Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 20030
Posted: May 28 2011 at 14:14
giselle wrote:
chopper wrote:
giselle wrote:
not many Led Zep songs are even songs.
What does that mean?
Led Zeppelin were not bona fide songwriters; their forte was creating riff structures with lyrics thrown on top. They did at times manage to write some songs, albeit rather rudimentary and uninspirational - Stairway to Heaven is a song for instance, the atmosphere comes from the playing and arrangement, not the written piece. That's not to say that what they did wasn't valid, I like a lot of it, Kashmir is one of my favourite Rock tracks, wonderful riffs and clever chord arrangements - but it isn't a song.
I agree a lot of Zep numbere were based on riffs but I don't get why Stairway is a "song" and Kashmir isn't.
Joined: March 18 2011
Location: Hertford
Status: Offline
Points: 466
Posted: May 30 2011 at 03:41
chopper wrote:
giselle wrote:
chopper wrote:
giselle wrote:
not many Led Zep songs are even songs.
What does that mean?
Led Zeppelin were not bona fide songwriters; their forte was creating riff structures with lyrics thrown on top. They did at times manage to write some songs, albeit rather rudimentary and uninspirational - Stairway to Heaven is a song for instance, the atmosphere comes from the playing and arrangement, not the written piece. That's not to say that what they did wasn't valid, I like a lot of it, Kashmir is one of my favourite Rock tracks, wonderful riffs and clever chord arrangements - but it isn't a song.
I agree a lot of Zep numbere were based on riffs but I don't get why Stairway is a "song" and Kashmir isn't.
Stairway's structure is based on melody and lyrics in a song form, it could exist outside the band performance. Kashmir is based on riffs and arrangement, it couldn't exist credibly without that structure around it. I have to stress again though that Kashmir is a marvellous piece of work (IMO).
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: May 30 2011 at 06:20
giselle wrote:
chopper wrote:
giselle wrote:
chopper wrote:
giselle wrote:
not many Led Zep songs are even songs.
What does that mean?
Led Zeppelin were not bona fide songwriters; their forte was creating riff structures with lyrics thrown on top. They did at times manage to write some songs, albeit rather rudimentary and uninspirational - Stairway to Heaven is a song for instance, the atmosphere comes from the playing and arrangement, not the written piece. That's not to say that what they did wasn't valid, I like a lot of it, Kashmir is one of my favourite Rock tracks, wonderful riffs and clever chord arrangements - but it isn't a song.
I agree a lot of Zep numbere were based on riffs but I don't get why Stairway is a "song" and Kashmir isn't.
Stairway's structure is based on melody and lyrics in a song form, it could exist outside the band performance. Kashmir is based on riffs and arrangement, it couldn't exist credibly without that structure around it. I have to stress again though that Kashmir is a marvellous piece of work (IMO).
I'm confused - when does a riff-based "song" stop being a song? Is (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction not a song? If a riff forms a melodic structure then it is a melody, if the lyric is sung over a rhythmic refrain then that forms a melody. If you are saying that a "song" must have a strophic form of verse/chorus/bridge (eg verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus or similar) - then I question that, songs can have no repeating structure and still be songs, Happiness Is A Warm Gun for example, or any opera piece.
Joined: March 18 2011
Location: Hertford
Status: Offline
Points: 466
Posted: May 30 2011 at 07:11
There is a difference between ‘riff-based’ and a song with a riff. “I Can’t Get No” is a song. “Whole Lotta Love” isn’t. A song isn’t so much about verse-chorus etc, it can be whatever it is, the stricture is to do with tradition and writing form, much the same as in the best formal poetry. That’s not to say that rules can’t be broken, or more accurately, challenged. As Rick Wakeman said so accurately, you have to know what to do so you can avoid doing it that way. Indeed, that’s almost obligatory if inspiration is to play a part. But a lyric sung over a riff in a melody that works for that line alone (or for individual lines at a time) does not constitute a song.
There’s nothing wrong with a riff or musical composition that isn’t a song. If it works, it works, but it’s a different approach, more akin to arrangement. Songs are more to do with creative writing skills than the music for its own sake. Composers often show a bias towards melody and arrangement at the expense of lyrics and song structure. Translate a few operas and you’ll see what I mean! The foreign language often hides a lot of sins.
Sometimes the song is dictated by the structure already placed there by the lyric writer. Elton John didn't write those fine early songs, Bernie Taupin did, they were his songs in essence and substance. Elton did a marvellous job of drawing the music out of the words and structure, working like a sculptor who says that he can already see the figure in the stone before he begins. It's a particular kind of talent, but it isn't song-writing, it's being a tunesmith, secondary to the writer.
Joined: March 08 2008
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 3595
Posted: May 30 2011 at 10:25
giselle wrote:
There is a difference between ‘riff-based’ and a song with a riff. “I Can’t Get No” is a song. “Whole Lotta Love” isn’t. A song isn’t so much about verse-chorus etc, it can be whatever it is, the stricture is to do with tradition and writing form, much the same as in the best formal poetry. That’s not to say that rules can’t be broken, or more accurately, challenged. As Rick Wakeman said so accurately, you have to know what to do so you can avoid doing it that way. Indeed, that’s almost obligatory if inspiration is to play a part. But a lyric sung over a riff in a melody that works for that line alone (or for individual lines at a time) does not constitute a song.
There’s nothing wrong with a riff or musical composition that isn’t a song. If it works, it works, but it’s a different approach, more akin to arrangement. Songs are more to do with creative writing skills than the music for its own sake. Composers often show a bias towards melody and arrangement at the expense of lyrics and song structure. Translate a few operas and you’ll see what I mean! The foreign language often hides a lot of sins.
Sometimes the song is dictated by the structure already placed there by the lyric writer. Elton John didn't write those fine early songs, Bernie Taupin did, they were his songs in essence and substance. Elton did a marvellous job of drawing the music out of the words and structure, working like a sculptor who says that he can already see the figure in the stone before he begins. It's a particular kind of talent, but it isn't song-writing, it's being a tunesmith, secondary to the writer.
In my brain, I don't agree with a goddamn thing you just said.
Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 13063
Posted: May 30 2011 at 17:26
giselle wrote:
There is a difference between ‘riff-based’ and a song with a riff. “I Can’t Get No” is a song. “Whole Lotta Love” isn’t. A song isn’t so much about verse-chorus etc, it can be whatever it is, the stricture is to do with tradition and writing form, much the same as in the best formal poetry. That’s not to say that rules can’t be broken, or more accurately, challenged. As Rick Wakeman said so accurately, you have to know what to do so you can avoid doing it that way. Indeed, that’s almost obligatory if inspiration is to play a part. But a lyric sung over a riff in a melody that works for that line alone (or for individual lines at a time) does not constitute a song.
There’s nothing wrong with a riff or musical composition that isn’t a song. If it works, it works, but it’s a different approach, more akin to arrangement. Songs are more to do with creative writing skills than the music for its own sake. Composers often show a bias towards melody and arrangement at the expense of lyrics and song structure. Translate a few operas and you’ll see what I mean! The foreign language often hides a lot of sins.
Sometimes the song is dictated by the structure already placed there by the lyric writer. Elton John didn't write those fine early songs, Bernie Taupin did, they were his songs in essence and substance. Elton did a marvellous job of drawing the music out of the words and structure, working like a sculptor who says that he can already see the figure in the stone before he begins. It's a particular kind of talent, but it isn't song-writing, it's being a tunesmith, secondary to the writer.
Your attempt to disassociate what you term "riff-based compositions" from "songs" is unorthodox, to say the least. Considering that many of the songs that Zeppelin played were in the blues form ("Whole Lotta Love" included, derived from a song written by Willie Dixon), it is usual that the riff comes first, and then the lyrics follow in a standard blues format. Are you saying that the blues genre does not contain songs?
Conversely, you sound contradictory by relegating Elton John to a mere "tunesmith". I suppose you could say the same for Ira and George Gershwin, Rodgers and Hammerstein, Burt Bacharach and Hal David, or Carole King and Gerry Goffin.
Your logic leaves something to be desired.
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Joined: March 08 2008
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 3595
Posted: May 30 2011 at 17:32
Doesn't it depend on your definition of a song? According to this, any musical composition is a song, Led Zeppelin or otherwise. Although I don't think the person is saying non-songs are inferior to songs.
Noun:
songs, plural
A short poem or other set of words set to music or meant to be sung
Singing or vocal music
- the young airmen broke into song
A musical composition suggestive of a song
The musical phrases uttered by some birds, whales, and insects, typically forming a recognizable and repeated sequence and used chiefly for territorial defense or for attracting mates
Joined: March 18 2011
Location: Hertford
Status: Offline
Points: 466
Posted: May 30 2011 at 17:43
The Dark Elf wrote:
giselle wrote:
There is a difference between ‘riff-based’ and a song with a riff. “I Can’t Get No” is a song. “Whole Lotta Love” isn’t. A song isn’t so much about verse-chorus etc, it can be whatever it is, the stricture is to do with tradition and writing form, much the same as in the best formal poetry. That’s not to say that rules can’t be broken, or more accurately, challenged. As Rick Wakeman said so accurately, you have to know what to do so you can avoid doing it that way. Indeed, that’s almost obligatory if inspiration is to play a part. But a lyric sung over a riff in a melody that works for that line alone (or for individual lines at a time) does not constitute a song.
There’s nothing wrong with a riff or musical composition that isn’t a song. If it works, it works, but it’s a different approach, more akin to arrangement. Songs are more to do with creative writing skills than the music for its own sake. Composers often show a bias towards melody and arrangement at the expense of lyrics and song structure. Translate a few operas and you’ll see what I mean! The foreign language often hides a lot of sins.
Sometimes the song is dictated by the structure already placed there by the lyric writer. Elton John didn't write those fine early songs, Bernie Taupin did, they were his songs in essence and substance. Elton did a marvellous job of drawing the music out of the words and structure, working like a sculptor who says that he can already see the figure in the stone before he begins. It's a particular kind of talent, but it isn't song-writing, it's being a tunesmith, secondary to the writer.
Your attempt to disassociate what you term "riff-based compositions" from "songs" is unorthodox, to say the least. Considering that many of the songs that Zeppelin played were in the blues form ("Whole Lotta Love" included, derived from a song written by Willie Dixon), it is usual that the riff comes first, and then the lyrics follow in a standard blues format. Are you saying that the blues genre does not contain songs?
Conversely, you sound contradictory by relegating Elton John to a mere "tunesmith". I suppose you could say the same for Ira and George Gershwin, Rodgers and Hammerstein, Burt Bacharach and Hal David, or Carole King and Gerry Goffin.
Your logic leaves something to be desired.
No, it's your logic that doesn't work, you're not applying it properly, and in saying that disassociating riff structures from songs is unorthodox, you are demonstrating that you can't see the wood for the trees. Of course there are blues songs, but the ones you mention aren't them. It's usual that the riff comes first and last in those.
There's nothing contradictory about Elton John being able to derive melodies from a song already written, it's obviously a completely different gift from being a song-writer, and it's not detrimental to the 'tunesmith' either - that's his/her talent. And yes, the same applies to such partnerships, however marvellously they work.
Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 13063
Posted: May 30 2011 at 18:03
giselle wrote:
The Dark Elf wrote:
giselle wrote:
There is a difference between ‘riff-based’ and a song with a riff. “I Can’t Get No” is a song. “Whole Lotta Love” isn’t. A song isn’t so much about verse-chorus etc, it can be whatever it is, the stricture is to do with tradition and writing form, much the same as in the best formal poetry. That’s not to say that rules can’t be broken, or more accurately, challenged. As Rick Wakeman said so accurately, you have to know what to do so you can avoid doing it that way. Indeed, that’s almost obligatory if inspiration is to play a part. But a lyric sung over a riff in a melody that works for that line alone (or for individual lines at a time) does not constitute a song.
There’s nothing wrong with a riff or musical composition that isn’t a song. If it works, it works, but it’s a different approach, more akin to arrangement. Songs are more to do with creative writing skills than the music for its own sake. Composers often show a bias towards melody and arrangement at the expense of lyrics and song structure. Translate a few operas and you’ll see what I mean! The foreign language often hides a lot of sins.
Sometimes the song is dictated by the structure already placed there by the lyric writer. Elton John didn't write those fine early songs, Bernie Taupin did, they were his songs in essence and substance. Elton did a marvellous job of drawing the music out of the words and structure, working like a sculptor who says that he can already see the figure in the stone before he begins. It's a particular kind of talent, but it isn't song-writing, it's being a tunesmith, secondary to the writer.
Your attempt to disassociate what you term "riff-based compositions" from "songs" is unorthodox, to say the least. Considering that many of the songs that Zeppelin played were in the blues form ("Whole Lotta Love" included, derived from a song written by Willie Dixon), it is usual that the riff comes first, and then the lyrics follow in a standard blues format. Are you saying that the blues genre does not contain songs?
Conversely, you sound contradictory by relegating Elton John to a mere "tunesmith". I suppose you could say the same for Ira and George Gershwin, Rodgers and Hammerstein, Burt Bacharach and Hal David, or Carole King and Gerry Goffin.
Your logic leaves something to be desired.
No, it's your logic that doesn't work, you're not applying it properly, and in saying that disassociating riff structures from songs is unorthodox, you are demonstrating that you can't see the wood for the trees. Of course there are blues songs, but the ones you mention aren't them. It's usual that the riff comes first and last in those.
There's nothing contradictory about Elton John being able to derive melodies from a song already written, it's obviously a completely different gift from being a song-writer, and it's not detrimental to the 'tunesmith' either - that's his/her talent. And yes, the same applies to such partnerships, however marvellously they work.
I'm sorry, but you made a blanket statement:
Led Zeppelin were not bona fide songwriters; their forte was creating riff structures with lyrics thrown on top.
That simply isn't true, particulary when you added the opinionated and utterly biased:
They did at times manage to write some songs, albeit rather rudimentary and uninspirational
Please explain to me how a song like "Thank You", "The Battle of Evermore", "No Quarter", "Over the Hills and Far Away", "In the Light", and so many other songs -- which are not "riff-based compositions" -- are "rudimentary and uninspirational"? That's an opinion, not a fact, and certainly an opinion I don't share.
As far as "whole Lotta Love", I've played blues for decades, and I hear a blues tune with some extraneous psychedelia thrown in the middle. I don't know what you're listening to.
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Joined: March 18 2011
Location: Hertford
Status: Offline
Points: 466
Posted: May 30 2011 at 19:55
The Dark Elf wrote:
giselle wrote:
The Dark Elf wrote:
giselle wrote:
I'm sorry, but you made a blanket statement:
Unless I could discuss every song every recorded, I don’t see what other kind of statement I could make.
[quote]Led Zeppelin were not bona fide songwriters; their forte was creating riff structures with lyrics thrown on top.
That simply isn't true, particulary when you added the opinionated and utterly biased:
[quote]They did at times manage to write some songs, albeit rather rudimentary and uninspirational
It simply isn’t true in your terms, but true in mine.
Please explain to me how a song like "Thank You", "The Battle of Evermore", "No Quarter", "Over the Hills and Far Away", "In the Light", and so many other songs -- which are not "riff-based compositions" -- are "rudimentary and uninspirational"? That's an opinion, not a fact, and certainly an opinion I don't share.
It’s fine that you don’t share that opinion, that’s your prerogative, but your opinion isn’t a fact either, it’s merely your opinion as mine is mine.
As far as "whole Lotta Love", I've played blues for decades, and I hear a blues tune with some extraneous psychedelia thrown in the middle. I don't know what you're listening to.
Playing blues for decades makes no difference whatsoever to what you hear or don’t hear, it’s simply what you think you hear which is entirely different to what I hear. That would mean neither of us would know what the other is listening to.Each is entitled to their opinion, however wrong we consider the other person to be.
Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 13063
Posted: May 30 2011 at 21:13
giselle wrote:
Playing blues for decades makes no difference whatsoever to what you hear or don’t hear, it’s simply what you think you hear which is entirely different to what I hear. That would mean neither of us would know what the other is listening to.Each is entitled to their opinion, however wrong we consider the other person to be.
Hogwash. It does make a difference, because you don't know what you're talking about. Here's a version of the same song by Joe Louis Walker and James Cotton (the great blues harpist from Muddy Water's band). Please notice the recurring riff throughout the entire song, just like in the Zeppelin adaptation. The only difference is this one's done in the traditional style, rather than with heavy electrics:
I can rattle off another hundred blues songs with the same recurring motif, without a turnaround. In fact, here's one of the greatest, Muddy Water's "Mannish Boy", which is even simpler than the Zeppelin riff:
Edited by The Dark Elf - May 30 2011 at 21:14
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Joined: March 18 2011
Location: Hertford
Status: Offline
Points: 466
Posted: May 31 2011 at 01:36
The Dark Elf wrote:
giselle wrote:
Playing blues for decades makes no difference whatsoever to what you hear or don’t hear, it’s simply what you think you hear which is entirely different to what I hear. That would mean neither of us would know what the other is listening to.Each is entitled to their opinion, however wrong we consider the other person to be.
Hogwash. It does make a difference, because you don't know what you're talking about. Here's a version of the same song by Joe Louis Walker and James Cotton (the great blues harpist from Muddy Water's band). Please notice the recurring riff throughout the entire song, just like in the Zeppelin adaptation. The only difference is this one's done in the traditional style, rather than with heavy electrics:
I can rattle off another hundred blues songs with the same recurring motif, without a turnaround. In fact, here's one of the greatest, Muddy Water's "Mannish Boy", which is even simpler than the Zeppelin riff:
Ah, now we are getting to the real issue - your opinion is the only one that counts. Now that really is hogwash.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.152 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Worst Led Zeppelin Song
Topic Options
Vibrationbaby wrote:
