In 1988, Led Zeppelin had been disbanded for 8 years, since the death of drummer John Bonham. Page had basically been sitting in his castle shooting heroin for that time - he scored a movie and played a few gigs. In 1991, he formed Coverdale/Page, but he wasn't into it.
The interesting thing to me is judging playing from 30 years ago by today's standards. Could you write the stuff? I mean, you can take any bar band guitarist of today, transport him back to 1967, and he'd be a guitar superstar. Now - transport him back there, but without any of the licks he learned from Page, Hendrix, Van Halen, Clapton, Beck etc. If today's guitarists are so much better, where are the songs that have replaced Led Zeppelin on the radio, without being totally influenced by them? Without Zepp, there is no Aerosmith or Guns 'n Roses, that's for sure.
My Toyota is a far better car than a Model T Ford, too. Here's a clue - if you posted a video of yourself playing like that on YouTube, nobody would even care, because you don't matter in the world. Does it make you feel big, insulting Jimmy Page? Does it "prove" that you could've been a star, with a bit more luck? Clearly, being an adequate guitarist and living in London in 1965 was a potent opportunity to make history. But we weren't there.... There are tons of "classic rock" songs which pretty much suck, anything with Big Brother and the Holding Company for example. I'd rather listen to better music than Led Zeppelin, so I do - but I don't even expect to hear it on the radio. However, slagging Page is like saying Tom Brady could blow Knute Rockne off the football field, or that Gen. MacArthur was a greater general than Alexander the Great, who was just in the right place at the right time. Hint: almost everybody is in the wrong place at the right time, get used to it. :laughing3:
arty07:
ccasion14:
