"Stairway To Heaven" turns 40 today....

[kmart]

 

The idea of retiring any piece of music is absurd at best.

 

 

Agreed.

 

What's even MORE absurd?

Taking a piece that proposes doing so seriously, or getting the least little bit up in arms about someone saying a song like Stairway should be retired.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Here's the thing. Influence ONE musician, and that one musician can THEN influence the public.

 

 

True. But even looking at that---hell, how many kids even seriously play guitar anymore? Sure Page influenced a generation of guitarists that followed. And then..what happened? Where's the next generation? I'm not even sure future generations will even PLAY guitar. And even if they do doesn't mean they will give a rat's ass about Jimmy Page.

 

It's like those old blues cats that inspired Page. How many Page-inspired guitarists have anything more than a passing knowledge of Robert Johnson? And that's only been....what...2, maybe 3 generations? How long will it take before that's all but completely forgotten? Doesn't seem like it would take that long to me.

[modulusman]

But feel free to add that to the list of songs that should be retired. I'll vote along with you!

 

Well the upside is you got two fine asses standing in front of you when you play it.

[Vito Corleone]

I'll say one more (hopefully the last from me...but don't count on it ) thing about the article in question:

 

Overwrought cynicism and lack of musical expertise of the author aside, this was obviously an article not written for EVERYBODY. (Heck, he probably even hoped to stir up controversy.) But I'm guessing that there are probably all sorts of people -- probably almost all younger -- who read that article and laughed and agreed with it and were, as such, entertained by it. So why shouldn't that be enough to warrant its validity? Is it really necessary for the people who love those songs to find reasons to invalidate the article---especially by using the same tired arguments: "well, if people actually knew anything about MUSIC, they'd understand how great those songs really are!" or "millions of people still love those songs so {censored} him!"

 

I'm guessing that there are millions of people out there who ARE genuinely sick of those songs and are more-than-ready to move on from them and the dated cultures they represent. As tired as it is, at least "Stayin' Alive" exists largely to make fun of that old era. But, as we see here, "Stairway" needs to be defended because it's a SERIOUS piece of OUTSTANDING musicianship that represents the "golden age" of recorded music?....

 

....and yet it's the author of the criticism piece who is pretentious? Sheezh---is it really any surprise that younger kids are often so cynical?

[wades_keys]

 

True. But even looking at that---hell, how many kids even seriously play guitar anymore? Sure Page influenced a generation of guitarists that followed. And then..what happened? Where's the next generation? I'm not even sure future generations will even PLAY guitar. And even if they do doesn't mean they will give a rat's ass about Jimmy Page. It's like those old blues cats that inspired Page. How many Page-inspired guitarists have anything more than a passing knowledge of Robert Johnson? And that's only been....what...2, maybe 3 generations? How long will it take before that's all but completely forgotten? Doesn't seem like it would take that long to me.

 

In the past that would be true.

 

But now we have the Internet, and instant access to discographies and other information that was all but impossible to come by even 20 years ago.

 

Now if we're talking about record companies caring about guitar-oriented rock, then I can see your point. But plenty of people play guitar, or want to. And plenty of youngsters know a surprising amount of the "old" stuff.

 

I played the main riff from YYZ on bass once in front of my g/f's 19 year old son, and he recognized it immediately as "that hard song from guitar hero". LOL

[wades_keys]

 

"Stairway" needs to be defended because it's a SERIOUS piece of OUTSTANDING musicianship that represents the "golden age" of recorded music?....

 

Well, an informed critic could speak as to just why this is so, without resorting to cliche and appeals to emotional response.

 

For example, he could offer up examples of the use of acoustic guitar in rock and roll context before and after "Stairway to Heaven".

 

He could speak of Jimmy Page's goal of bringing "light and shade" into their music.

 

He could show how Page and the group met that goal with the release of the 3rd album. He could show how the band evolved from a more psychedelic heavy blues outfit into a band that incorporated mellotron, mandolin and acoustic guitars into their songs. He may even go so far as to compare them to the Beatles, in the sense that they would incorporate unusual instruments and arrangements into blues-based themes. He could show how their approached differed from the more traditional Rolling Stones.....There is so much to draw on.

 

But the average person would rather eat pizza, and the average critic would rather take lame potshots at hippies and "culture".

 

John Mellencamp owes a lot to Jimmy Page. Yeah. I said it. Or more accurately, Mick Ronson, who really helped define Mellencamps Americana sound on "Jack and Diane". The acoustic intro, followed by the crashing, distorted power chords? That was Jimmy Page. He brought that to music.

 

See Guido, there are followers and there are leaders. And people are fascinated with leaders. Led Zeppelin were leaders. The Beatles were leaders; Metallica, Black Sabbath, ELP, Miles Davis....

 

The Bee Gees were followers. Who gets talked about more today, the followers or the leaders?

[Vito Corleone]

 

Well, an informed critic could speak as to just why this is so, without resorting to cliche and appeals to emotional response.

 

 

And the market is free for any one to do so. But even still, that wouldn't necessarily invalidate the author's piece since, again, I don't really see the attempt, or even the need, for it to be about "the music". Because if those songs were all just about the music in the first place, they wouldn't be so tired today. It's the cultural aspects of them that cry out the most to be retired.

 

Beethoven's 9th lives on in all its grandure and glory because it exists for the music alone. If, to appreciate it, one must be somehow magically transported back in time to the 18th century and the era of powdered wigs and horse-drawn carriages---it would have died with the era. If the best and only truely authentic version of the piece were the one Beethoven recorded himself, I suspect it would have a much harder time being paletable to modern audiences.

 

But I suspect that the ironic truth may be that the very techonology that exists to preserve and document original pieces of music may very well be the same thing that dooms their future appeal because it keeps them so dated.

 

Think again about that original article: what seems to annoy the author the most? Not the songwriting or even the musicianship per se, but the dated performances: the extended guitar solos on "Free Bird", the plastic organ sound on "Light My Fire", the singing and production styles that are so much representative of an older era.

 

Had those SONGS been allowed to exist on their own, maybe they'd see a greater chance for long term survival. New and re-imagined versions of them updated for newer audiences with different musical sensibilities. But instead, they are forever locked in the past. And that's made even worse by the people who condemn every cover band who doesn't "nail" Page's tone and licks perfectly as being somehow inferior to the original or considers it sacrilege if someone dares use a sample of a Zeppelin song to create a new piece of music with it.

[Vito Corleone]

 

For example, he could offer up examples of the use of acoustic guitar in rock and roll context before and after "Stairway to Heaven". He could speak of Jimmy Page's goal of bringing "light and shade" into their music. He could show how Page and the group met that goal with the release of the 3rd album. He could show how the band evolved from a more psychedelic heavy blues outfit into a band that incorporated mellotron, mandolin and acoustic guitars into their songs. He may even go so far as to compare them to the Beatles, in the sense that they would incorporate unusual instruments and arrangements into blues-based themes. He could show how their approached differed from the more traditional Rolling Stones.....There is so much to draw on.

 

 

Oh please. Talk about pretentious! It's just pop music for pete's sake. Lighten up! But hasn't there already been BOOKS written about all that stuff? Of course there has. There is volumes of stuff written about the god-like status of Jimmy Page and Led Zeppelin.

 

The more you post stuff like this, the more you sound simply like a guy offended because somebody dared say something flippant and dismissive about one of your personal favorites. Buck up. Grow a pair. And don't take everything so seriously.

[Vito Corleone]

[video=youtube;FpFYRfTQ2pU]

[Vito Corleone]

[video=youtube;KTCYLbFxTpI]

[wades_keys]

 

The more you post stuff like this, the more you sound simply like a guy offended because somebody dared say something flippant and dismissive about one of your personal favorites. Buck up. Grow a pair. And don't take everything so seriously.

 

Not offended at all. And really the discussion was about quality music critique, not my preferences.

 

I'm still trying to get my head around a song "retiring".

[Vito Corleone]

 

Not offended at all. And really the discussion was about quality music critique, not my preferences. I'm still trying to get my head around a song "retiring".

 

 

That you feel you have to get your head around the idea is the problem here, I think. Nobody is suggesting the song should ACTUALLY be retired. You DO understand that, don't you?

 

While I shouldn't be surprised, it's pretty ridiculous that this thread has become such a big topic. I'm certain there was a huge tongue-in-cheek present in the original article. At least that's the way I read it. And was certainly the intent with which I posted it here. Are those songs tired? Yes. Are they tired for many of the reasons he mentioned? Yes. Are they songs one can easily take a piss out of? Yes. All in good fun, IMO. I'm gonna guess Robert Plant would be the first to agree "enough with S2H already!"

 

But by doing so the author offends the sensibilities of those who don't think he was respectfully critical of the Great Led Zeppelin and how DARE he suggest the song should be 'retired'?

