That's a good way to put it. They weren't the most original band but they took pieces from other artists and completely blew the original away, so they still deserve credit for that. There were far more original and innovative bands like The Velvet Underground and Hendrix and Pink Floyd but zepp were up there with the best of them when it came to crafting a song, even though that song wasn't very original most of the time.

I've never really been a fan of Plant but once I heard that he called Sabbath "irrelevant", I really lost all respect for him. Page, Bonham and Jones were really great musicians, though. Page was a master.

All this being said and I'm still not a huge fan and don't listen to them much, but I cant really deny the greatness even if I think they're a little overrated.

I actually have a friend who is a lot older than me and a rock fanatic as well, he grew up in the early 1970s and constantly goes on about the impact that all types of bands had on the music scene at that time, he constantly says the impact that Led Zeppelin had was unbelievable and basically they blew the competition out of the water (he basically lived the moment as it happened) The combination of the songs and live performances are what did it.

Over the years I must have listened to what seems like hundreds of heavy albums from the 1970s and Led Zeppelin were probably the best all round band out of a very very good bunch (Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Blue Oyster Cult, UFO, Nazareth, Thin Lizzy, Scorpions, Budgie, Humble Pie, Free, Grand Funk Railroad, Trapeze, Uriah Heep and Stray to name just some)

....and who cares if Led Zeppelin ripped off some other bands and artists, as you say a lot of the people they ripped off were nowhere near as good as Led Zeppelin anyway.

I never said spawned; I said lent.

You're pretty right. I feel like they're somewhat overrated and I may prefer sabbath over them (and there are plenty other non-heavy bands that i like more than zepp), but I have to admit that they were pretty great, even though I don't like to admit it. They were really great.

Sounds like he has bunch of cool stories tell, any about M&Ms or a Bengal tiger? j/k :)

I haven't really don't know much of those bands. Maybe I shouldn't bring them up ( it might seem like a apples and oranges comparison - I guess it's all how it categorised into sub-genres like Hard Rock, Blues Rock, or jam bands) but my favourite bands from the 60's/70's period are Rolling Stones, the Allman Brothers Band, and Traffic, as far as musicianship and creativity I think they were just as strong as Led Zeppelin.

Led Zeppelin where great when they played fast and hard but when it comes to jamming (at a slow tempo) Jimmy was at times just meh... when I watch The Song Remains the Same there are parts where I have to take a nap. That is one thing about Tony Iommi his playing seems more natural and fluid but I still give props to Jimmy for pushing the envelope and trying to execute his ideas beyond his playing capability.

Still it isn't right, even if Led Zeppelin were better.

Obviously they were good enough to get ripped off... ?

Whom are you referring to? 1.) the artist that Led Zeppelin took songs from or 2.) or Led Zeppelin when they got ripped off two hundred something thousand dollar that was kept in some NYC hotel safety posit box?

I imagine number 1.

OK now I get it.

I think The Allman Brothers were definitely more technical than Zeppelin. Zeppelin played faster and harder so that could easily fool some people into thinking they were more technical than the Allmans. They Allmans wrote deeper, more complex songs; Zeppelin wrote simpler, more poppy songs. John Bohnam is great but the Allmans rhythm section was better, and they don't get near as much credit. Duane and Dickey Betts used Jazz techniques quite a bit in their guitar playing as well.

Just found this article, it's probably not true but still funny. I wish Duane would have kicked that douche bags ass

http://entertainment.oneindia.in/mus...ne-140409.html