![]() Now, I understand the "atmosphere" of a song is important, but Floyd was not the first of their time. ![]() Zeppelin's music, though, was experimental in that they weren't afraid to delve into new genres. The most the Beatles ever delved into was loop tapes and little sound excerpts. I mean, even the most complicated music of the Beatles was nothing compared to the sheer layered conventions of Zeppelin's finest. No other band of the era did blues rock HALF as well as Zeppelin did. Yes, but while Zeppelin was not the most original band in terms of material at the time, they did what did, and they did it the best IMO. I think that creativity PLUS musical talent are a better combination to have than just being able to "rock" In fact, one 20th century composer by the name of Igor Stravinsky, had a house built in a specific location, overlooking lush greenery and planes of flower beds just for the sake of atmosphere in order to be able to compose in a certain frame of mind. Now granted, if you look at alot of your standard classical pieces, you don't need atmosphere.but sitll, it helps immensly. This is more than an opinion to me since I"m a musician. Without it.there's no backing for creation. You mentioned the word atmosphere, which is one of the most important parts of creating music in every genre. They changed the way experimental music was viewed and made. I'd have to go the Floyd route on this one because while it's true that Zep was everything you said they were, eg Talented musicians, about the music, rockers etc.There were a ton of other bands before and after them who sounded like just another clone of a clone.White boys doing a half assed bluesy rock etc.While when you look at floyds stuff, those very same elements were there, but also, much much more. Hmm, interesting take on it Trounce, but I think that you might have missed out on something. Good question, though, never really thought about it before. Zeppelin was versatile (see: Houses of the Holy), they were rockers, blues artists, funky and driven. No doubt that Roger Waters was a good lyricist and Dave Gilmour a great guitarist, but they did not have the chemistry and seamlessness that Zeppelin had, nor the raw talent. Zeppelin was endowed with awesome musical talent. Put them together, though, and you have a show for the ears.įloyd has some amazing music, Shine On and Great Gig in the Sky, the album Animals (albeit a bit pretentious) and Atom Heart Mother are all incredible, but the bulk of their work is less about the music than the production. Take out the effects and garbles of sound from DSOTM and The Wall and you're left with an album with few good songs by their lonesomes. Either way, I'm a much bigger fan of Zeppelin than I am of Floyd for exactly the reason I stated above. They affected music more while Floyd probably more affected music creation. I'm thinking Zeppelin, because they were all about music and not about flashy effects and atmosphere.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |