DaveJonGilmour

And now, excluding from the conversation those who bring up Kansas and use gratuitous vulgarities, allow me to say that discrediting groups of undeniable value simply because they have sold more than others or filled arenas or somehow overshadowed smaller but equally valid groups has never been a trend, but merely a display of egocentrism and arrogance, which has never been expressed through a detailed description of the contested elements, not even with a coherent comparison, but with the classic attempt to impose one’s personal tastes, sometimes blatant, sometimes less so, and this is where one must be careful! Tessio 82 talks about achievements already made by others, about abuses that distort the essence: but are we talking about Led Zeppelin or U2? Who has ever done in the realm of rock (and when I say rock, I mean all rock, starting from before Bob Dylan) the same things as Led Zeppelin? Who has managed to so masterfully blend noble genres, giving them that innovative hard touch? And why would the essence of the blues be distorted? Are you perhaps the messiah of hard rock? No, you are not the messiah; you are someone who has read the wrong books, or perhaps the right ones but misunderstood them, or someone who has a grudge against Led Zeppelin because you are a die-hard fan of some 80/90 band, and in order to diminish them, you try to cling to the mirrors invoking the blues of origin. That’s what you are, someone who thinks they are fashionable, nothing more, and like all trends, you make me SADDENED.

I deduce, Tessio, that your mother is what she is, your father is Scaruffi, and you are an incoherent fundamentalist, since you cherish the blues of the origins and then say you like all rock. The old bluesmen would have remained unforgettable and I don’t know what twists rock might have taken, at least that of the late '60s and early '70s. What you call abuses that distorted the essence (something you haven’t learned from any book but have entirely made up) were instead very useful complementary elements that, in their own way, expanded that essence, with various sounds, some traceable to the origins and others more commercial, yes, but not therefore criticizable, because they were not ends in themselves, but perfectly integrated into that blended genre they helped to make known, and that is their merit, in addition to the skills of the individuals, including Plant. The books you love to read serve to help you understand many things, but one must not fall into the error of taking everything at face value, because many historians, like Scaruffi, skillfully manage to insert their personal views and pass them off as history, and fish like you bite. You would do well to listen, in addition to reading... and if I may ask you something, since you said you like all rock, can you tell me if you also enjoy rock with blues influences, and if so, which ones, and what it has more of than Led Zeppelin? Thank you.

If you like all rock then you’re the whore, let me say it!!!

The whore will be your mother, Tessio, because she gave birth to a bastard like you without spanking him at birth..my mom at most knows Mina and Battisti..I grew up with books, good music, and movies, neither in family nor at school and not even on the street since there's little to learn these days..don't tell me that you've ever picked cotton under the sun because I don't believe you.

Dear my Tessio82, puritan and fundamentalist, when it comes to making a geographical discourse, you seem so much like a student of Scaruffi. Saying that only the rhythm was preserved is typical of superficial people who cannot grasp the difference between originality and innovation, considering anything that sounds "already heard" merely as a poor imitation. The innovative mix, and why not, the interpretative twist was unique to Led Zeppelin and to no one else... The blues of Led Zeppelin was beautiful precisely for this, it did not mimic anything or anyone; it was rather enriched and, indeed, blended, sometimes folk and sometimes hard, a feat no one else achieved... and you talk about tormented simplicity and hippie mothers... but, may I ask, where do you come from?

FEEL THE VOICE OF ROBERT PLANT IT MAY BE A QUEER VOICE BUT IN MY OPINION IT'S ONE OF THE BEST VOICES IN ROCK AND ESPECIALLY IN BLUES, IN TERMS OF TONE, INTERPRETATION, DISTINCTIVENESS, AND CLARITY... you just need to have an ear and sensitivity to notice it.

NIBIIO----but FUCK OFF GO

@hugoniot and sentence: what are you saying? I don't really understand English that well either, but I look for texts to understand them, and in the same way, a foreigner wanting to understand De Andrè should look for translated versions----@degregorius: wasn't De Andrè a poet? That he may come down from heaven and kill you with rhymes, being tiny and insignificant!!!

and be quiet, I don't accept sermons from those who say that Led Zeppelin were full of shit or whatever the hell you said, nor from those who praise that crap from the Pumpkins, nor from anyone who says the Kansas are awful, so you’re talking nonsense, my dear mariobros1, your brains are messed up if you can't perceive the incredibly important changes that Led Zeppelin brought to rock, their perfect interplay, Page's style, Bonham's power, Plant's beautiful voice, etc... etc... etc... you can't view their albums only through a blues lens, that's your limitation!

What the hell are you doing? First 1, then 3—make up your mind... I have no doubts about those guys you mention, and I don't have any doubts about Led Zeppelin either, who by the way aren't my heroes, take that!