Led Zeppelin

One of the more curious and puzzling characteristics of those within these shores is our tendency to overlook and neglect the most worthy accomplishments and qualities of our countrymen. We seem to be embarrassed sometimes by things which are instantly and staggeringly successful, especially if such success is achieved by means which are seen as "different" or "too good to be true".

I often feel that Led Zeppelin were victims of this phenomenon in their homeland. From the outset they were more appreciated and valued abroad, particularly in the United States.  Popular acceptance in Britain always seemed grudging and apathetic.  The masses at home never really took Zeppelin to their hearts.

Led Zeppelin always possessed a certain mystique which set them apart from their contemporaries, and this may explain their failure to connect emotionally with some in their home country. The refusal to release singles in the UK, their unorthodox career path generally, and the wilful misrepresentation of their music by much of the media all played a part.

Although these idiosyncracies helped to ensure that Zeppelin were never perhaps "loved" by the public  like the Stones or the Beatles, they were some of the principal reasons for the band's unique appeal, and place in rock history. The methods which they employed to record and put together their albums, their stylistic diversity and their self-contained, almost reclusive, status, all also contributed to this trend.

It is a frustrating, but nonetheless necessary task for those of us who love Led Zeppelin to regularly dispel the myths and misconceptions which surround them, and continue to cloud and distort their reputation.

First of all, the most irksome one, the notion that Led Zeppelin were merely a "heavy metal" band.  If people would take the trouble to listen properly to their catalogue, they would swiftly realise that this is a nonsensical charge.  Not only was Zeppelin's repertoire varied and eclectic, but even the louder and heavier numbers could hardly be dubbed "heavy metal"; more like experimental blues-rock, expanding on what had been done by the Yardbirds (who spawned Zep), Cream and others.  I would argue that "heavy metal", in its truest form, was pioneered by Black Sabbath and their ilk.

Some of the "trendy" music press, and a certain group of musicians who emerged around 1976/77, often charged that Led Zeppelin were "corporate", and epitomised everything that was grasping, avaricious and "corporate" about the music industry.  Well, Zeppelin certainly made lots of money, largely through their own talent and shrewd management.  In fact, they bucked many trends, defied much conventional wisdom on promotion, and generally refused to "play the game".  I would also ask people to seek out interviews with Jimmy Page or Robert Plant, and see how their love of music for its own sake shines through.

With some observers, Zeppelin acquired a reputation for being somewhat arrogant and aloof.  Some of the tales and anecdotes were doubtless inflated and exaggerated, calculated to embellish the mystique which we have already touched on.  This perceived lack of "media-friendliness" also partially helps to explain the detached and nebulous image which the group still has for some.

Enough about the myths and the criticisms.  What were some of the secrets and virtues which made Led Zeppelin so special?

Well, the make-up of the band, and the chemistry which this engendered, was certainly instrumental. Both Jimmy Page and John Paul Jones were steeped in the British music scene of the preceding period. Endless session work meant that, for their relatively tender years, they had accumulated considerable knowledge of production and arranging.  Also, this had helped them to work any bad habits out of their systems.  Because of these elements, the nascent Led Zeppelin was equipped to hit the ground running.

Because of the background of Page and Jones, it was easier to harness and focus the awesome raw talent of the two comparative novices, Plant and John Bonham. This environment also assisted them in smoothing off their rough edges.

We have already referred to the "self-contained" nature of the group.  This was jealously guarded, and the inner circle made sure that no great entourage of hangers-on or guest musicians was involved. Consequently, they were never really part of any movement, or "scene", developing on their own terms, and not being diluted or compromised, or falling prey to outside influences.

Another hallmark of Zeppelin was their willingness to be experimental and unconventional when it came to recording their material.  Many sessions were by all accounts informal and spontaneous, and there is very much a vibrant "live" feeling to many of their tracks, particularly on Led Zeppelin III and Physical Graffiti.  This was accentuated by careful use and placing of microphones and amplifiers in the studio.

