DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Music Discussion => Topic started by: WildRanger on June 05, 2018, 04:03:29 PM
-
What would you say?
-
Not only was he one of the greatest (emphasis on was), but even his current voice on the stuff he's done post-Zeppelin is amazing. The guy just has 'it.' I think Stadler will agree with me :)
-
Well, for me, it's obviously yes. Is there a reasonable case for him not being one of the greatest rock vocalist?
-
Not just one of the greatest ROCK vocalist. Just one of the greatest vocalists in general
-
He has a very nice singing voice.
-
Jeesh, who doesn't?
-
There's your cue to enter the thread Paul :lol
-
^ :lol
As for me, yup! Just this morning I heard Kashmir on the radio and was thinking how great his voice is.
-
He might just be the most iconic rock vocalist (Elvis? Jagger?) of all time.
-
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
X Infinity
-
Not a fan of Led Zeppelin but even I would say that he is one of the classic singers of the genre.
-
Umm, yeah...
-
There's your cue to enter the thread Paul :lol
Was just coming here to see Paul's response. :lol
Perhaps the better poll for him would be whether he prefers on hour of kidney stones or 1 hour of Robert Plant.
Top 5 all-time favorite vocalist for me.
-
Not only was he one of the greatest (emphasis on was), but even his current voice on the stuff he's done post-Zeppelin is amazing. The guy just has 'it.' I think Stadler will agree with me :)
Yeah, I'm with you 100%. I think he's really shown a depth and breadth of career to justify being considered one of the greatest of all time. Hell, he hung with Page, Jones, and Bonham for ten + years.
My top five, off the top of my head: Mercury, Rogers, Plant, John, Hewson.
I don't know if any of you are interested, but he did a fair amount of press in the wake of "Carry Fire", more than usual, and he's a FASCINATING guy. FASCINATING. Stern even commented on this: he's done SO many interviews, and been asked SO many questions - both personal and professional, both insightful and inane - that he is a very difficult interviewee; he has the "entertaining, engaging but ultimately shallow and meaningless" answer down pat. He knows how to deflect questions he doesn't want to answer without sounding like a dick or being recalcitrant. But both Stern and Dan Rather were able to sort of pick down below the surface and get to a more real answer, and in doing so, showed him to be really interesting and far more substantive than your typical "rock star". He's very knowing, and very aware.
-
I hate his voice. Always have. I find myself often REALLY enjoying hearing Led Zep covers. But I have never been a Led Zep fan, and his voice is the primary reason. I just can't stand to hear him.
-
There's your cue to enter the thread Paul :lol
Is Belcher in here? 😀
Whilst I accept his huge influence his voice (Nd mannerisms) are like nails on a blackboard to me. Sorry Chad, you know I love you.
-
There's your cue to enter the thread Paul :lol
Was just coming here to see Paul's response. :lol
Perhaps the better poll for him would be whether he prefers on hour of kidney stones or 1 hour of Robert Plant.
Top 5 all-time favorite vocalist for me.
Kidney stones and hospital radio every time pal 😀😁
-
I think the answer to the poll is yes. However, Plant is a bit Jekyll and Hyde for me. His recorded performances with Zeppelin are generally exceptional, but almost of all of his live performances that I've heard leave a lot to be desired. Since I didn't start listening to rock music until after Bonham died, I can't really speak to the overall effect of an early 70s Zeppelin concert, but I acknowledge that the whole was apparently greater than the sum of its parts. I also have no real opinion about Plant's post-Zeppelin work, except that I didn't like the first couple of releases as a solo artist that I heard ("Big Log" and "In the Mood," the latter of which I actively dislike(d)).
-
I think the answer to the poll is yes. However, Plant is a bit Jekyll and Hyde for me. His recorded performances with Zeppelin are generally exceptional, but almost of all of his live performances that I've heard leave a lot to be desired. Since I didn't start listening to rock music until after Bonham died, I can't really speak to the overall effect of an early 70s Zeppelin concert, but I acknowledge that the whole was apparently greater than the sum of its parts. I also have no real opinion about Plant's post-Zeppelin work, except that I didn't like the first couple of releases as a solo artist that I heard ("Big Log" and "In the Mood," the latter of which I actively dislike(d)).
