Tweet
LZ aren't as hero worshiped in the UK as the USA. They're still a right of passage for everyone interested in guitar music, but they don't get lauded like in the USA. In my time here, that's one of the differences in preference I've noticed between the USA and UK, and weird considering they are a UK band. The other big bands of that era are usually held in greater regard by contemporary journalists (going back to the 80's).
When I was younger, I always wondered why The Beatles, Stones, Floyd were much more highly regarded by the UK music press. Then in the mid 90's there were a lot of articles and comments written about LZ's legacy (instigated in part by Noel Gallagher and his rip-off boasts). That's when I first heard about this stuff. Killed the LZ mystic for me a long time back ... though I still really like them (and The Stones to some extent). In fact these discussions have apparently reared their head every few years, and they stretch way back to the early 70's. It's also noteworthy that a lot of their contemporaries haven't been shy about expressing their opinions either. Pete Townsend basically called them frauds.
In fact a lot of the UK bluesmen are regarded as jumped-up session musicians by the UK press. Clapton is hated in many quarters. I always figured it was style thing, but it goes deeper. That's the thing though ... they all did it. Bands constantly stole from each other in that era. The Stones ruthlessly ripped off The Beatles to almost comic levels. Heck some of the songs in those videos DMT posted were "ripped off" by other bands before LZ. So I'm guessing that LZ were ripping off artists they hadn't even heard by ripping off someone else's cover.
Most of the bands at that time were up to the same thing though, but LZ do seem to have been one of the worst culprits. Then again, shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. It clearly wasn't all fraudulent. Their biggest crime is clearly passing other peoples art off as their own, particularly Page. In any other field of the arts that would be a death sentence to any notion of credibility and lead to widespread ridicule ... in popular music, they get away with it ... well somewhat anyway.
If they had've openly cited these songs as influences and given proper credit to all the source material, maybe they wouldn't get so much crap. Then again, if they did, maybe they wouldn't have got the adulation and praise that drove their popularity and credibility.
When I was younger, I always wondered why The Beatles, Stones, Floyd were much more highly regarded by the UK music press. Then in the mid 90's there were a lot of articles and comments written about LZ's legacy (instigated in part by Noel Gallagher and his rip-off boasts). That's when I first heard about this stuff. Killed the LZ mystic for me a long time back ... though I still really like them (and The Stones to some extent). In fact these discussions have apparently reared their head every few years, and they stretch way back to the early 70's. It's also noteworthy that a lot of their contemporaries haven't been shy about expressing their opinions either. Pete Townsend basically called them frauds.
In fact a lot of the UK bluesmen are regarded as jumped-up session musicians by the UK press. Clapton is hated in many quarters. I always figured it was style thing, but it goes deeper. That's the thing though ... they all did it. Bands constantly stole from each other in that era. The Stones ruthlessly ripped off The Beatles to almost comic levels. Heck some of the songs in those videos DMT posted were "ripped off" by other bands before LZ. So I'm guessing that LZ were ripping off artists they hadn't even heard by ripping off someone else's cover.
Most of the bands at that time were up to the same thing though, but LZ do seem to have been one of the worst culprits. Then again, shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. It clearly wasn't all fraudulent. Their biggest crime is clearly passing other peoples art off as their own, particularly Page. In any other field of the arts that would be a death sentence to any notion of credibility and lead to widespread ridicule ... in popular music, they get away with it ... well somewhat anyway.
If they had've openly cited these songs as influences and given proper credit to all the source material, maybe they wouldn't get so much crap. Then again, if they did, maybe they wouldn't have got the adulation and praise that drove their popularity and credibility.
- Wonderboy
Comment