[ShamanO]

this deserves a thread all by itself!
enjoy :happy:/>

[Feriluce]

So there will be more info tomorrow? If so please post that vid too when it's out. :)/>

[ShamanO]

I dont know! ask the tech savvy fans who get this stuff uploaded. besides I might be at work by then or drowning in snot. this cold virus thingy could kill me ya know

[pastup]

I just watched this and I kept thinking that the point that wasn't being talked about is that we live in a different time and the world is different now. The problem with comparing how things are now to the past is that we've never lived in times like these before so there is no equal comparison. Like the thing about asking a kid who his favorite band was and he says Led Zeppelin. I don't think there's anything really wrong with that because to me, rock never got any better than that really. The Beatles and The Who and Hendrix and Zeppelin and Neil Young. It's all been done so where is there left to go? Art is always evolving but rock music can only go so far until it's not rock anymore. "Alternative" music doesn't really mean anything anymore because it's an alternative to what? Alternative was kids who discovered the greats like hendrix and Zeppelin and put their spin on it but they didn't recreate it.

It was a thought provoking discussion.

[february]

I think that the cultural impact is muted due to the times we live in. Bands like Arcade Fire, or the folk rock type bands, their atmosphere is really toned down, and the nature of what they are saying seems like people discussing the French resistance but in a way where everyone can be highly individualistic. Then you have completely escapist acts like Franz Ferdinand, or The Black Keys, or anything that sounds like annoying poppy punk/rock who are trying to make you believe that we still live somewhere where you can have fun. It really is kind of like one huge 11 year Zeitgeist. Basically I don't think anyone really knows what to say.

I don't really think it is about Rock n Roll remaining constant, or any genre, but that people don't know what the hell to say. Everything seems scattered. There is no cohesive argument for what is good in life (fun), and how to retain your humanity, and what is wrong, etc. There are no groups of arguments like that. There are groups of stylistic choices, like hipsters, that are hollow.

I don't know about anyone else's town, but F.M. radio sucks here, bad. I hate Clear Channel, and their bean counters who think they have to pluck out these rotations of hits by AC/DC, Bob Seger, Led Zepplin, Disturbed, 3 Days Grace, Seether, Nickleback, or some other band that makes singles that really don't say much of anything other than girls are hot, I'm psychotic, Misogyny is cool if you're angry enough, I feel pain, or I never made it as a wise man.

I think Arcade Fire are great artists. I think The Flaming Lips are great artists, but maybe there isn't enough of other great artists to put their art in context. I can definitely see the point Billy is making about the Indie world becoming more precocious, and maybe not letting artists evolve as they go through life.

[Martine Castonguay]

Is to be great, a band, an artist, an individual needs to be famous? Picasso and Beatles were original thinkers were the system allowed them to express their originality. They reached the public visibility when many others didn't. 

We are in a time where every one has access to the visibility, so the "originals" are many.  Maybe when we have a lot of originality, we feel it less as original.  Does the abundance kill the originality? When we have access to so much offer, are we able to enjoy? I wonder if the process to enjoy wasn't a part of the genius?  An album was so much waited, expected and desired, that the listening was better. We had it for a two or three years waiting for the next one. We savored the moment. We appreciated the musical concept and the visual art. 

Right now, I really enjoy good musical bands working in the same way, to offer a great experience to the listeners. With the disc crisis, even the most successful are not able to live just with that. They have to explore many others facets of their artistic abilities. Is it bad? I believe it creates something less individualistic. Obliging them to explore themselves and use their capacities more fully, obliging them to create projects with others than their bandmates, doing so their music richer as the individual. I think to Karkwa, a good band here in Quebec. Not only the band but also the musicians are known for their individual projects. 

Smashing Pumpkin of right now is quite different of the beginning in the form. Every individual inside is much more important. Every one has his own projects so the Pumpkin's band is less important. It has equilibrium between the personal and the collective. It may have impact on the fame. 

I believe it's hard to have the same kind of bands like in the past because the society is different. All relationships are different now from the '70s. It's not just about the music. 

I believe the musicians have to chose between two models: do we focus on the fame or do we focus on the music? It is accurate now more than ever. I look at our small french market and have admiration for the artists making good music rather money. They are artists not celebrities. They don't have make the choice because it is the time but at the end, it is probably much better for the music.  They are part of the society, craftsman of this society amongst every other. 

Beatles were great. They were a commune value for a large part of the world. But they lived in a period of time were it was possible. Right now,  the same kind of great music exist. It is just shared differently.  Music is counting the most, not the celebrity.  And I have to say, we are lucky. Now, there is not only a band on the top of the world, so distant. No, we have plenty of music surrounding us. 

Time is good for the music. 

It's good to follow the musicians in their projects, liking some more than others. I so like buy their albums, see them in shows and see them evolve. Music is part of my life more than ever because of them and they enjoy make it because of us listening. It's a lot more fun to have this kind of relationship with musicians than to sit in an arena for example. It doesn't mean good musicians cannot be famous though but in my opinion, the proximity counts much more. 

[frednirv632]

" i believe that was a single actually"

i loled

[pastup]

The indie world being "precocious"? I don't think that's the right word. But anyway

The myth of the Rock Star Life style has been exposed now and people see artists more for what they really are which is just regular people in every other sense than being musically talented or poetically talented writers. Being an "artist" musician then takes on a more realistic meaning and is closer to the reality of everyday working class people. It was always that way but there was an illusion that drugs and girls and money and happiness all came to these people because they knew something we didn't. Like they had answers that we were looking for. The reality turned out to be that the greatest artists were suffering in their own lives. It's one thing to have answers to the way things should be and to have an artistic vision and it's another to actually realistically apply that to your life. The illusion was that artists were getting high and not really changing anything except their temporary perspective on life and love and society etc... But it never really changed any of those things. Art should make you think but the question is how to put people into action because action is what ultimately makes a difference. Thoughts without action from someone somewhere are never gonna change anything. Maybe it comes down to actually living the artistic vision that you believe in and are promoting through music. Rather than faking it and pretending to be an artist when you're not doing anything of substance that creates some sort of positive effect on our culture and society.

[RottingApples]

I really love Martine's and Pastup's posts. I actually feel I better understand and accept the change in musical climate than in any of the rants Corgan's gone off on over the years. If anything, it makes it apparent Corgan is in the same boat as the record companies he so frequently puts down. Rather than naturally exploring new avenues, he has to keep yelling "fire" and looking for the next gimmick to attach. Things will never be the same as they once were. It's a sad, and yet a freeing realization. The experience will be different, and as Martine illustrated, the fact that the age of arena concerts and rock star legends is over really is a good thing (to Corgan's chagrin). Those aspects were unnecessary, superfluous elements from the start. We don't need the rock mythology - it's unnecessary and distracting. And the arena concerts were always a pain in the ass from the start. Yeah, they may look impressive, but for anyone who's actually given a shit about the band they're going to see, they would much rather see them in an intimate club than in a sports dome with a million other people.

[ShamanO]

I think what Billy was saying about following the artist on a journey is important-given that the artist can do something to actually draw you in to their journey. I'm sorry but there is not a whole lot of artists right now luring me in because I am not feeling/connecting to the music. For me there is no journey from those bands because for those reasons. Sure I will give things a listen, but it doesn't move me very much into a wow factor. I'm growing tired of the just listening factor and not having anything move me in a way that it would go down as a band that has created some spark of life within me. But maybe I'm just old and that's what happens when you are young and that spark carries on with you from the bands/bands when you grow old. basically there isn't a whole lot of magic (yes I will use that term) in the music being created today. something need to happen to give people a shock and awe factor again.

pastup, on 13 March 2012 - 05:35 AM, said:

The indie world being "precocious"? I don't think that's the right word. But anyway

The myth of the Rock Star Life style has been exposed now and people see artists more for what they really are which is just regular people in every other sense than being musically talented or poetically talented writers. Being an "artist" musician then takes on a more realistic meaning and is closer to the reality of everyday working class people. It was always that way but there was an illusion that drugs and girls and money and happiness all came to these people because they knew something we didn't. Like they had answers that we were looking for. The reality turned out to be that the greatest artists were suffering in their own lives. It's one thing to have answers to the way things should be and to have an artistic vision and it's another to actually realistically apply that to your life. The illusion was that artists were getting high and not really changing anything except their temporary perspective on life and love and society etc... But it never really changed any of those things. Art should make you think but the question is how to put people into action because action is what ultimately makes a difference. Thoughts without action from someone somewhere are never gonna change anything. Maybe it comes down to actually living the artistic vision that you believe in and are promoting through music. Rather than faking it and pretending to be an artist when you're not doing anything of substance that creates some sort of positive effect on our culture and society.

are you calling Billy fake? I think he is trying to show his vision. And since we dont know the details about this Oceania experience it probably isn't our place to try and judge his vision right now. He has moved away from the California experience (the hippie cult culture everyone talked shit about)

[breathesgelatin]

ShamanO, on 13 March 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

are you calling Billy fake? I think he is trying to show his vision. And since we dont know the details about this Oceania experience it probably isn't our place to try and judge his vision right now. He has moved away from the California experience (the hippie cult culture everyone talked shit about)

That's why he's appearing to speak about that cult today!

ETA: I don't judge the hippie cult culture that harshly. I'm just not sure how far he's moved from it.

[ShamanO]

well we all know he seems fascinated by different religious practices, and I doubt he's as highly involved as some people may have thought/trolled along that he was. Billy is a curious guy and his curiosity gets him to create. I suppose if he wasn't exploring their cult (or whatever you call it) he wouldn't have bothered making TbK EP 1 and 2...which some of you would be happy about.

[pastup]

ShamanO, on 13 March 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

are you calling Billy fake? I think he is trying to show his vision. And since we dont know the details about this Oceania experience it probably isn't our place to try and judge his vision right now. He has moved away from the California experience (the hippie cult culture everyone talked shit about)

No. I didn't mean for it to come across that way. I was just talking about the larger picture of "artists" in the world today. I mean the bands that aren't saying anything. It used to be that you would look around and see all of the things wrong with the world and write about them and talk about them but so many artists today don't have enough criticism with the way things are with the wars and politics and religious extremists and discrimination racism sexual orientation etc etc etc... Nobody seems to be trying to change things with their music except I will give Lady Gaga some credit for singing about equal rights in regards to sexual orientation aka "Born this way" etc... Her intention there is good but the song to me sounds like a Madonna song so the music falls flat for me but there's still a message there where as so many other artists have no message today.
Where's the message and what is the message.

[snail33]

february, on 13 March 2012 - 12:11 AM, said:

I think that the cultural impact is muted due to the times we live in. Bands like Arcade Fire, or the folk rock type bands, their atmosphere is really toned down, and the nature of what they are saying seems like people discussing the French resistance but in a way where everyone can be highly individualistic. Then you have completely escapist acts like Franz Ferdinand, or The Black Keys, or anything that sounds like annoying poppy punk/rock who are trying to make you believe that we still live somewhere where you can have fun. It really is kind of like one huge 11 year Zeitgeist. Basically I don't think anyone really knows what to say.

I don't really think it is about Rock n Roll remaining constant, or any genre, but that people don't know what the hell to say. Everything seems scattered. There is no cohesive argument for what is good in life (fun), and how to retain your humanity, and what is wrong, etc. There are no groups of arguments like that. There are groups of stylistic choices, like hipsters, that are hollow.

I don't know about anyone else's town, but F.M. radio sucks here, bad. I hate Clear Channel, and their bean counters who think they have to pluck out these rotations of hits by AC/DC, Bob Seger, Led Zepplin, Disturbed, 3 Days Grace, Seether, Nickleback, or some other band that makes singles that really don't say much of anything other than girls are hot, I'm psychotic, Misogyny is cool if you're angry enough, I feel pain, or I never made it as a wise man.

I think Arcade Fire are great artists. I think The Flaming Lips are great artists, but maybe there isn't enough of other great artists to put their art in context. I can definitely see the point Billy is making about the Indie world becoming more precocious, and maybe not letting artists evolve as they go through life.

you think led zeppelin belongs in the same shitheap as disturbed, seether, nickelback and three days grace?

[LostSoul]

:rofl:/> Oh shit. He incurred the WRATH.

[ShamanO]

ahh ok.

you do have a point about messages not being there with artists and making the melody along with the message and art impacting/thought provoking. Now no matter how much bitching one does at SP doing things the way they do it, I still think they are ahead of the other bands out there today. They just aren't being showcased as well because people are too dumb to really care about anything other than getting laid, partying, drinking/drugs, hot chic, outfits etc etc...I see this shit everyday at my work it's all about following stupid trends and who has what and what so and so is gonna buy and not the core of life and the ugliness that is happening around us in the world today. and that shit part of what's hot/cool I just posted about is also part of the ugliness of the world.

This post has been edited by ShamanO: 13 March 2012 - 10:34 AM

[pastup]

ShamanO, on 13 March 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

ahh ok.

you do have a point about messages not being there with artists and making the melody along with the message and art impacting/thought provoking. Now no matter how much bitching one does at SP doing things the way they do it, I still think they are ahead of the other bands out there today. They just aren't being showcased as well because people are too dumb to really care about anything other than getting laid, partying, drinking/drugs, hot chic, outfits etc etc...I see this shit everyday at my work it's all about following stupid trends and who has what and what so and so is gonna buy and not the core of life and the ugliness that is happening around us in the world today. and that shit part of what's hot/cool I just posted about is also part of the ugliness of the world.

But see I'm not talking about bands like the Pumpkins that were huge in the 90's. I mean the young and up and coming bands of today's generation. There are still many bands that are making good music with a message that I agree with but they have been around since at least the 90's so I'm not including them since they aren't new bands. When Billy says, "I should never have even heard of some kids new favorite band" but yet they should get big enough that grandma knows about it. I'm not criticizing Billy that much because it's obvious that he's a fan of music himself and he wants the tradition of rock and roll trying to change the world to continue but I think he feels like it should be coming from the young kids and not the "old guys" who have been in the game for 20-30 years.

[ShamanO]

I see what you mean, BUT here is a prime example of what this young generation is about

Quote

Free Drinks Tonight Bitchs! Its going to be a great Night Yo!

(stolen from my fb feed)

[pastup]

well since we are all here because we are pumpkin fans we all have in common that we appreciate Billy's writing from a lyrical and musical standpoint. I always felt he was speaking the truth. Now it's like whether you agree with him or not, he's still speaking his mind with a fearlessness that is not around much anymore. The key is for all of these elements to meet at the right time which is sort of what happened in the 90's and at different times throughout history. It's like cycles that the music goes through and we seem to be stuck in a down time for new artistic musicians.

It's not enough to have the right message but the music is not that good. Or to have great music but the lyrics aren't that good. It's having all of those things in one package which is rare today.

[ShamanO]

well I'd say this is a damn good song and has a decent message within it-if you aren't one to think OMG ITS A GOD/JESUS/BIBLEY SONG...it's definitely a song that can make you explore and expand your mind, unless one fears exploring/learning and passes the time with what's cool/trendsetting. and it sounds awesome \m/

[Bountiful_Wasteland]

ShamanO, on 13 March 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

well I'd say this is a damn good song and has a decent message within it-if you aren't one to think OMG ITS A GOD/JESUS/BIBLEY SONG...it's definitely a song that can make you explore and expand your mind, unless one fears exploring/learning and passes the time with what's cool/trendsetting. and it sounds awesome \m/

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=7CelboN0G-o

To me, Quasar is a song about someone either crying out for God (any god) or someone waking up to a spiritual existence. People are so quick to dismiss songs like this as "religious", when in most of Billy's song I would say that it is definitely more of a general personally spiritual vibe. There is definitely a nasty backlash from modern society towards most religions, specifically Western, and Middle Eastern ones.

This post has been edited by Bountiful_Wasteland: 13 March 2012 - 11:22 AM

[ShamanO]

maybe everyone has their own interpretation of it? I see it as a song to keep you from dragging into a darker shadowy existence. It's uplifting and again something to expand your mind with for the curious

it's by no means telling you to convert yourself to a specific religion. just explore the things in life that connect within

[LostSoul]

Bountiful_Wasteland, on 13 March 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

To me, Quasar is a song about someone either crying out for God (any god) or someone waking up to a spiritual existence. People are so quick to dismiss songs like this as "religious", when in most of Billy's song I would say that it is definitely more of a general personally spiritual vibe. There is a definitely a nasty backlash from modern society towards most religions, specifically Western, and Middle Eastern ones.

My interpretation was a little different. I forget where I posted it. I am agnostic, but I do not dismiss religious songs because they reference God. Instead, I read into them and try to find out why the artist chose to write about that subject, and what they were getting at.

[february]

snail33, on 13 March 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

you think led zeppelin belongs in the same shitheap as disturbed, seether, nickelback and three days grace?

Yep. Robert Johnson, Willie Dixon, James Holmes, Howlin Wolf, just to name a few, were blatantly ripped off and not credited by them. If they'd given some credit where credit was due I might like them more. I admire their musicianship, and Plants vocal range, but their overall vibe just doesn't connect with me more often than not because I know where the music came from originally.







There's actually more, but I'll leave it at that.

LostSoul, on 13 March 2012 - 10:32 AM, said:

:rofl:/> Oh shit. He incurred the WRATH.

Hehe :)/>

[frednirv632]

february, on 13 March 2012 - 01:28 PM, said:

Yep. Robert Johnson, Willie Dixon, James Holmes, Howlin Wolf, just to name a few, were blatantly ripped off and not credited by them. If they'd given some credit where credit was due I might like them more. I admire their musicianship, and Plants vocal range, but their overall vibe just doesn't connect with me more often than not because I know where the music came from originally.

:facepalm:/>

[mayday27]

how can we say if one persons music should exist and anothers should not? it is the expression of the human spirit. i don't think i believe in poseurs. maybe some people will be recognizesd as trailblazers for particularly creative and revolutionary ways of expression but all forms of expression are valid.

An opporunity to speak the largest audience could be used to talk about what is exciting and creative and how things are changing for the better. "At the end of the day" bitterness is the opposite of energizing. there is something good that can be seen in most every artists expression.

human beings loving music and needing it in their lives will never go away. that may be one rare absolute.

[dudehitscar]

frednirv632, on 13 March 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

:facepalm:/>

Exactly.. Like all those people that he mentioned didn't rip off people in their time. Blues is notorious for theft.. Besides plenty of zep material was cutting edge with good songwriting..

Corgan has ripped off plenty without crediting them.

[nasalscarecrow]

I'm still no closer to understanding what experience is meant to draw people in.

[mayday27]

the experience part is interesting, but i think it's something people have when they listen to music in general. can that be enhanced by stimulating other sensory perceptions... like visual ? sure. but good music in itself is experiential.

i hope this is less of a marketing approach and more of an artists approach or creative approach. marketing has its place but not at the core of a project hopefully

[ItsSoPringles]

snail33, on 13 March 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

you think led zeppelin belongs in the same shitheap as disturbed, seether, nickelback and three days grace?

http://gifsoup.com/view/167866/man-smashing-computer-o.gif
that is how i reacted when i read that

[february]

ItsSoPringles, on 13 March 2012 - 02:27 PM, said:

http://gifsoup.com/view/167866/man-smashing-computer-o.gif
that is how i reacted when i read that

They did what they did really well, and in my original post I was more trying to illustrate what Clear Channel stations put on heavy rotation, and play to death. Old stuff that is worn to shreds, and new stuff that's nothing but mindless drivel mixed together. Snail's way of interpreting what I was trying to say rubbed me the wrong way, so I decided to point out that while Zeppelin made music that no one had ever heard before at the time 80 percent of it was copied word for word, and note for note from other artists.

Are they better musicians than the other bands mentioned? Of course they are, which made him missing the point of my post, and what Billy said about the classics still seeming to be better than a lot of newer music made today, that much more irritating to me. Notice he left out AC/DC. The high energy type rock and roll mixed with the morons of today was the point.

[pastup]

Just think of the quality of the albums Zeppelin put out. No band today is putting out albums like that. The blues songs that Jimmy took from were also taken from someone else so it was kind of impossible to know who to attribute the original songwriting credit to. It was him paying homage to those blues greats that no one had ever even heard of. Page probably did them a favor by turning on a whole new generation of kids to these American blues men that would have gone unnoticed. I don't think any bands have ever topped Hendrix or Floyd or Zeppelin or The Who or The Grateful Dead or any of the greats from the sixties and seventies.

[dudehitscar]

february, on 13 March 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

so I decided to point out that while Zeppelin made music that no one had ever heard before at the time 80 percent of it was copied word for word, and note for note from other artists.

Bullshit.

[awsmsc]

They said in interview that more gets revealed tomorrow. Do we know what this is?

[breathesgelatin]

awsmsc, on 13 March 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

They said in interview that more gets revealed tomorrow. Do we know what this is?

The Google Play interview was from Sunday; presumably they were talking about the panel with Brian Solis on Monday. From what we know (quotes and reportage from people in the audience for that panel), not much was revealed about Oceania. Billy talked some more about immersive/visual experiences surrounding albums and about the subscription model for SPRC. Not many other details.

[awsmsc]

Ah.

I hope we get more details soon (like a specific release date).

[Lunatic]

february, on 13 March 2012 - 01:28 PM, said:

Yep. Robert Johnson, Willie Dixon, James Holmes, Howlin Wolf, just to name a few, were blatantly ripped off and not credited by them. If they'd given some credit where credit was due I might like them more. I admire their musicianship, and Plants vocal range, but their overall vibe just doesn't connect with me more often than not because I know where the music came from originally.

There's actually more, but I'll leave it at that.

You forget that everybody did that.

[_________]

The blues in general and folk music especially had a culture of borrowing. Other blues musicians did it. Think of it like sampling before sampling ever was possible. The Beatles did a bit of this too.

http://www.guardian....hebeatles.media

Quote

Among the collection of rock and roll, rhythm and blues and soul, Midwinter traced an intriguing influence on the Beatles' output. Blues performer Bobby Parker's guitar lick was 'borrowed' by the Beatles for 'I Feel Fine'. Delbert McClinton's harmonica inspired Lennon's own on 'Love Me Do'. And the high-pitched scream on 'Twist and Shout' and other tracks was copied from the Isley Brothers.

A team from The South Bank Show took the jukebox, which they dubbed 'the original iPod', across America to track down Lennon's musical heroes. Many were gratified and none accused the Beatles of plagiarism. But one said he felt his contribution deserved greater recognition.

[nasalscarecrow]

Surely the borrowing aspect doesn't matter but more what they did with it? Some '60s rock bands may have worn their influences on their sleeves but the way it was done connected with audiences. And it carried on after that really.

[february]

pastup, on 13 March 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:

Just think of the quality of the albums Zeppelin put out. No band today is putting out albums like that. The blues songs that Jimmy took from were also taken from someone else so it was kind of impossible to know who to attribute the original songwriting credit to. It was him paying homage to those blues greats that no one had ever even heard of. Page probably did them a favor by turning on a whole new generation of kids to these American blues men that would have gone unnoticed. I don't think any bands have ever topped Hendrix or Floyd or Zeppelin or The Who or The Grateful Dead or any of the greats from the sixties and seventies.

I can accept this. They definitely rock, and if that playlist was what I had to choose from, Led Zeppelin would definitely be my favorite band hands down.

[MoonPI]

dudehitscar, on 13 March 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

Exactly.. Like all those people that he mentioned didn't rip off people in their time. Blues is notorious for theft.. Besides plenty of zep material was cutting edge with good songwriting..

Corgan has ripped off plenty without crediting them.

I wouldn't say "ripped off" more like "inspired"

[RottingApples]

MoonPI, on 14 March 2012 - 07:51 AM, said:

I wouldn't say "ripped off" more like "inspired"

"Ripped off" were Corgan's own words.

[dudehitscar]

RottingApples, on 14 March 2012 - 08:42 AM, said:

"Ripped off" were Corgan's own words.

Yep yep. It doesn't matter.

[snail33]

february, on 13 March 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

They did what they did really well, and in my original post I was more trying to illustrate what Clear Channel stations put on heavy rotation, and play to death. Old stuff that is worn to shreds, and new stuff that's nothing but mindless drivel mixed together. Snail's way of interpreting what I was trying to say rubbed me the wrong way, so I decided to point out that while Zeppelin made music that no one had ever heard before at the time 80 percent of it was copied word for word, and note for note from other artists.

Are they better musicians than the other bands mentioned? Of course they are, which made him missing the point of my post, and what Billy said about the classics still seeming to be better than a lot of newer music made today, that much more irritating to me. Notice he left out AC/DC. The high energy type rock and roll mixed with the morons of today was the point.

i didn't miss any point and i am not even a zep fan per se. but the other bands you named can't hold led zeppelin's balls. and lz did move past their original roots to make much more complex records like physical graffiti and presence. as far as ac/dc, they are a really great, fun, STUPID FUCKING rock band. which is cool. they're still a fuck of a lot better than all the other bands you named, but not good enough for me to defend vociferously. ac/dc=enjoyably lowbrow, nickelback=insufferably lowbrow.

the rock music made between the beginning of the rock era and the early 90s is MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH better than what has come since. the end.