Led Zeppelin 7 X 7

Hi,

Led Zep, as far as I can tell, pretty much made their fame via bootlegs ... they ended up famous for their energy and explosions in concert that had folks going ... wow ... and everyone ended up wanting to see it.

Of all the bootlegs at the time, only the Grateful Dead and Bob Dylan were as important .. GD, became famous for it, because you could record your own from the main board and Bob a more independent person in the albums, most of which have been dismissed since and released with changes. Bob was known to change his lyrics every night, and of course ... the idea and thoughts about the song, became very different ... I guess you could say ... a true poet! I think he became disenchanted for a long time because the record company and the fans got upset when he did this. Nowadays, he doesn't have to change the words much anymore, he simply sings it differently. Led Zeppelin, as a far out thing is mostly shown in one very easy moment, that Jimmy has never really shown, and changed for "How The West Was Won" which was his attempt at burying as many bootlegs as he could, by even making changes to the material ... since now he could take out "mistakes" ... and whatever other excuses, but the matter of the fact is ... that the album did not have one third the energy of various bootlegs, and there are some very special ones.

The opening of one bootleg is quintessential Led Zep, and I like to think that it is what made them famous ... the band enters the stage quietly, look at each other, Robert faces the audience, and only says "Nice to be back!" and it explodes from that moment on and doesn't let up for 4 sides of LP's, or at least what might  make 2 hours. Most bands had to slow down, and go slow to keep up ... but Led Zep was not about to do what everyone else did! And I'm pretty sure they knew and understood that. Besides, the fact that what they did was more "personal" than it was anything else ... and they had the material and wit to bring it alive!

Nowadays, most folks only redo some of their stuff ... because they lack the individuality and talent to do something original, and different. What most folks don't like of Led Zep is the fact that "The Song" did not remain the same ... and they continued as they could ... until one member passed away, and killed the story ... I think the other 3 member did not feel right or complete, without Bonzo ... and it takes guts to do that and stay with it despite a record company that was upset, but could not argue with the logic.

Hi,

(Mind you I am not an expert on this bootleg thing!!! But I know what I bought at the time, and where ... I got Blueberry Hill in LA and I'm not sure exactly where. Sadly I let the album go around 1980 and it is one album I wish I had not let go!)

I kinda beg to differ, per my time in Southern California, where their bootlegs, probably took off ... and if we believe Wiki, it might have started in 1968, although I think that the first bootleg that I got (Live on Blueberry Hill) was a recording from 1970 ... and its energy is quite clear.

Later, specially with the series around Bonzo in LA, their bootleg sales jumped incredibly, however, that does not explain the English press mentioning the incredible number of bootlegs, that LZ had by August 1969 ... and most were English artists, though there is little mention of GD or BD.

In LA, in 1970, Led Zeppelin was not a "secret" and they were well known and the bootlegs featured LZ1 and LZ2 which came in 1968 and 1969, which might suggest that the bootlegs listings in Wiki is not exactly complete, but that is not a surprise. The surprise is seeing a listing for a show at the Fillmore ... and the knowledge that the Graham family probably owns more recordings that they can not release or make available to anyone, by many bands.

That they became well versed in the business, was mostly a fact of the matter that they were selling like crazy, and the band was touring a lot ... but in the end, it was Peter Grant that helped make a lot of choices to ensure that LZ was able to maintain, and eventually clean up a lot of money like water. I have had the thought that PG thought that with so many bootlegs out, a live album would not do as well, specially if someone compared the energy levels ... and choosing a show to do a live album was probably going to be a problem, as the band was turning into new material ... but it might have been the fact that they were doing well enough that there was no need for more.

The fact was, that the bootlegs were showing an energy in concert that was far out, and even in Santa Barbara when they played (I think it was '73 or '75 Earl Warren Showgrounds) the show was sold out within some 15 minutes to give you an idea how much folks wanted to see them. And the record company did not think a live album was necessary at all, as far as I know. By today's standards I bet that a live album would have been shown before LZ3 ... but that is not an important fact or idea.

BTW ... the sound quality was never a problem for me, even for Pink Floyd bootlegs that started in 1972 with their Quadraphonic" sound shows. The energy in the playing and concert itself flies through just fine, and it scares me that folks think because the recording is not perfect, or right, that folks can't feel the energy flowing through. These bootlegs would not have been valuable, or important, without something in them that we all can relate to, despite the record company's this and that.

Based on Jimmy, much later, going through several bootlegs, and fixing them to create "How The West Was Won", I have a feeling that LZ had decided to not do a live album because Jimmy might have thought that there were "too many mistakes" ... in order to put together a good live album ... but it didn't matter what Jimmy thought ... the bootlegs showed something else ... in concert that most bands did not have at all!