Well, I'm not at all trying to convince you of anything, but just as conversation:
- find the Led Zeppelin DVD; there is a video of them - I'm working from memory here - in Denmark in 1969. It's in black and white, and looks like they're playing in a gymnasium in the afternoon, and it's INCENDIARY. On that same DVD is a full show from London in 1970 that's killer too. "How The West Was Won" is also a pretty good, and not very doctored, example of their live greatness in the mid-70's.
- none of his solo albums - except maybe the first two - sound the same. Even the later ones, more folky and bluesy, are not really similar once you dig in. I like the first two solo records, but the guitar is so singular - Robbie Blunt is good, but very one note - that they are of a kind. Once he came to grips with his legacy in Zeppelin (around the time of Now and Zen) he changed a lot and his solo career adopted a real depth. I'm probably reaching here, but once he accepted his place, and wasn't shy about incorporating the influences that drove Zeppelin, but in his own way, his music really took on a life of it's own. I put the solo records from 2000 to the present up against any artist, including maybe even Zeppelin (though there is no "Jimmy Page" in the Plant solo canon).
- Phil Collins' work on the Plant solo stuff is really, really good.
-
I consider him a studio singer. Live he sucks.
And no, he's not one of the greatest rock singers.
-
I voted Yes.
-
Yes
nuff said
-
Yea, his singing is pretty iconic
-
There's your cue to enter the thread Paul :lol
Is Belcher in here? 😀
Whilst I accept his huge influence his voice (Nd mannerisms) are like nails on a blackboard to me. Sorry Chad, you know I love you.
All good mate... we each have our own special little (or big) failures. Admitting them is the first step. ;D ;)
-
Live he sucks.
Having personally seen him live three times, I can unequivocally, categorically and without pause say that this is not accurate.
325 concerts in, plus minus, and the greatest moment I've ever experienced at a concert was "The Song Remains The Same" by the Page/Plant band But later in that concert, they did a version of "Calling To You" (the Plant solo song). It was extended - ala the old versions of Whole Lotta Love and Dazed and Confused - and in the middle, Plant started vamping on "Break On Through" by the Doors, in his "current" voice, and as he's singing/scatting the lights got a little lower, and the band ebbed a little, and as he moved toward the front of the stage, he moved into "For What It's Worth" by The Buffalo Springfield. Then, he paused - and this is amazing to me to this day, the band was as tight as a frog's ass underwater - he leaned back in that rock god pose, the lights went bright and he let out "STOP, HEY! What's that sound..." in full voice and it was.... it gave me chills how powerful that was.
Can he do four hours in full voice? Probably not. But his instrument is still strong, still powerful, and still with great effect.
-
A couple of thoughts...
I've listened to many Zep boots from the 70's. Plant was brutal live. That said, the mid 90's Page/Plant shows were amazing!
I love Pictures At Eleven. But that's it. Don't care in the least about his solo career.
-
Well, he undoubtedly had off nights, and with a voice like his an off night is really off; there isn't any real in between. But there were so many good, transcendent nights that it's hard to say "he sucked!"
-
Well, he undoubtedly had off nights, and with a voice like his an off night is really off; there isn't any real in between. But there were so many good, transcendent nights that it's hard to say "he sucked!"
Are we talking Robert Plant or James Labrie? :lol
I always bring up Plant in the threads busting JLB's balls. The studio work is legendary. But live Plant was always iffy. I'm talking about the 70's. What Plant has done live since then, I cannot speak to.
-
Well, he undoubtedly had off nights, and with a voice like his an off night is really off; there isn't any real in between. But there were so many good, transcendent nights that it's hard to say "he sucked!"
Are we talking Robert Plant or James Labrie? :lol
I always bring up Plant in the threads busting JLB's balls. The studio work is legendary. But live Plant was always iffy. I'm talking about the 70's. What Plant has done live since then, I cannot speak to.
It's a funny thing right? You see comment threads in Ultimate-Guitar and Blabbermouth and whenever DT gets mention, they always mention how JLB "sucks" live the first chance they get and wants DT to find a different singer. You see a Led Zeppelin article in those sites and the comments really avoid on how rough Plant can be at times during the mid-70s and those that actually point that out gets ignored.
-
Well, he undoubtedly had off nights, and with a voice like his an off night is really off; there isn't any real in between. But there were so many good, transcendent nights that it's hard to say "he sucked!"
Are we talking Robert Plant or James Labrie? :lol
I always bring up Plant in the threads busting JLB's balls. The studio work is legendary. But live Plant was always iffy. I'm talking about the 70's. What Plant has done live since then, I cannot speak to.
It's a funny thing right? You see comment threads in Ultimate-Guitar and Blabbermouth and whenever DT gets mention, they always mention how JLB "sucks" live the first chance they get and wants DT to find a different singer. You see a Led Zeppelin article in those sites and the comments really avoid on how rough Plant can be at times during the mid-70s and those that actually point that out gets ignored.
I can't really attest to the JLB stuff, because I have my experience and it's not completely out of whack with the general musings of the peanut gallery. But with Zeppelin, it's not like EVERYBODY has a live Zeppelin experience. Except for the excerpts from Live Aid and the Atlantic Records party, neither of which were great (and neither of which were optimal for singers in particular) and in Plant's case, the Freddie Mercury tribute, which a) wasn't as bad as people said, and b) achieved near mythological status because of Plant's refusal to allow the footage to be put on the DVD, has anyone seen Zeppelin live on a regular tour date? Not me.
When I did see him - solo and with Page - the reality did not jibe with the peanut gallery. Plant was always and often viewed as the "weak link" in Zeppelin (I believe Page even alluded to this once in an interview) and I believe that perception has stuck, even in the face of strong live material like TSRTS, HTWWW and the live DVD.
-
Yeah, but there are plenty of Zeppelin bootlegs to form an opinion.
-
But with Zeppelin, it's not like EVERYBODY has a live Zeppelin experience. Except for the excerpts from Live Aid and the Atlantic Records party, neither of which were great (and neither of which were optimal for singers in particular) and in Plant's case, the Freddie Mercury tribute, which a) wasn't as bad as people said, and b) achieved near mythological status because of Plant's refusal to allow the footage to be put on the DVD, has anyone seen Zeppelin live on a regular tour date? Not me.
When I did see him - solo and with Page - the reality did not jibe with the peanut gallery. Plant was always and often viewed as the "weak link" in Zeppelin (I believe Page even alluded to this once in an interview) and I believe that perception has stuck, even in the face of strong live material like TSRTS, HTWWW and the live DVD.
That second sentence made my head hurt. :biggrin:
I think the obvious reality is that, while the volume of work Plant did with Zeppelin pales in comparison to what he's done post-Zeppelin, the interest level in Plant's post-Zeppelin work pales in comparison to what he did with Zeppelin. Consequently, any discussion of Plant as "one of the greatest rock vocalists" is almost completely dependent on what he did with Zeppelin, and his post-Zeppelin work is of marginal relevance (at best) to that discussion.
His abilities as a live performer over the last 35 years (of material that is, I assume, for the most part, quite different from what he did with Zeppelin) may well be outstanding. However, if Zeppelin never existed and Pictures at Eleven had been the first thing anyone ever heard from Robert Plant (and assuming -- unrealistically -- that everything he's done since 1982 enjoyed the exact same level of commercial and critical success), absolutely no one would seriously consider whether Plant were "one of the greatest rock vocalists." One the other hand, if, instead of Bonham dying in 1980, Plant had died, I think there would still be discussion about Plant as "one of the greatest rock vocalists."
-
One of the greatest 10? 20? 50? He wouldn't be in my top, or even second, tier, but his voice is pretty damn iconic.
His voice got more polished later on, but the youthful rawness in his voice on the early Zeppelin albums is part of the charm.
-
Live he sucks.
Having personally seen him live three times, I can unequivocally, categorically and without pause say that this is not accurate.
There is no "accurate" when it comes to personal taste. And having seen him live three times doesn't make you "more right". You could have gone to every single Led Zeppelin concert ever played and loved his singing every evening. Still it would only prove that you like his singing.
-
His solo work is amazing. Why can't anyone understand you can't sing in your 40's & 50's what you did in your 20's?
You still an reinvent yourself. Plant did that.
-
I always felt Plant was very wise in what he did live. He thought ahead, and he didn't push himself to always recreate "studio notes" in a live setting. He nailed it when it counted (Since I've Been Loving You) and sang in a completely different harmony if he knew it would not be possible to do all the time (Rock n Roll).
To the best of my knowledge, he NEVER performed RNR as it is on the album, and I think that was smart. When he did it on Celebration Day, he was able to do it exactly like he did in the 70's, because he never strained himself.
-
Live he sucks.
Having personally seen him live three times, I can unequivocally, categorically and without pause say that this is not accurate.
There is no "accurate" when it comes to personal taste. And having seen him live three times doesn't make you "more right". You could have gone to every single Led Zeppelin concert ever played and loved his singing every evening. Still it would only prove that you like his singing.
Not really; granted, I'm assuming a standard, but he's not in my top five or even ten PERSONAL favorites (i.e. guys I like). (That would be Mercury, Wilson, Wetton, Bono, Delp, Keagy, Rodgers, John, Lake, and Kennedy). I think Zeppelin is legendary, and I like the band very very much, but if I was starting a band I don't know that Plant would be my first choice.
Whether it's Taylor Swift, Bob Dylan, or Freddie Mercury, if a guy delivers the material in key, with a tone reasonably close to that which the original material displayed, and with a reasonable amount of character and emotion... I'm actually pushing back on the very thing you're trying to pin on me. You can't say "he's not one of the greatest of all time" just because he's not your thing. The question isn't asking "one of your favorites of all time" but implying a more objective standard. Bob Dylan to me, personally, is unlistenable. I don't find his lyrics particularly insightful, I find his voice grating, and his pretentiousness and inflated self-importance is extremely off-putting. But I'd be dead wrong if I tried to insinuate that he wasn't an iconic figure and one of the greatest American artists of his generation.
-
I would say one of the top 5 Rock vocalists of all time.
-
But with Zeppelin, it's not like EVERYBODY has a live Zeppelin experience. Except for the excerpts from Live Aid and the Atlantic Records party, neither of which were great (and neither of which were optimal for singers in particular) and in Plant's case, the Freddie Mercury tribute, which a) wasn't as bad as people said, and b) achieved near mythological status because of Plant's refusal to allow the footage to be put on the DVD, has anyone seen Zeppelin live on a regular tour date? Not me.
When I did see him - solo and with Page - the reality did not jibe with the peanut gallery. Plant was always and often viewed as the "weak link" in Zeppelin (I believe Page even alluded to this once in an interview) and I believe that perception has stuck, even in the face of strong live material like TSRTS, HTWWW and the live DVD.
That second sentence made my head hurt. :biggrin:
I think the obvious reality is that, while the volume of work Plant did with Zeppelin pales in comparison to what he's done post-Zeppelin, the interest level in Plant's post-Zeppelin work pales in comparison to what he did with Zeppelin. Consequently, any discussion of Plant as "one of the greatest rock vocalists" is almost completely dependent on what he did with Zeppelin, and his post-Zeppelin work is of marginal relevance (at best) to that discussion.
His abilities as a live performer over the last 35 years (of material that is, I assume, for the most part, quite different from what he did with Zeppelin) may well be outstanding. However, if Zeppelin never existed and Pictures at Eleven had been the first thing anyone ever heard from Robert Plant (and assuming -- unrealistically -- that everything he's done since 1982 enjoyed the exact same level of commercial and critical success), absolutely no one would seriously consider whether Plant were "one of the greatest rock vocalists." One the other hand, if, instead of Bonham dying in 1980, Plant had died, I think there would still be discussion about Plant as "one of the greatest rock vocalists."
