Greta Van Fleet (formerly 'some kids that sound like Led Zeppelin') (1 Viewer)

There's a difference. These kids sound EXACTLY like LZ. You're talking about Zeppelin adopting (or appropriating, as the modern SJW loves to say) bluesy concepts and integrating it with rock and roll/hard rock.

So, since there may be people talking about how LZ sounds exactly like Delta Blues legends, why don't you and SuperChuck (who thought your post was great) provide some sources. I'd love to hear the "delta blues legends" who LZ sounds exactly like. You're not going to provide it, because it doesn't exist.

Some of that "adopting" was taking old blues riffs and lyrics whole cloth and incorporating them into larger compositions. It wasn't limited to the level of "concepts." And it wasn't done commonly accepted form of covers, but of literally stealing the music and failing to give credit.

The fact that they stole others' work - or "interpreted" it, as it were - really doesn't make me like them any less. That was my point: they were actually a gateway to many new types of music for me. It's kind of what makes rock music special anyway.

I love LZ and do consider them to be the finest rock band that has thus far existed, but you must acknowledge that the versatility and identity you attribute to the band now did not exist when they were 20 years old.

Even performing a truly credible Zep impersonation is worthwhile to me because it's so difficult. Of the many that try, the vast majority fail. I don't think Chuck's point was that this band is comparable in quality to Zeppelin or will ever be.

People get very touchy about LZ comparisons and I find it kinda funny.
 
I don't know why you quoted me. I am just saying, they do have a LZ ring to them, and I don't think they are talented. There's nothing special about the music or the playing. To me, talent is something special, not a HS garage band.

And I'm telling you that if you don't think that singer is talented then you really have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm sure you liked them before they were cool.
 
Some of that "adopting" was taking old blues riffs and lyrics whole cloth and incorporating them into larger compositions. It wasn't limited to the level of "concepts." And it wasn't done commonly accepted form of covers, but of literally stealing the music and failing to give credit.

The fact that they stole others' work - or "interpreted" it, as it were - really doesn't make me like them any less. That was my point: they were actually a gateway to many new types of music for me. It's kind of what makes rock music special anyway.

I love LZ and do consider them to be the finest rock band that has thus far existed, but you must acknowledge that the versatility and identity you attribute to the band now did not exist when they were 20 years old.

Even performing a truly credible Zep impersonation is worthwhile to me because it's so difficult. Of the many that try, the vast majority fail. I don't think Chuck's point was that this band is comparable in quality to Zeppelin or will ever be.

People get very touchy about LZ comparisons and I find it kinda funny.



When Zeppelin recorded Led Zeppelin 1, page and Jones were 22 and Plant and Bonham were 19, which makes them younger than these guys. So, the argument that Zeppelin was just like these kids isn't entirely correct.

While yes Zeppelin did steal large chunks from blues artists (as did the Beatles and the Stones. It was a common practice in the late 60s, early 70s) it wasn't simply attempting to copy somebody the best you can. The lead singer is copying the style, moves, singing mannerisms of Plant. I guess my issue is if he is talented, then simply show yourself, because until he makes it his own, he is not going to get to the next step. But then again it worked for David Coverdale for years so who knows maybe I'm wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
When Zeppelin recorded Led Zeppelin 1, page and Jones were 22 and Plant and Bonham were 19, which makes them younger than these guys. So, the argument that Zeppelin was just like these kids isn't entirely correct.

While yes Zeppelin did steal large chunks from blues artists (as did the Beatles and the Stones. It was a common practice in the late 60s, early 70s) it wasn't simply attempting to copy somebody the best you can. The lead singer is copying the style, moves, singing mannerisms of Plant. I guess my issue is if he is talented, then simply show yourself, because until he makes it his own, he is not going to get to the next step. But then again it worked for David Coverdale for years so who knows maybe I'm wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

These guys are 20 and 17. The drummer is still in high school.

I think there is certainly room almost 50 years later for an act that conjures Led Zeppelin. I don't necessarily think they have to invent something new - what will cast the die will be the quality of their songs. If they can continue to make appealing original music, it can work. If the songs just aren't there, it won't.
 
Some of that "adopting" was taking old blues riffs and lyrics whole cloth and incorporating them into larger compositions. It wasn't limited to the level of "concepts." And it wasn't done commonly accepted form of covers, but of literally stealing the music and failing to give credit.

The fact that they stole others' work - or "interpreted" it, as it were - really doesn't make me like them any less. That was my point: they were actually a gateway to many new types of music for me. It's kind of what makes rock music special anyway.

I love LZ and do consider them to be the finest rock band that has thus far existed, but you must acknowledge that the versatility and identity you attribute to the band now did not exist when they were 20 years old.

Even performing a truly credible Zep impersonation is worthwhile to me because it's so difficult. Of the many that try, the vast majority fail. I don't think Chuck's point was that this band is comparable in quality to Zeppelin or will ever be.

People get very touchy about LZ comparisons and I find it kinda funny.

I don't get touchy about LZ comparisons, I get touchy with the word "appropriate" because it has a very negative connotation. It's basically another word for "stole", and it's only used in reference to Caucasians.

Humans have been influenced by the work of others (art, music, technology, language) for thousands of years. That's why in the past 150 years we've went from horse drawn carriages to space travel, black and white photos to
4k high def, etc. But GOD FORBID a white artist be influenced by jazz or blues, or a white person sell tacos.

So yeah, the argument that bands like Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Beatles, etc "stole" or "appropriated" a damn thing from anyone is laughable.

