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!