^^^^^^

I think you are underestimating the albums I mentioned. Sure they may not be your number one, but they changed music more than pretty much any albums to date in the history of modern day music. The sheer amount of influence they produced makes them automatically bounce to the top. Why do people almost always say Hendrix is the best guitarist? Not because he is the best at the instrument or wrote the best songs but he influenced more musicians than probably anyone else in history.

Surely you jest.

I specifically said there were good cases to be made for LZ, Hendrix and The Beatles. They were all phenomenal. The OP had Revolver and Rubber Soul listed in earlier years. If you look through the first page it is obvious the OP likes more Avant Garde, Glam and Proto Punk than the typical RnR that Zeppelin and Hendrix were absolute masters of.

Staying with 1969 specifically, Hendrix didn't release an album. Zeppelin is super, but hardly ground breaking in 1969. Heck most of the tracks on their first two albums are cover songs. Now they EXECUTED every song superbly and are arguably the best RnR band ever, but I wouldn't say the 1st two albums are hands down in the top 5 for 1969. "Abbey Road" is fantastic, but certainly not the Beatles strongest album.

"Let it Bleed" is probably the Stones best album and should be mentioned also, along with The Stooges first album, Neil Young's "Everyone Knows This is Nowhere", Jethro Tull's "Stand Up!, Isaac Hayes' "Hot Buttered Soul", David Bowie's "Space Oddity", The Who's "Tommy", arguably the first Rock Opera (apologies to Mark Wirtz), MC5's "Kick Out the Jams", and probably Flying Burrito Brothers' "The Gilded Palace of Sin".

There are simply too many that "belong" in the top 5 and as I said before, it might not be the same as MY top 5, but the albums listed for 1969 by the op are SOLID choices and certainly do not warrant such attacks.

FWIW MY top 5 for 1969 would be:

1) King Crimson - In The Court of the Crimson King
2) Led Zeppelin - LZ I
3) Pink Floyd - Ummagumma
4) Chicago - Transit Authority
5) Fleetwood Mac - Then Play On

I didn't say he did..........?


I hope to god that is a joke. First off because something is a cover song means nothing. Blues has always been about covers and updating them with the times. So All Along the Watchtower or Born Under A Bad Sign were not revolutionary because they were covers? Thats a joke. Led Zeppelin 1 and 2 were released in ONE YEAR. I really would like to see your argument defending the fact that brought nothing new to the table.

Whats the reason for nearly every rock guitarist siting early LZ as amain influence? Because they were nothing new?

edit: Even Ritche Blackmore aroudn the time of machinehead and Fireball admited to his main influence for what what considered one of the heaviest albums ever recorded was the first couple Zep albums.

all u old geezers still talkin about da 60's LOL :P get with the times man

ah, but only a true poseur like me would think Miles Davis' On the Corner is his best, think highly of Cap's Bluejeans and Moonbeams and think VU's 1969 is the best live album EVER recorded

I love Zeppelin. I'll repeat that the bands technical mastery is unparalleled. Page was in a favorable position and always had super gear. I would argue the most ground breaking thing about Zeppelin's first two albums is the sound quality. I mean other bands were covering blues records, but no one did it as great and as awesome as LZ.

I guess I would ask what YOU think is "revolutionary" about any thing on either album. Yes they were the best band and had the best sound hands down, but what was something you consider revolutionary about them?

Post a a few songs pre 1969 that sounded like anything off Led Zepp 1.. Thats all the proof I think I need.

None of them are nearly as good, but you asked...


Were they harder rocking than anything before them?
Perhaps, but Hendrix and Cream were before them. How about Iron Butterfly? Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac? Tull? Dave Edmund's Love Sculpture?

I mean I don't know how many times I can repeat I LOVE Led Zep, but I just have a hard time seeing them as revolutionary, excepting their musicianship and sound.
They were the best band ever assembled, fact.


But what is "proof"?
are you 15?

I asked you a simple question. What do YOU find to be revolutionary about them?

You skirted that simple question.

Can you answer it?

Or is Zeppelin revolutionary just because YOU say so?

We are with the times, but history is always relevant to understand the present, I guess you never took your history lessons seriously.

I think you're confusing revolutionary with originality here, some of the most revolutionary bands in the history of rock such as the Who, Sex Pistols and Nirvana weren't overly original but they were revolutionary. Led Zep were revolutionary because they fused blues and hard rock better than anybody else had done in 1969 and went off like a bomb. Bands like Free and Jeff Beck had done this type of thing about a year earlier and before that bands like Blue Cheer had played blues louder than anybody else and Cream had laid down the criteria, but it was Led Zep that revolutionized the whole thing. The 1970s was the era of hard rock and that is mostly down to the influence of Led Zep at the start of the decade. As Rez had also said, nearly every heavy act since was influenced by Led Zep. They along with Black Sabbath made both hard rock and heavy metal what it is today. Do you still think there is nothing revolutionary about Led Zep? If you doubt anything I've said, a bit of research will bring you to the same conclusion.