are said in a way that seems to me to be definitive statements that don't seem to allow for opposing points of view. I have never been personally offended by any of this, just frustrated at times because I like to understand the reason for opinions in order to discuss why. I enjoy debate so if someone says that something is terrible (or great) I like to know why.

If I make a statement that all blues sounds the same is that my opinion, or a fact? There actually is some truth to that statement, and I have no problem, as a blues fan, admitting it. I always joke with my wife that the blues is only one song but what a great song!

Saying singing is off-key or screeching or rough may also have elements of fact and opinion. I went to a Dylan concert and his harmonica was off-key and sounded horrible. It is a fact it was off-key but an opinion that it was horrible assuming one could enjoy off-key music.

On the other thread I had to keep pointing out that Led Zep basically ripped of other artists because most everyone seemed to let their positive opinion of them want to defend them against this charge. But it is a fact, if you listen to the music. Someone else did the research and I found it on the internet. It was not my opinion. 

I realize nothing is pure when it comes to plagiarizing in music but in the case of Led Zep it seems especially egregious and I think it is a valid criticism of them. I have also pointed out how CCR copped from Scotty Moore; Jagger sang like Don Covay, Elvis Costello used riffs from Abba and David Bowie. This happens alll the time to different degrees.

But Zep could have gone two ways. They could have been a blues cover band putting their own stamp on it or used the basic blues as a base to write their own songs. Most other bands gave credit where it was due. They chose to put their names on songs that weren't really theirs.

 

DD,

 

I understand your point entirely, and understand the issue; points well taken.  I got off track in my previous response, so deleted it.    Insofar as my comments about Baez, and my other qualifications. they were stated with "to me" and "to my ears", so I do feel that I expressed them as opinions, not facts.   But I also don't wanto feel I am walking on eggshells when giving an opinion or stating how I feel.  Sometimes, the comments boxes are just snippets of what's on our minds.  

The truth is, as for the charge of plagiarism, Led Zeppelin are certainly guilty as charged, and that is fact, not opinion on any level.   I guess, to a certain extent, it is like the issue of the PEDs in sports, and that is, some people might be willing to weigh that part of a career for an athlete, similarly to the way the plagiarism issue might be weighed for Led Zeppelin's career -- against the rest of their body of work, and still feel good about their achievements.   Others, just as it is in sports, will not.   

It is not just a valid criticism, but one that also leaves a residue that really can't be erased.   Insofar as the group think, the last thing on my mind was invalidating you; it had more to do with wondering what the heck really happened, because it is hard to understand that it took so many years for those claims to come to light.   

I would simply add that you can't affix terms like "good" or "bad" to something that is totally subjective.

 

It's all well and good for someone like me (or you) to say that things like MTV (in my day) and American Idol (in someone else's) have ruined music. But for every curmudgeon or pedant like me or (perhaps) you, there is some kid who thinks Katy Perry (or -- you know -- whomever)  is . . .  like . . .  ya know . . .  totally awesome (or whatever the kids say). In a nutshell, I don't think it's fair to say that such-and-thus era is "classic" while some other is superfluous. It's all a matter of taste and growing old gracefully . . .

Which is another reason you'll see some people use the word "eclectic" while others would simply say "weird."

All, in all, I'd surmise that what we're talking about in this thread is the reason that music -- itself -- is an enduring and lively discussion topic, while other categories on this board go dormant for . . .  well . . . 

 

 

To further elaborate my point, I think there is a significant differernce between saying a band is great vs. saying you like them. Greatness, while subjective to some degree, also requires evidence to back it up. Saying you like something is purely opinion and there is nothing more to be said. I would never try to argue the merits of personal taste. Calling a band great, however, is going beyond simply expressing personal opinion. It is saying this band has certain qualities the transcend mere popularity or opinion, that elevate it above other bands lacking such qualities. For example, someone could like Herman's Hermits more than The Beatles, but this does not mean that Herman's Hermits are greater than The Beatles. Quality, while subjective in nature, can still be described by certain attributes. This is what music critics attempt to do. In order to do this, it requires the ability to take as detached a point of view as possible. Not an easy task, but this is what I am getting at. Discussing the quality of music is a valid topic, but a very difficult one. It is very hard to separate opinion from our critical faculties.

In response to EnjoyEverySandwich's comment:

Thank you.

It's funny, but sometimes I think I have a inborn tendency toward contrarianism. I can certainly see the point about Geddy Lee's vocals. I'm not even a fan of Rush, but the contrarian in me came up with a defense of his singing. His voice is so odd, so distinct, so alien in nature, that it seems to really be an integral part of Rush's overall sound. It just adds to the otherworldy sound of the band.

Hey devildavid, there are people out there that think this is "good" music...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdT5JTeyn8U

Yoga enjoyed it! - LOL

When I come here to read and post, even when I disagree, it doesn't upset me. I feel obligated to be respectful of the other posters here. Zilla and I have differing opinions of Dylan. BUT! neither one of us attacked each other here. There is no reason to.

I think the key to participation here is not making the mistake of personalizing what's being said here and when in disagreement you can still offer your opinion - unlike the confidential chat posters - there are NO owners of this MUSIC chat section!

 

 

dd:  I agree that Rush wouldn't be Rush without Geddy Lee.

 

But I still think his voice is painful to listen to.  :)

 

In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:

What I don't understand is why you "despise" a form of music. I don't enjoy most heavy metal. But I don't despise it. I mostly ignore it. Despise is very strong, and I am interested to know why. What is it about the music that you despise?

I don't agree that something is good just because a lot of people love it. It only means it is popular. If a tone deaf singer somehow became popular it would not mean that person was a good singer.  And to the contrary, if a greatly skilled singer never became popular it does not mean that person is not a good singer.

I always liked Terry Reid's voice a lot better than Plant's. I wonder what would have happened with Zeppelin had he accepted Page's offer to be their lead singer? He thought he had a great career ahead of him as a solo act. So much for that.

In response to devildavid's comment:

In a nutshell, "I know it when I see it."

I've expressed contempt and disgust for modern pop performers who, like Bieber, are apparently little more than a face slapped onto "music" some other guy put together on a computer (unlike, say, Reznor...who writes, composes, sings it all himself, then hires actual people to perform it live with him)....

I have never heard such a song that does not leave me feeling like I've been savaged by a dead sheep. My ears feel violated by the sheer awfulness of what I have heard.

 

So while I can identify objective factors that make the music generally unpalatable - phoniness, lack of artistry, the named artist not actually being the creator, etc. - it is the subjective visceral reaction that leads to "despise".

 

Rap I can largely ignore. Though I do chuckle when some well-to-do suburban kid in the BMW parents bought him rolls up in tinted window, with the "wanabe gangster" slouch - arm over the wheel, leaning unnaturally to one side, etc., you know it - acting like he's some kind of bad@ss because his speakers put out an obnoxious amount of bass......    

 

But modern pop and the related modern rock, much of which has been neutered, spayed, then drowned in whine......     I literally shudder when it comes on. Hence, ipod at not necessarily wise volumes is required for a gym workout.

Alright, DD.   So HOW do you define "greatness"...?

While it's true that personal taste is entirely subjective, there is also such a thing as "shared taste", which more or less lend itself to a particular band's or artist's popularity.

But there are also criteria.  And these criteria have been established for quite some time in the annals of rock and music criticism.  You may not care for or pay attention to the critics, but like them or not, that doesn't mean their criteria is necessarily bad...it may just be different than yours.  But in most cases, a cross-section of critics usually arrive at the same place.

And it's one thing to say "I like this", but it's quite another to use properly defined terms used to either support or disprove this nebulous thing we call "greatness".

So, you may decide for yourself that Led Zep's borrowings - what is properly called "artistic license" - is one criteria for establishing "greatness".  Someone else may disagree as to the relevance of that particular point with the belief that it happens so often in so many genres as to be not so consequential.

At the same time, someone else may look to record sales or chart positions to measure greatness, seeing commercial activity as a more-or-less neutral arbiter of collective tastes.

 

In response to EnjoyEverySandwich's comment:

That was kind of my point.