So how are Led Zeppelin perceived today.  I sense that they still not as "fashionable" or "establishment" as their contemporaries.  However, they should be proud of refusing to sacrifice their integrity or selling their souls simply to court more acceptance or adulation.  They did things on their own terms, and not everyone can honestly claim that.  New artists do not regularly name-check them as an influence, but I hardly think that the surviving band members lose much sleep over this.  Above all, they should be proud of their achievements, and their body of work.

Stay tuned for some reviews of individual Led Zeppelin albums in the future!

The Baader Meinhof Complex (movie)

One subject which has fascinated me for the past two decades or so is the political violence which plagued many European countries in the 1970s, and particularly that which happened in West Germany. Recently I have renewed my study of this phenomenon, and as part of this I have watched again the 2008 movie The Baader Meinhof Complex.  Although I accept that the movie is over three years old, I thought that I would share some of my thoughts and observations.

It is tempting to see The Baader Meinhof Complex as being too glossy and superficial, and lacking nuance and depth.  However, one must recall that this is no niche "art film", but one seemingly aspiring to a wide, mainstream audience. So criticism from that standpoint is a little unjust.  In any event, most films in this sub-genre are tainted with being dubbed too "Hollywood"....

The film was based on Stefan Aust's book of the same name, and it seems that Aust had some input in a consultancy role. This shows in the attention to detail, and the narrative of the movie tallies with my own recollection of reading the book.

The film-makers were confronted with the prospect of telling a very complex and emotive story, and accomplishing this in a little over two hours.  Taking everything into account, I think they did a more than creditable job.  They couldn't hope to cover every aspect in minute detail, so careful use is made of real film footage and other material from the era, and many scenes take the form of "vignettes", all helping to tie things together and ensure continuity.  These abbreviated "snippets" end up being among the most memorable parts of the movie.

An area where the influence of Stefan Aust and his book can be clearly seen is in the portrayal of some of the major characters, particularly Andreas Baader and Gudrun Ensslin.  Care was taken to ensure that some of their personality traits and idiosyncracies were shown. It is not quite a case of truth being stranger than fiction, but the lead actors manage to carry things off quite convincingly.

I was also impressed with the way in which the personal journey of Ulrike Meinhof formed a thread through the movie, from her periods of ambivalence and doubt, her relationship with Gudrun Ensslin, to her eventual estrangement from the rest of the group.

Many of the pivotal scenes in the film are intended to exactly replicate of the actual events, and this will be instantly recognisable to people who are familiar with the film footage from those days. In some ways, this is a mixed blessing. 

As in many movies of this kind, the "crowd" scenes are the ones which are most awkward to make convincing and not "staged".  Film-makers seldom get the balance correct, and in this The Baader Meinhof Complex is no exception.  I really don't know what the answer is.  These scenes are often essential to the relating of the story, but habitually look hopelessly contrived, and put the teeth on edge! My preferences are always for the parts of movies where personalities, motives, insecurities and human nature are examined, and this film allows ample scope for this.

I did not find the movie in any way judgemental, but an attempt to be even-handed and present events as accurately and frankly as possible, and let the viewer make up his or her own mind. This is aided by the telling of the story partly from the point of view of the West German authorities, and the differing views evident within the "inner circle" of police officers.  This was a mature depiction of all concerned; things are rarely black and white; there are a million shades of grey in between.

Continuing the "shades of grey" theme, there is some effort to underline the emergence of divergent agendas within the group, differing interpretations of aims and ideals, and the points at which individual consciences and scruples can no longer be suppressed and stifled.  All human beings have weaknesses, foibles and insecurities, and we are shown this as well as the bravado and bluster. The reconciling of "ends" and "means" is a sub-text, though not pushed excessively.

The film captures much of the anger and indignation of the protagonists, but also how this can become mutated.  Some people are easily led, and seduced by a sense of "belonging",  but soon realise that they do not possess the same zeal or ruthlessness as their comrades, but are in too deep to easily extricate themselves. Others seem at times to be driven as much driven by ego and narcissism as by the cause which they espouse.

The sequences set within the walls of Stammheim are among the most affecting in the film. The feelings of frustration and isolation are palpable, and we see the familiar dymanics involving people who are either in a confined space, or thrown together in close proximity to each other.  People have different thresholds of pain, suffering and torment. Still, even when the will has been broken and hope seems gone, the feeling of being trapped, and the need to "belong", still eat away.

Inevitably, a subject this contentious and troublesome will divide opinion, but overall, I would say that The Baader Meinhof Complex does a creditable job of telling a very contentious and complicated story, being quite comprehensive but still holding the attention.

Sweetheart Of The Rodeo - The Byrds - album review

Continuing my non-chronlogical look at the albums of the Byrds, we now move on to the one which perhaps had the most lasting influence of all, Sweetheart of The Rodeo.

I won't become embroiled in the tiresome debate about whether this was the first "country-rock" album. Works by Bob Dylan, Gene Clark and others, released around the same time, could also qualify for that accolade. What is indisputable is that Sweetheart Of The Rodeo represented some kind of landmark. 

Listening forty-odd years on, it is striking how comparatively little "rock" there is here for an LP dubbed "country-rock".  Compared to some of the insipid fare released by other artists under the latter banner in the 1970s, this sounds almost like "purist" country music.  The session musicians employed by the band certainly add that touch of authenticity.

This is the only Byrds album to feature country-rock pioneer Gram Parsons, and many of his contributions were erased from the original release for contractual reasons.  That said, Gram's distinctive vocals are evident on at least three of the tracks.  On the remainder of the cuts, Chris Hillman and Roger McGuinn cope manfully.  Of course, David Crosby had by now departed the fold, but it is difficult to imagine his vocal harmonies suiting the country format!

The song list is a shrewd mixture of country-esque styles, including bluegrass, honky-tonk and country-soul, with a couple of Dylan numbers tastefully given the country-rock treatment.  This allows the strengths of the group members, particularly Hillman and Parsons, to be given free rein.  Underpinning all this is the backdrop provided by the sturdy session-men.  The pedal steel sound throughout is particularly soothing, even opulent.

Sensibly, the two Dylan songs are employed as "bookends" at either end of the album, anchoring the more estoteric (for mainstream ears) material in between.  The standout for me is "One Hundred Years From Now", a stirring melody backed by sumptuous pedal steel, and restrained but effective harmonies by McGuinn and Hillman.  "Hickory Wind" I often think is lauded more for what it represents than its aesthetic strenghts, and because it is Gram Parsons' "signature" tune.

The sound on the album is quite pleasing, and this has been faithfully retained by more recent remastering efforts. Crisp instrumentation, ample separation and space for the various contributors to be given full expression.  The nuances of the vocal harmonies are also nicely captured.

Sweetheart Of The Rodeo has held up well, compared to other "country rock" of its time, because The Byrds approached the project with the correct approach, that of wanting to record a country album, rather than a rock album with country tinges.  Much of what was spawned by "Sweetheart" sounds very diluted in comparison.

Of course, Hillman and Parsons were to have a further role in the marriage of country and rock, but that is another story....

Paul McCartney and Wings

Amongst my own contemporaries, I like to think that I am something of a contrarian, cynical of "memes" and willing to go out on a limb, rather than run with the herd in order to conform or belong.I am definitely inclined towards this approach when it comes to music and popular culture in general.

This approach means that, for example, music which others smugly dismiss as "guilty pleasures", I accord the same respect as any other works. Falling within this definition for me are the likes of Abba, the Carpenters and Paul McCartney and Wings.

Since the break-up of the Beatles it has been fashionable to decry McCartney's solo material as hollow and over-sentimental, a trend which many had detected whilst he was in the Beatles, but which some had disregarded because criticism of the Beatles was considered taboo.  But once he was out of the cocoon of the Fab Four, he was fair game, and it was open season.

What had gone immediately before was an albatross around Paul's neck, but at least some observers are able to retain some objectivity, and appraise his post-Beatles efforts on their own merits.

It is hard to dispute that some of  Paul's solo work is uneven, with occasional weak moments and even what could be termed lapses in taste.  However, the cream of this body of work has stood the test of time.

Some of the criticisms levelled are valid, but at the same time much of the disdain stemmed from snobbery and false premises.  In the eyes of some detractors, Paul's 1970s music committed the crime of not being as "good" as the Beatles, or as socially or politically relevant as what John Lennon was doing around the same time. In reality, what he was doing differed little from his role in the Beatles, but he was now more exposed and vulnerable.