 

Puh-lease.

 

And...kinda makes his point for him, really....

[wades_keys]

But by doing so the author offends the sensibilities of those who don't think he was respectfully critical of the Great Led Zeppelin and how DARE he suggest the song should be 'retired'?

 

The only thing more "tired" than S2H is the pseudo-controversial faux hipster bull{censored} journalism in that article. It's as if all music "journalists" are just following the same trends established by Rolling Stone....40 years ago.

[Vito Corleone]

The only thing more "tired" than S2H is the pseudo-controversial faux hipster bull{censored} journalism in that article. It's as if all music "journalists" are just following the same trends established by Rolling Stone....40 years ago.

 

It's a generational thing I imagine. Every new generation is flippant and sarcastically dismissive of the older generation's dated and boring icons and the older generation is offended by the blatent disrespect from those snot-nosed, untalented know-nothings. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

I'm PRETTY sure it existed even before Rolling Stone started doing it in the 70s. But maybe that was back when YOU thought it was right-on?

[kmart]

 

But by doing so the author offends those without a sense of humor/on whom sarcasm is lost.

 

 

Fixed your post.

[3shiftgtr]

hell, how many kids even seriously play guitar anymore? Sure Page influenced a generation of guitarists that followed. And then..what happened? Where's the next generation? I'm not even sure future generations will even PLAY guitar. And even if they do doesn't mean they will give a rat's ass about Jimmy Page.

 

So you are the one with the SPECIAL crystal ball that actually WORKS?

 

I have a teaching business with currently around 75 students, a student teacher, and an administrator in a small town. There are over 100 School Of Rock franchises, and every music store gives guitar lessons. Guitar Center in Nash has close to 200. That's how many.

 

So this is where I find the whole concept of "until they can come up with something better..." all wet. I don't have to be a better director or cinematographer than Fellini to find his movies confusing and boring and I don't have to be a better guitarist or songwriter than the guys in Skynyrd to want to turn off "Free Bird" after 3 seconds.

 

I never said or implied anyone had to be better...it is about knowledge and its use in analysis. Lots of folks don't like Fellini, and it has nothing to do with whether they can make a better film. NOTHING. You don't like Free Bird. So what? That has nothing to do with critical journalism. You don't like the "self indulgence" element of Free Bird. Many agree with you. What does that have to do with HOW valid criticism is created? Well, IT DOESN"T!!!! NADA!

 

Your rationale is a disguise to defend you point of view on the music IMHO. You are an admitted populist. Your view on rock journalism is in line with your populist view of music. And there is nothing wrong with being a populist....putting the audience first...making it easy for the audience....that is a good thing. But critical analysis and rhetorical criticism as journalism is specific to the subject matter and its applications. And the application here is music....therefore criticism of music without knowledge of the music is RHETORICALLY INCOMPLETE!

 

The bottom line here is I attacked the business of rock journalism. You are defending the article, ipso facto your stance as a populist and that you are agree with the tone of the article. I'm tired of hearing those songs too. But by trying to contextually pummel any idea that infers critical thinking has value, turns your ideas inward. Here's proof:

 

You don't have to be a musician to find such songs to be overplayed, self-indulgent, and representative of an era that you, at best, only find mildly amusing to imagine what it must have been like to be alive back then.

 

I never said that you have to be a musician, I said you have to have KNOWLEDGE of music. I used the idea that they can't play as an example of the fact that they know nothing. I know you think that is o.k., but that is the very thing that makes their analysis incomplete.

 

Nor am I talking about the self indulgence, over played status, the era or style or whatever. I am talking about the lack of RHETORICAL CRITICISM in the rock journalism world. You seem to be defending your musical tastes, by bashing incomplete criticism.

 

I know you don't see rock criticism as incomplete. You are fine with it. But that doesn't stop it from lacking; your ideas and reasoning regarding culture and music while correct, have nothing to do with the fact that rhetorical criticism without knowledge is incomplete.

[Vito Corleone]

So you are the one with the SPECIAL crystal ball that actually WORKS?

 

Nah. I was merely speculating. I think I was pretty clear in saying "who knows" what the future will bring.