But it's no coincidence that Rush started its life as something of a Zeppelin clone.  

(to the point where Plant himself name-dropped the canadian trio as a contemporaneous favorite in the mid-70s, because...well, why not?...)

 

In response to devildavid's comment:

I can appreciate playing the devil's advocate, dd.  (It's sort of my stock-in-trade.)

 

Geddy Lee is a rather good example, because he leads a band that is still around, packing arenas around the world after more than 30 years.  Now granted, I think most Rush fans tune in for the heavy instrumental chops, which are well-documented and highly considered.

But if Geddy never sang a single note, would they still be so successful?  I don't think so, because he's part of the whole package.  His voice is almost literally like another instrument in the band called Rush, more so because the other guys don't really sing.

And you talk about a band that divides peoples' opinions?!  They are both the most loved AND hated band...maybe ever.

So, when talking about the relative "greatness" of Rush, we can point to musicality, longevity, fan devotion, complexity, originality, and even the uniqueness of the vocals (and lyrics).  Further, I would point to the range of opinion about them that puts them in a different light.

 

 

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

 

Alright, DD.   So HOW do you define "greatness"...?

While it's true that personal taste is entirely subjective, there is also such a thing as "shared taste", which more or less lend itself to a particular band's or artist's popularity.

But there are also criteria.  And these criteria have been established for quite some time in the annals of rock and music criticism.  You may not care for or pay attention to the critics, but like them or not, that doesn't mean their criteria is necessarily bad...it may just be different than yours.  But in most cases, a cross-section of critics usually arrive at the same place.

And it's one thing to say "I like this", but it's quite another to use properly defined terms used to either support or disprove this nebulous thing we call "greatness".

So, you may decide for yourself that Led Zep's borrowings - what is properly called "artistic license" - is one criteria for establishing "greatness".  Someone else may disagree as to the relevance of that particular point with the belief that it happens so often in so many genres as to be not so consequential.

At the same time, someone else may look to record sales or chart positions to measure greatness, seeing commercial activity as a more-or-less neutral arbiter of collective tastes.

 

 

Thanks! You make the point many musicians agree with, Artistic licence. Not too many musicians are running around crying that Led Zeppelin stole their music. In fact, just the opposite. It's their own interpertaions that made them stand out. If they had played each song verbatim, then you would have an argument. Look no further than the Stones if you want to claim plagerisim. Again, the Stones had their own take, which was (is)unique.

 

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

Let me see if I can explain by example. I like The Beatles and Herman's Hermits. They both entertain me. But if I want to call either one great, I have to move beyond my emotional reaction to them and detach myself emotionally to really think about what each group actually created. When I do, I find that Herman's Hermits doesn't have all the qualities that The Beatles do. Part of it is talent, part ingenuity, part is performance. One group merely entertains while the other entertains and impresses.

I'm glad you brought up music critics. This harks back to a thread I started way back about critics vs. fans. And most here were very dismissive of critics, as I recall. But I think critics do have a place, but we also have to look critically at what the critics have written. Rock music criticism is much more splintered now, with fans of certain type of music specializing in writing about that music. But I agree with you that looking at all critical opinion is a valid piece of the puzzle.

I don't have the perfect formula to define greatness, so I reserve the right for anyone to question the label of greatness attached to any musical artist. I just want them to present criteria beyond personal reactions, otherwise the discussion is just about personal taste. Yes, this really isn't a good answer, but I think greatness has a meaning beyond simply taste.

In response to devildavid's comment:

NOTE: I was reading about Warren Buffet yesterday; he's a contrarian.  

The way Buffet uses his contrarianism is that he buys when everyone else is selling and bailing from the market (in times of panic), and he holds, when everyone else is buying.   Just so you know, your contrarian ways would work well with the stock market.  :)

In response to polar123's comment:

Every artist/band has their detractors, and some points are perfectly valid (providing they are applied consistently).  It occurs to me that some Zep emulators (imitators?) couldn't really care less.

And given the sheer number of emulators, that's no small sample.

Even Picasso was accused of ripping off Georges Braque; Shakespeare of ripping off Christopher Marlowe, etc., etc....