Looking back at the "Wings" era, there were very few periods of sustained weakness, Paul always being capable of coming up with strong melodies and commercially appealing songs. So the output was reasonably consistent. As has been said, the strongest material at any given time was always around the same standard.

One thing which some of the tracks suffer from in the period 1971-75 is that curious 1970s "sheen", which is by no means unique to Paul's work of the time, which can be disconcerting, and even detracts from the quality of the songs on occasion.

Ironically, one of the McCartney tracks from the early 1970s which receives inordinate amounts of praise from pundits is "Maybe I'm Amazed".  For me, it is over-rated, with a mediocre tune which is partially concealed by a grandiose production and arrangement.  It comes across as "profound", but a closer look reveals otherwise.

Most of the genuine high points were reached in the first half of the decade.  "Another Day" is a prime example of Paul's common touch, although I accept not everyone's cup of tea.  Definite parallels with, and echoes of "Eleanor Rigby" here. Relying on subtlety and finesse for its impact, and melodically reminding me of some of Paul's acoustic numbers of the "White Album" period.

The status of "Live and Let Die" as a Bond theme I think has distorted people's appreciation of it as a song.  A dynamic production, benefiting from application of "light and shade", whilst also allowing Paul's prowess as a tunesmith to shine through.

Although "My Love" probably divides opinion, it is difficult to dispute its gorgeous simplicity.

The McCartney and Wings music of this era was quite eclectic, with some genre exercises, reflecting his sheer joyous love of music in all its forms. The attempts at returning to rock 'n' roll roots met with mixed results artistically, but were invariably infectious and likeable, dripping with the customary enthusiasm.

There was always something engagingly low-key, humble and unpretentious about Wings. No outlandish projection of an "image" or gimmicks, just musicians making music and enjoying themselves. This went against the grain of the period.

By common consent, 1973's Band On The Run was the apogee of the Wings era, and two of the songs on that album, the title track and "Jet" represent everything that was admirable and pure about Paul, and the group, at their best.  Effortlessly tuneful, clever, crafted and hook-intensive, with a warm, vibrant and inviting production.  This was what Wings were always meant to sound and feel like, but the formula sometimes proved elusive before and since...

Would Paul and Wings have "benefited" from a harder edge, to be provided by more assertive collaborators?  Possibly at times, but this is missing the point.  This was one of the things which made the Beatles so powerful, and was Macca really striving for that anymore?  Wings were not designed to be "the Beatles Mark II".

One of the things which did not promote balanced assessment of Paul's work, in Britain at least, was the overwhelming commercial success of "Mull of Kintyre".  This, in hindsight something of a novelty record, for some time overshadowed their worthy and interesting music of previous years.  Thankfully, this perception receded gradually, and my feeling is that the McCartney/Wings catalogue has been mildly rehabilitated in the eyes of many.

Listen, and enjoy!

F1 Testing

Well, the serious pre-season testing activity has thus been concluded,  and the journey to Melbourne beckons.

Several respected and learned observers are of the opinion that 2012 will be a very closely contested season.  For a change, these bold statements stand up to scrutiny, and have some foundation based in what we have seen and deduced.

Yes, the times are close and the overall running order volatile, but the very top echelon still consists of Red Bull and McLaren, when all is said and done.  Mercedes are very probably next in line, but Ferrari is the subject of too many imponderables for comfort.

Some of the midfield teams, such as Force India, Sauber and Lotus have been very assertive during the recent tests, but they need to back up these flourishes with cold hard consistent form when it really matters. Whilst it is awkward to judge and precisely quantify, the form of these three teams in particular appears slightly more than a mere flash in the pan, but of course we do not know for sure.  Thank goodness that the time for sandbagging and deception will soon be over!

By some measures, Red Bull and McLaren are very close. The birth of the new McLaren creation has been slightly more stable and comfortable than that of their closest rivals, and the Woking-based outfit has given the impression of quiet diligence and focus, without over-ebullience.

The Red Bull has encountered the odd glitch, but is demonstrably swift. The team is by no means invincible or infallible, judging by the tests.  When assessing these things,it is tempting to attach excessive importance and significance to the merest weakness or minor occurrence.

Ferrari have been busying themselves seeking to dampen and manage expectations, and throughout these tests they have exuded a certain irritability and unease, if not anxiety. Could they be swamped by the eager and ambitious midfield pack?  That question remains to be answered.  There is, though, historical precedent for teams seemingly beset by maladies suddenly finding that everything falls into place when the season proper commences. The reverse often happens to those whose preparations have gone swimmingly.

Some of us are frankly glad that the testing is over, and that things from now on can be taken at face value.  Let competition commence!

Battle of Britain (movie)

One of the drawbacks of some war films from the 1950s and 1960s is that they promote an excessively sugar-coated or jingoistic view of the subject matter.  Genuinely insightful and accurate examination of the historical issues can be obscured by the urge to pander to the prejudices of a mass audience.

Just recently I watched Battle of Britain, a 1969 movie telling the tale of the grim struggle between Germany and Britain in 1940.  I had seen this film several times when I was younger, and now, equipped with greater historical knowledge and a more nuanced political appreciation, I was pleasantly surprised at what a relatively sensible and mature account of events it is.




The cast is impressive to say the least, with prominent roles for Laurence Olivier, Michael Caine, Christopher Plummer, Robert Shaw, Trevor Howard, Kenneth More and others.  The sets and effects are lavish, but employed tastefully and sparingly, and scenes which in other films might have been excessively showy or grandiose are thankfully not much in evidence here.

Rather than simply deal with the air battle itself, the film seeks to apply some context, and so matters begin with the impending fall of France, and the atmosphere of despondency, retreat and chaos. This is swiftly followed by images of Britain bracing itself for possible invasion.  There are some imaginative bits of sequencing which appear to contrast British stoicism with German triumphalism and perhaps over-confidence.

One of the things which I admired about this film is that it celebrated the courage and defiance of Britain in facing up to its plight without being overly sentimental or trite. The "stiff upper lip" is much in evidence, but in an agreeably understated manner.  For me the script flirts with the notion that much of this was a case of "putting on a brave face".  This theme is continued with the often fatalistic or sarcastic humour displayed by the RAF pilots, masking their genuine fear.

This movie was justifiably praised for its action sequences, and it is fair to say that they were impressively done.  The impact of these sequences was magnified for me by the quality of the film stock.  Effective camerawork and judicious use of music also contribute in this regard.

As well as the flying excerpts, the parts where British airfields are attacked are also very powerful, and occasionally graphic, as in the scene where Susannah York's character is faced with a line of the bodies of her subordinates, covered in blankets.  A reminder of the human cost, in a type of war which often seemed relatively impersonal.

One of the scenes which I noticed, but which might not have garnered the credit which it deserved, was one at the height of the battle, where RAF and Home Guard personnel appear in the same location. The producers may have seen this as symbolic, and hinting what was at stake if the battle was lost, and invasion became a certainty.

There were signs that some thorough research had been undertaken, with regard to tactics, the disposition of the respective forces, and so on. I found myself cross-referencing nuggets of information in the film with my own knowledge of the events of 1940.

Laurence Olivier delivers what appears to be a fine portrayal of Air Chief Marshal Dowding. Taciturn, matter-of-fact and a realist, not given to hyperbole.  Solid as a rock and level-headed when such qualities had never been more essential.

My one criticism of this movie is the decision to have a Hitler speech scene, and also some scenes featuring Hermann Goering.  These bits were quite superfluous, and my opinion is that they should have confined the dialogue and characterisations to the men and women at the sharp end, as it were.

Interestingly, there is no real attempt at a stirring climax. There is some symbolism, with empty seats at a dinner for German airmen, and moves in France to suspend invasion plans.  The British looked and sounded more philosophical than elated or euphoric.  At the end, Olivier looks out from his headquarters at the English countryside, and this subtle and gentle, but incisive imagery is in keeping with much of this film's tone.

Overall, I thought this was a credible, well-judged and balanced telling of the tale, possibly a definitive "mainstream" cinematic take.

Little Feat

People often ask me who my favourite recording artists are.  I usually answer that my tastes are so varied and diverse that it is difficult to single out one in particular.  However, for many years I have reserved a soft spot for Little Feat, more specifically the era (1971-79) when the late, great Lowell George was at the helm.

