Anyone else think Led Zep 1 was the best sounding Zep album?

Tone_Boss

Member
Messages
831
At least to my ears the instruments and the vocals just seem to have great separation and clarity and Bonzo sounds monstrous. It's also very "warm" sounding relative to other albums in general (I'm talking CD's here). All the talk about recording and production and CD vs. vinyl got me thinking and this album instantly came to mind. Was there something different in the recording process of this album relative to the other Zep albums?
 

Leonc

Wild Gear Hearder
Platinum Supporting Member
Messages
18,139
Love that record. It is my favorite...though I liked Zepp II a lot as well.

I love so many of the tones that JP got on Z1 and have a blast recreating them in one of my cover bands--we do a whole set of Zepp stuff (much from the first two records) and it's just a blast.
 

Killcrop

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
11,519
I do love the sound of that record and I agree. While its probably not my favorite LZ album, the sound is undeniable.
 

Frack

Member
Messages
13
I've always loved the way Presence sounds. They were under so much pressure at that time. No one new if Percy would be able to walk again. The guy sang from a wheelchair. There's just so much atmosphere on that album you can cut it with a knife. It really comes through I think.

I remember Pagey saying that for once his brain was firing on all thrusters and he ended up recording most of the overdubs in one epic night-long session. Pretty amazing considering he was in the throws of heroin addiction at the time.

I mean Tea For One, at least for me, is extraordinary. After Trampled Under Foot it's gotta be my favorite Zep. I've also always thought that some of the best strat tone is all over that album too.

Everything is just so stripped down. At least it seems that way. The tone. The approach. Presence is like Led Zeppelin I.a

:wave
 

Tone_Boss

Member
Messages
831
One thing different about the first album was that it was the only one recorded entirely at Olympic studios and was recorded live.
 

Monotremata

Member
Messages
1,338
I love everything Zep but the raw power and intensity of the first one was never matched.

Sent from my GT-P3110 using Tapatalk
 

Jack Gilvey

Member
Messages
4,059
I and II for me - maybe the edge to I. I recently grabbed a bunch of the original 80s Zep CDs pretty cheap via eBay and these two especially are worth it for the great bass and dynamics, especially compared to that Mothership stuff. Moby Dick is awesome.
 

M40A1

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
1,904
It'll be interesting when the first three are re-released later this year. Supposedly some additional material on them too.
 

Tone_Boss

Member
Messages
831
from wikipedia

Page reportedly used natural room ambience to enhance the reverb and recording texture on the record, demonstrating the innovations in sound recording he had learned during his session days. Up until the late 1960s, most music producers placed microphones directly in front of the amplifiers and drums. For Led Zeppelin, Page developed the idea of placing an additional microphone some distance from the amplifier (as far as twenty feet) and then recording the balance between the two. By adopting this "distance equals depth" technique, Page became one of the first producers to record a band's "ambient sound": the distance of a note's time-lag from one end of the room to the other
 

Heinz W

Genuine '66 Relic
Platinum Supporting Member
Messages
2,412
I think 2 sounded better
I have to agree with this. LZ I sounds like a product of its time, better than most albums from the late '60s as far as fidelity goes, but it still sounds like a '60s album to me. LZ II sounds like it could have been recorded in the late '70s, or even later. It just sounds richer, more contemporary for whatever reason. Amazing when you consider that they were recorded less than a year apart.
 

Tone_Boss

Member
Messages
831
I have to agree with this. LZ I sounds like a product of its time, better than most albums from the late '60s as far as fidelity goes, but it still sounds like a '60s album to me. LZ II sounds like it could have been recorded in the late '70s, or even later. It just sounds richer, more contemporary for whatever reason. Amazing when you consider that they were recorded less than a year apart.
If I had to rank them II would be very high along with HotH, but the drums dont come thru the recording like they do on I. Imo the soundscape on I is very 3D, one thing I will say about II tho is the way the bass comes out in the recording, very prominent in the mix. The amazing thing about II is that it was recorded in ten different studios yet the recording process didn't suffer.
 

gmann

Member
Messages
8,627
One thing different about the first album was that it was the only one recorded entirely at Olympic studios and was recorded live.
I remember hearing it when it 1st came out and thinking that I'd never heard anything quite like it. It was all that in '69 and still is IMO.
 

lostpoet2

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
3,280
I agree that LZ I has a very unique sound. It's very warm and there is a lot of separation between the instruments. I think the arrangements were the most sparse of any LZ album.

I agree with other posters that LZ I specifically has a 60s sound to the production, and that listening to it makes me think about how unique it must have sounded for someone to drop the needle on that record. Someone else can articulate this a lot better, but I can imagine this album was quite striking sounding due to the depth and power of the musicianship that was unique to the band's sound.
 




Trending Topics

Top