 

But while you once again bring up valid points in a reasoned and articulate manner, I think you are missing an over-riding point here: I don't think this piece was ever intended to be a MUSICAL critique as much as a CULTURAL critique. As I said before, I don't believe that the author is a music journalist/critic nor presents himself as such. It's a CULTURAL piece, not a musical one. Your criticisms of rock journalism may be valid---I don't really know as I don't spend a whole lot of time reading rock journalism---but I'm not exactly sure they apply in this case. I got no impression whatsoever that the piece was directed towards guitarists, musicians, or even serious music fans. It was clearly geared towards the average consumer who---especially if they are of a certain age---has no use for these songs anyway and would find the idea of them being "retired" amusing.

 

I really don't think any of it is any deeper than that. Nor needs to be.

[3shiftgtr]

 

The more you post stuff like this, the more you sound simply like a guy offended because somebody dared say something flippant and dismissive about one of your personal favorites. Buck up. Grow a pair. And don't take everything so seriously.

 

 

I didn't get that at all from his post. Might you be the one getting a bit defensive?

 

It reminds me of the MM thread....everybody seems to be piling on ya there bud. You know we lubs ya mang!

 

And while musicology as a scholarly endeavor ignores pop music, Wades thoughts could be considered pop musicology.

[Vito Corleone]

 

I didn't get that at all from his post. Might you be the one getting a bit defensive?

 

 

Me? Nah. I don't this stuff that seriously. I'm just in it for the fun of the debate itself. But yeah, I DID get that from the post that went on about all the "light and shade" and other yada yada yada about the 'art' of Jimmy Page.

[3shiftgtr]

 

But while you once again bring up valid points in a reasoned and articulate manner, I think you are missing an over-riding point here: I don't think this piece was ever intended to be a MUSICAL critique as much as a CULTURAL critique. As I said before, I don't believe that the author is a music journalist/critic nor presents himself as such. It's a CULTURAL piece, not a musical one. Your criticisms of rock journalism may be valid---I don't really know as I don't spend a whole lot of time reading rock journalism---but I'm not exactly sure they apply in this case. I got no impression whatsoever that the piece was directed towards guitarists, musicians, or even serious music fans. It was clearly geared towards the average consumer who---especially if they are of a certain age---has no use for these songs anyway and would find the idea of them being "retired" amusing. I really don't think any of it is any deeper than that. Nor needs to be.

 

 

The reason it falls under the criticism column, is that it attempts to REASON and INFLUENCE why a piece of music should be "retired". Those tenets fall under the 5 cannons of rhetoric as applied to criticism; it falls within the dicipline of rhetoric if you will.

[3shiftgtr]

Me? Nah. I don't this stuff that seriously. I'm just in it for the fun of the debate itself. But yeah, I DID get that from the post that went on about all the "light and shade" and other yada yada yada about the 'art' of Jimmy Page.

 

I take it you are not a fan?

[cooterbrown]

FWIW, I love playing that song, live.

[Vito Corleone]

I take it you are not a fan?

 

No, I am. I love Zep. I bought all their LPs as a kid and again on CD. A few times over. But I'm also enough of a realist and see the bigger picture of music enough to know that good pop music is simply that. I agree with a lot of what Wade said, but I don't feel it needs to be brought up any time somebody wants to point out the excesses of the music lest that criticism be invalid or incomplete.

 

To act like the music of our generation is something so much better and more special than so much stuff before or since? That's nonsense. Sure...I'll always love the music I grew up with because it's special to me. But that the vast majority of younger kids probably sarcasticly and smugly dismiss it? Of course they probably do. And good for them. Let them find something else to connect so-specially with. Even if it's ~gasp!~ not even music.

[Vito Corleone]

 

The reason it falls under the criticism column, is that it attempts to REASON and INFLUENCE why a piece of music should be "retired".

 

 

Sure. But it's arguing they should be retired for CULTURAL reason, much more than MUSICAL ones. I don't see anywhere where it says Page wasn't a groundbreaking or influential guitarist. It just simply implies that, 40 years hence, it's all become rather boring.

[Vito Corleone]

 

I never said or implied anyone had to be better...

You? Maybe not. But at least 2 other posters did.

Your rationale is a disguise to defend you point of view on the music IMHO. You are an admitted populist. Your view on rock journalism is in line with your populist view of music. And there is nothing wrong with being a populist....putting the audience first...making it easy for the audience....that is a good thing.

 

 

Well, that's one part of my being. As a cover-band musician, and as that relates to this forum---certainly. But the populism of these pieces is precisely the nature of the criticism of them. If they all weren't hugely popular and ridiculously over-played, they wouldn't even be mentioned. So I don't see how criticizing these songs for their populism is a rationale for disguising my populist view of music. You lost me there again, I think.