Analysing the appeal of Little Feat is tricky, and it is a truism that the most worthwhile works of art defy conventional and straightforward analysis.  Suffice to say that once people listen to vintage Little Feat, they invariably become confirmed fans for life.

I gravitated towards Little Feat through my interest in country-rock and folk-rock of the late 1960s and early 1970s.  Little Feat were loosely affiliated with that "movement", although they never really fell into any easy or convenient categories or pigeon-holes.  When properly checking out their music for the first time, I was immediately impressed and attracted by the humour, the technical prowess of the musicians, and the absence of pretension.

Although the style and emphasis of Little Feat's music evolved throughout the 1970s, one can always detect a certain ambience and spirit, which permeates their work of that period.  One of the things which contributed to their uniqueness was the background of the musicians, having feet in both the Frank Zappa/Captain Beefheart camp and the then thriving roots-rock genre.  It has been opined that the resultant quirkiness was one of the things which deprived them of major commercial success, but then again without this amalgam of personae Little Feat would have been just another band.

In the eyes of the casual listener, it is easy to see Little Feat as a vehicle for the talent and charisma of Lowell George, but I would interject that this is an inaccurate summary.  Yes, Lowell's distinctive guitar playing, singing and songwriting was a central plank, but they were so much more than a one-man show.  The other members, and particularly Bill Payne and Richie Hayward, helped to conjure up the irresistible funkiness and groove which characterised Feat in their pomp. The "subsidiary" members contributed more than is commonly appreciated.

Little Feat's first two albums, the eponymous 1971 debut and 1972's Sailin' Shoes, dripped with blues-rock and country influences, all infused with the trademark off-beat humour and general weirdness. Little Feat contains more than a token nod to the psychedelic and California rock idioms, with more introspection and mellowness than would become customary later in the decade.  One of the most telling aspects of the debut LP is the clarity with which Bill Payne's piano work is captured, more so than on future albums.

Lowell George's taste for zany and unusual lyrical themes is exhibited to the full on "Strawberry Flats" and "Crack In Your Door".  Indeed, with its consistent quality and clear production values, Little Feat has a charm all its own, and tends to be unjustly overlooked when Feat's body of work is evaluated.

Sailin' Shoes reveals Little Feat forging ahead, with occasional glimpses of the musical direction in which they would soon move, especially on the tracks which closed the album.  The songwriting also was more focussed and hard-edged, and the sound overall was richer and diverse. However, this would be the last "hurrah" for the original Feat sound.

Changes were instituted for 1973's Dixie Chicken, with the recruitment of a new bass player, and the addition of a second guitarist (Paul Barrere) and a percussionist.  The groundwork was being laid for the new incarnation of Little Feat, which would take them to the end of the 1970s.

Dixie Chicken saw Little Feat encroaching into newer territory, and nurturing a slinkier, more supple and sensuous sound, owing much to funky New Orleans R&B.  The expanded group line-up was clearly created with this deviation in mind.  Despite the changes, the familiar Little Feat humour and approach were still very conspicuous, and if anything the individual proficiency of the players was given greater prominence within the revised framework.

The new sound emitted enormous self-confidence and tasteful restraint, and the track listing of Dixie Chicken features some of the undoubted high points of the band's career, including the title track, "Two Trains", "Fat Man In The Bathtub" and "Roll Um Easy".  The production is quite lush, but this ideally complements the mood of the songs.

With hindsight, it is clear that on Dixie Chicken Little Feat reached their own apogee.  The subsequent four albums contained many gems, such as "Rock n Roll Doctor", "Long Distance Love", and "All That You Dream".  They continued to be a formidable live act, and indeed if anything Lowell George's songwriting became more mature and incisive, but some of the unity and spark had receded.

The gradual eclipse of Lowell George by his bandmates coloured the course of events, with a more keyboard, jazz rock-orientated dynamic taking hold.  Well-crafted, but somehow missing that essential Feat je ne sais quoi.

With Lowell George's death in 1979, an era ended.  However, we are left with the legacy, the music of one of the period's most talented, but hard to define, groups.