This band is basically a LZ cover band imo.
 
I don't get touchy about LZ comparisons, I get touchy with the word "appropriate" because it has a very negative connotation. It's basically another word for "stole", and it's only used in reference to Caucasians.

Humans have been influenced by the work of others (art, music, technology, language) for thousands of years. That's why in the past 150 years we've went from horse drawn carriages to space travel, black and white photos to
4k high def, etc. But GOD FORBID a white artist be influenced by jazz or blues, or a white person sell tacos.

So yeah, the argument that bands like Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Beatles, etc "stole" or "appropriated" a damn thing from anyone is laughable.

This band is basically a LZ cover band imo.


I'm with you on appropriation.

But I think you're under-appreciating how difficult it is to actually pull off sounding just like Led Zeppelin, especially with the band's own songs. It should go without saying but just for the record, you can't be a cover band doing your own original songs.

To illustrate, the band Train did a full recreation of Led Zeppelin II last year. I was intrigued, and actually quite impressed. https://open.spotify.com/album/5V8EDmYhUJLNkq7g74NtIL
But I listened to it all of maybe three or four times . . . because I know those songs and I'd rather hear Led Zeppelin do them.

I have already listened to Greta Van Fleet's EP at least 10 times because I enjoy it. Apparently many other people enjoy it too because Highway Tune is number 1 on the Billboard rock chart: Greta Van Fleet's 'Highway Tune' Hits No. 1 on Mainstream Rock Songs Chart | Billboard

The fact that these aren't Led Zeppelin songs - that they are new creations by this young, energetic band- makes it entirely different than any cover band. Similarly, you seem to be suggesting that it's easy. That they sound like any high school band.

If it's so easy and commonplace, how is it that they have a number 1 single? Again, I'm not arguing that they're great or that this is innovative. But it is fun and it is not commonplace for a band to be able to sound like that, especially the vocals.

As to the discussion about what maturation they might need to "make it", there's a time for that - but I really don't care. I'm not their uncle or something. For now, it's fun and I look forward to seeing what else they come up with.
 
I'm with you on appropriation.

But I think you're under-appreciating how difficult it is to actually pull off sounding just like Led Zeppelin, especially with the band's own songs. It should go without saying but just for the record, you can't be a cover band doing your own original songs.

To illustrate, the band Train did a full recreation of Led Zeppelin II last year. I was intrigued, and actually quite impressed. https://open.spotify.com/album/5V8EDmYhUJLNkq7g74NtIL
But I listened to it all of maybe three or four times . . . because I know those songs and I'd rather hear Led Zeppelin do them.

I have already listened to Greta Van Fleet's EP at least 10 times because I enjoy it. Apparently many other people enjoy it too because Highway Tune is number 1 on the Billboard rock chart: Greta Van Fleet's 'Highway Tune' Hits No. 1 on Mainstream Rock Songs Chart | Billboard

The fact that these aren't Led Zeppelin songs - that they are new creations by this young, energetic band- makes it entirely different than any cover band. Similarly, you seem to be suggesting that it's easy. That they sound like any high school band.

If it's so easy and commonplace, how is it that they have a number 1 single? Again, I'm not arguing that they're great or that this is innovative. But it is fun and it is not commonplace for a band to be able to sound like that, especially the vocals.

As to the discussion about what maturation they might need to "make it", there's a time for that - but I really don't care. I'm not their uncle or something. For now, it's fun and I look forward to seeing what else they come up with.

Maybe you're right. I only listened to a minute or so of the song you initially linked. They may be talented but it seems like they're trying to emulate LZ as opposed to being influenced, which I think is an important distinction. BUT, like I said I only listened to one minute of one song, so it's not fair for me to judge.
 
Finally.. Some good music coming out with the younger generation... I hope others follow..

The bubble gum crap out today on mainstream radio really sucks...
 
Great post.

I think there is also some misconception that finding a band's music enjoyable or saying "hey check these guys out" is the same as saying they're great and should be adjudged to have true artistic merit. Saying a band sounds like Led Zeppelin should not be interpreted as saying the band is the next Led Zeppelin. I used to be much more critical about music than I am now - I'm entirely comfortable with the question of "do I enjoy listening to this?", and that's it. If you want to put on your music critic hat and try to defend the work on its merits, there's a time and place for that - but it isn't all the time.

But you're right that it is very rare for a rock act these days to not be derivative of some other great act - so much has been done and influences are often inescapable. The bands that get credit for innovation, these days, are doing it by taking elements of music that isn't actually true rock. So they become hybrids or even something altogether different. Artistic merit and inspired novelty aside, much of that music ceases to be rock. Some people don't like that - I'm fine with it, I enjoy many of those artists. But it's also cool and even refreshing when a band pulls off a classic rock sound in a youthful and energetic way.

You can play the "sounds like" game all day if you really want, especially when it comes to young artists. Indy darlings Car Seat Headrest sounds an awful lot like Pavement.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EX00R_-Eh0I" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


The Allah-Las sound an awful lot like The Velvet Underground. Hell, REM thought they were ripping off the Velvet Underground when they got started.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Lqn_GldOv4U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



Geez. I like Pavement, too, but it's like Pavement is the only band they have ever heard. I really dislike when bands are obviously copying one band or artist. Cut your hair, indeed.

Same with the band in the OP. They are trying REALLY hard to sound like LA as if that's the only music that they have heard.
 
Greta Van Fleet is playing One Eyed Jacks on Thursday Oct. 12.
 
IMG_6774.png


:0056:
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom