Well, I just received an email from some guy who takes exception to a reader comment about Led Zeppelin that I sent to George Starosin's site about five years ago!  Since George doesn't post reader comments anymore, I thought I'd put here instead:

Ian (circa 2000) - Led Zeppelin....Just the mere mention of this name fills me with an uncontrollable loathing. Perhaps I wouldn't mind them so much if they weren't played so often on the radio but, alas, they are blessed with a rabidly fanatical fan base that constantly bombards Classic Rock stations with requests to play every Zep song ever recorded - including the most obscure donkey shit from frankly awful albums like In Through the Out Door, etc. Perhaps the worst feature of Led Zeppelin is vocalist Robert Plant. As the prototype for a succession of helium-voiced metal singers in the 80's, his vocal style evokes images of an alley cat with PMS. As if his airy-fairy lyrics weren't bad enough, he manages to make things even more unbearable by interjecting a steady stream of "ooos" and "Baby, baby's." Page's guitar playing is frequently sloppy; as he is often guilty of attempting to play quick-fingered solos that are clearly beyond his capabilities. Just listen to "Heartbreaker" on the second album to hear what I'm talking about. I also object to Led Zeppelin because they are almost singularly responsible for destroying the art of songwriting in rock and roll; many contemporary rock bands follow their example of basing songs entirely on riffs. Don't get me wrong - riffs are an integral part of a good song, but I think that melody is the foundation for a killer tune. Bands like Led Zeppelin have it ass-backwards in that their "songwriting" consists of piecing together assorted riffs, throwing a high-pitched, tuneless vocal over top of it, and calling it a "song." Good songs have memorable melodies as well as memorable riffs, and Led Zeppelin demonstrates neither of these qualities.

Samo Kodela - I'm Samo Kodela from Slovenia and I'm writting to you, about your comment, on the topic of Led Zeppelin, on the Starostin site!!! I must tell you, that Led Zeppelin is a band, that created many great melodies and riffs!!! On each album, you have got a few songs, that are very mellodic!!!! The riffs are just unbeliveable and Jimmy is among the greatest riff creators!!!
    He is not sloopy at all, on the albums and he is only slightly sloopy live after 1973!!
    You said he is sloopy on Heartbreker!! Well, yes he is slightly, but only because he didn't want to correct it!!!! He said in an interview, he left the mistake in deliberately!! Listen to the live versions on BBC sessions and How the west was won for pure technicall perfection!!! Page can shure play extremely fast solos with pure perfection!!! He is one of the greatest guitarists in the world and songs like Dazed and confused, Whole lotta love, Heartbreaker, Since i've been loving you, Tangerine, Rock and roll, Stairway, Going to California, Kashmir, etc., ……….. are just unbeliveable!!! On each album you have got songs, that have complex, yet specific and artistic melodies, which have many chords under them, if you just accompany yourself with strumming guitar, while singing them!! The melodies are marvelous and Thank you has 6 chords under the vocal melody, Celebration day has 7, Since i've been loving you has 6, Tangerine has 6, Stairway has 8 and All of my love has 12!!!!!!!!!!This melodies are wonderfull!!!! Plant has expressive and powerfull vocal style and his lyrics are pure poetry!!!!! Especially after the second album!! Plant's voice is uncomparable to crappy 80's vocalists!!! Plant's voice is pure blues/rock passion and very sensitive in the ballads!!!!! I think, that the oh's and baby, baby thing, actually adds to the songs!! I think it fits, because Plant's vocal is just so powerfull, that the whole thing adds to the music!!!
    I would also like to remind you, that Zep is in the Rock and roll hall of fame, they won the Ivor Novello lifetime achivement award ( british Grammy equvivalent), Grammy lifetime achivement award and The Polar music prize( the music equvivalent of the Nobel prize)!!!
    They sold more then 200 million albums and have millions of fans and are the biggest rock band in history, because The Beatles(which are also great) are a pop/rock band!!!

Ian's Music Reviews - Yeah, I was a bit harsh in my email to George Starosin. I had to re-read it again - it has been about 5 years since I wrote it! However, I still stand by my basic assertion, which is that Page and Plant were never truly great songwriters, and that Led Zeppelin are overrated. They had an impressive SOUND, and came up with countless great riffs, but I still think that many of their songs lack melody. And even though I admire Robert Plant's range and power as a vocalist, he over-emotes to a ludicruous extent, and comes off as obnoxious. As a lyricist, he is often terrible, spouting off Tolkien-infleunced rubbish and screaming "baby baby" ad nauseum. Still, I do respect them as one of the most influential bands of all-time. I guess it's not their fault that they have been overplayed on the radio. As you pointed out, they were great musicians too.

 

Peter Albert - Congrats on your music review site. It is quickly becoming one of my favorites. You have good content and insight ie you don't just recycle the same cliche's that are on many other WRC sites. Case in point: you're not afraid to call Led Zeppelin III one of the worst so-called classic rock albums ever. I'm a big Led Zeppelin fan, but I have to agree. LZ3 is very overrated to my ears. In my opinion the biggest reason is that Bonham and Jones really have no idea what to do on those songs (Bonham is way too powerful to play folk stuff and Jones... I'm not sure what's wrong with him on that album but he's not his usual self). I think you were a bit harsh on Page, but I'd certainly agree that he's better on the electric.

Ian's Music Reviews - As for Led Zeppelin III, my review was probably too harsh in some respects, but overall I stick to my position that it is WAY overrated. Not terrible, but still very overrated. Yes, Page's guitar is far from bad, but it's no match for his electric fretwork on previous albums. I also agree with you that Bonham's heavy-handed approach to drumming does not at all suit the folk-influenced material on Led 3.

Esal - Heh heh heh... you and George [Starosin] really do take a chunk out of these guys don't you?! I guess it's understandable in some ways but Ithink the first and second albums were so well received that it might have made it tough for them to break new ground. What I mean is that if they hadn't done something different with the third album lots of people would be complaining that they were just rehashing the same old thing and flogging a dead horse. Then there are plenty of cases where recording executives will virtually insist that an artist stays with a formula they've proven to be a big seller even if it causes a band's creativity to stagnate. At the same time no matter what direction they tried to take on a third album it would have to be pretty damned good to be accepted by fans who wanted the same old same old. Must have been a bit of a conundrum for them!
    Taking a different direction couldn't have been an easy thing to do considering. Lets face it by the time most bands have put out two albums they've used up most, if not all, of the best material they've been working on and polishing for years before becoming successful. There has to be a lot of pressure to come up with something fresh and original while at the same time touring whichmust have been grueling anyway.
    Personally I like III a lot even though Plant does have a tendency to caterwaul a little. To me it goes really well with the spooky aura painted on numbers like FRIENDS which I know most critics despise. You say that Plant's style of "heavy metal singing obviously doesn't suit traditional folk music, so why use it?" andthat might be true but is only really relevant if you consider Zeppelin to have been a folk act or III a folk album which I don't believe it was. Much more acoustic I suppose but I didn't know anyone in 1970 who considered III to be "folk music" traditional or otherwise.
    You say: "the band really cooks on the extended psychedelic blues number 'Since I've Been Loving You,' its swirling John Paul Jones organ and dramatic Page guitar solo really creating an amazing out-of-body atmosphere"....but for some reason don't include it in the PLAY THESE listed at the beginning of your review. You might want to include it.
    Anyway, something that reviewers never seem to take into consideration when passing judgment on an album that's well over thirty years old is that they're looking at it through the atmosphere of today's musical and social norms. What I'm getting at is that Zeppelin III was put out targeting a fan base of teenagers (mostly white) who's musical tastes were very different from that of most people, teenage or otherwise, almost fourty years later. It was music that their audience back then could relate to and feel good about when hearing it. I remember being in an audience of over ten thousand at an outdoor concert back then that was rained out so badly the show had to be moved indoors so it could continue. By the time Zeppelin finally took the stage the entire crowd of tired, soaking wet and half frozen kids went ballistic hearing Immigrant Song and Gallows Pole and most (if not all) of the third album. It may not necessarily pass the test of time but it was written and performed to please an audience of teenagers way back then not adults fourty years in a future no one knows.
    Most of us loved it back then even if it wasn't Whole Lotta Love or Communication Breakdown. For some old white guys hearing Zep III today brings back fantastic memories of great times and good people even if it doesn't turn a twentysomething's crank thirty six years later. That isn't surprising considering it wasn't really written for the pleasure or approval of future generations anyway.

Ian's Music Reviews - Thanks for writing.  Led Zeppelin III: it's a bit controversial, isn't it?  I admit that I came down pretty hard on the album, although I am still convinced that half of the songs qualify as filler.  That being said, your point about Led Zeppelin feeling pressure to change its sound is a good one.  You're right - fans and critics alike would have been all over them if they'd released another album full of hard rock tunes with big, bombastic riffs.  They had to change, and I guess it isn't a total disaster...but still...this album just doesn't grab me as much as the first two do.
    As for the question of whether Led Zeppelin III is a rock album or a folk album, I suppose there will never be a consensus on that one.  Tracks like Immigrant Song are certainly nowhere near being "folk," but there are several others on the album (i.e. Gallows Pole) that are undoubtedly folk songs (with a small dose of hard rock delivery).  Some of the songs, like Tangerine, could be characterized as folk-rock...I guess when it comes down to it Led Zep III is neither here nor there.  It's part hard rock, part folk, part blues, and in some cases it is all of these things.  One thing I do feel strongly about, though, is Robert Plant's ridiculous wailing on some of the softer tracks.  The guy has a great voice, but I HATE it when he launches into his "baby baby" routine.  It's like he is sometimes so devoid of ideas that he keeps on coming back to the one trick he knows...And yeah, a 31-year-old person writing a review on a 35 year old album is not going to take into account the kind of musical-emotional impact Led Zep III made back in the early 70's.  Unlike yourself, I don't have memories of seeing Zep live back in the day.  I have no doubt that if I had, I would probably judge this album less harshly.  However, I wasn't around in the early 70's, so I can only judge the album based on what the music sounds like today.  Obviously, this method is far from objective, but I still enjoy writing about these bands.