Yeah, that sentence was kind of Stadler-esque, wasn't it? Ah well...
I sort of agree with you, sort of, but I think the material that he did after shows a degree of range (stylistically) and competence that might not be evident with Zeppelin. It also tends to show us what each of the players brought to the party. I think in the early years, the notion was "Zeppelin is Page and Jones, because they are the experienced, industry legends". Then the notion was "Zeppelin is Page and Bonham, because they are the backbone of the live show". Then the notion was "Zeppelin is Page, because he's the archivist". I think the solo catalogue shows that Plant was an equal partner, if not more, in the development of the song as part of the Zeppelin tool box. You'll notice that as Plant asserted himself more in the mix, the degree of "Hey, that's a Willie Dixon song!" tended to drop off, even if the quotes and references increased. Plant was the one guy in that band that absolutely DID NOT want to stand still and keep doing the same old same old. And once you got to, say, Now and Zen, or Manic Nirvana, Plant started quoting ZEPPELIN in his work (not just the people that came before Zeppelin), sort of bringing it full circle. His work now is in many ways far closer to what Zep was doing in '68, 69, '70 than anything that Page, Jones, or even Jason Bonham are doing now.
Mick Wall had an interesting theory in an excellent biography he did of the band ("When Giants Walked The Earth"): From 1968 to about 1985 or so, Zeppelin was Jimmy Page's band. He formed it, he wrote a lot of the material, he produced it, he decided when they toured, he decided what were singles (and what weren't), he made the decision on the artwork... From '85 or so to now, Zeppelin is PLANT'S band. HE now decides when they work, what gets released (even if Page is still the archivist and does all the "musical" work) and in large part, he's the architect of the current persona of the band.
-
You can't say "he's not one of the greatest of all time" just because he's not your thing. The question isn't asking "one of your favorites of all time" but implying a more objective standard. Bob Dylan to me, personally, is unlistenable. I don't find his lyrics particularly insightful, I find his voice grating, and his pretentiousness and inflated self-importance is extremely off-putting. But I'd be dead wrong if I tried to insinuate that he wasn't an iconic figure and one of the greatest American artists of his generation.
Hmmm.. yes you can. The only standard that counts is taste and taste is subjective, therefore it is impossible to demand an "objective standard" when it comes to music. One artist can be considered extremely innovative, ground-breaking and amazing by most of the people, but it doesn't mean you are "wrong" by not agreeing with the majority.
I find it strange that you can list so many negative/bad qualities about Bob Dylan while still consider him one of the greatest American artists of his generation. If you don't like his lyrics nor his voice and you find him pretentious and self-important, how can you esteem him so highly? For me it sounds like a contradiction. Yes, you can dislike an artist and still recognize his importance, but according to your description it seems you really can't stand Bob Dylan and you just consider (or HAVE TO consider) him important because most people do too.
Let's say I hate the Beatles, but I am pretty aware they were very important and influential for almost every group that came after them. Do I automatically have to consider them one of the greatest artists of all time? No.
So when the question "do you consider ......... one of the greatest vocalist/band of all time" is asked, it is impossible not to bring in my personal taste. It is what counts most. Not the fact that ....... was important/influential or not.
-
Regarding Stadler's last two posts (because I don't want gigantic quote blocks):
Chuck's point was that Plant sucks/sucked live, and he took issue with your assertion "that this is not accurate" because his point was entirely subjective. Whether or not he sucked/sucks live is, of course, a very different question than whether or not he is "one of the greatest rock vocalists." Chuck is right that it's a subjective opinion that isn't susceptible of being accurate or inaccurate, but I agree with you that whether or not he is "one of the greatest rock vocalists" is more of an objective question (although not completely so). Your point seems to be that saying Plant "sucks" live is unfair if it is based on only his ~12 years of live performances with Zeppelin and doesn't take into account the last 38 years of work, and that's a well-taken point.
As for Plant's role with Zeppelin, based on what I've read, Zeppelin "was" Page and Jones because they were the two established players, and Plant and Bonham were unknown 20-year old kids. Once the band became established, however, Zeppelin "was" (at least as far as the general public was concerned) Plant and Page and, to a lesser extent, Bonham. Jonesy was largely pushed into the background (both willingly and by necessity). Behind the scenes, the band was, of course, Page's baby (until the post-Presence period when Jones took a larger role). To say that, since the mid-80s, Zeppelin is "Plant's band" is a bit of a silly statement because the band hasn't truly existed in nearly 40 years. Thus, that statement is really nothing more than an observation that Zeppelin cannot truly be Zeppelin (solely for the purpose of the small handful of concerts that have happened in the post-Bonham years and a few other odd public events) without its frontman. In other words, Page could never get away with performing as "Led Zeppelin" without Plant. As far as who runs "Led Zeppelin, Inc." behind the scenes...beats me.
-
Considering the influence the band has had on music, I'd have to say Plant is one of the greatest rock singers...but I don't consider him one of the greatest if that makes any sense. I'm not a huge fan of his voice.
-
You can't say "he's not one of the greatest of all time" just because he's not your thing. The question isn't asking "one of your favorites of all time" but implying a more objective standard. Bob Dylan to me, personally, is unlistenable. I don't find his lyrics particularly insightful, I find his voice grating, and his pretentiousness and inflated self-importance is extremely off-putting. But I'd be dead wrong if I tried to insinuate that he wasn't an iconic figure and one of the greatest American artists of his generation.
Hmmm.. yes you can. The only standard that counts is taste and taste is subjective, therefore it is impossible to demand an "objective standard" when it comes to music. One artist can be considered extremely innovative, ground-breaking and amazing by most of the people, but it doesn't mean you are "wrong" by not agreeing with the majority.
I find it strange that you can list so many negative/bad qualities about Bob Dylan while still consider him one of the greatest American artists of his generation. If you don't like his lyrics nor his voice and you find him pretentious and self-important, how can you esteem him so highly? For me it sounds like a contradiction. Yes, you can dislike an artist and still recognize his importance, but according to your description it seems you really can't stand Bob Dylan and you just consider (or HAVE TO consider) him important because most people do too.
Let's say I hate the Beatles, but I am pretty aware they were very important and influential for almost every group that came after them. Do I automatically have to consider them one of the greatest artists of all time? No.
So when the question "do you consider ......... one of the greatest vocalist/band of all time" is asked, it is impossible not to bring in my personal taste. It is what counts most. Not the fact that ....... was important/influential or not.
Look, we can go around and around on this, but it's not really apples and oranges. ANY assessment - objective or subjective - has to be based on SOME standard. If the standard is, like you claim, "taste" then of course it's purely subjective, because everyone is different. If the standard is something else, it is somewhere on the continuum of "subjectivity". Certainly "best band of all time!" can be based on anything: your taste; highest grossing tour; most records sold; influence... at some point, all of those things have an objective compotent, even if that objective standard has some subjectivity to it (meaning, we can't physically count all the variables, so we use stand-ins or approximations).
If you read good criticism - I mean "criticism" in the artistic sense, and I don't mean the douchebags from Rolling Stone or your local paper - you will note that they will rarely if ever just say "I like that" without some caveat. They will establish the standard in that critique and compare the work to that standard. You can then agree or not with the standard, and you can agree or not with the application of the standard, but there is a measure of objectivity to that.
I'm not sure how much farther we can take this if you reject my thoughts on Dylan. I can absolutely say what I did about him without contradiction, because I am not at all incorporating my taste in there. It's not about my taste. I'm not perfect - I'm human - but I'm very careful to say "my favorite" as opposed to "the best" when I'm dealing with my taste, because that's all it is. I am not in a position to say "greatest" in that way, because my taste means nothing. I like what I like, and it's largely unconscious. I don't think "Oh, I'm going to love Bob Dylan today!" It either moves me or it doesn't. That the same song might move, say, my daughter, who am I to say "Bob Dylan SUCKS!" I've just then invalidated them.