Interesting dichotomy between title and content. "The Only Band Led Zeppelin Hated Touring With" implies deep loathing, yet the gist of the piece was that while there were fairly deep differences and some distance between the two bands, the fabled rift was overblown- and it wasn't so much Zeppelin having misgivings about Tull, but the other way around. Shades of "clickbait"...
and yet Tull's drummer, Barriemore Barlowe became Plant's drummer on Principal of Moments. When Zep started, Page was not 100% sure about Robert and there was talk he might not be around after the first American tour. When Page realized Plant's ability on stage and saw him develop as a performer he obviously changed his mind but on that first tour Plant was quite worried Page was going to sack him. In fact, Plant was paid the least on that first tour than anyone except for the roadies. I believe Richad Cole was making more money than Plant at the time. There is a story where Cole ordered Plant to go pick up sandwiches for everyone in January 69' and Plant never really forgave Cole for the slight. Not a coincidence that when Plant essentially took over Zep in 79' he immediately fired Cole.
By the time Zeppelin became superstars, they also maintained rigid setlists and even some "pat' introductions (Robert always seemed to mention Robert Johnson's Terraplane Blued at every intro to Trampled Underfoot). I am aware that Zeppelin had more improvisation within a song, but there setlists were almost identical within each tour. As a matter of fact, almost ALL of the British bands did that; it was American acts that varied their setlists from night to night.
I thought Grand Funk would have been the band in question, since Zeppelin manager Peter Grant was furious with them in 1970 when they were just too damn good for Zeppelin to have to follow.
Maybe this wasn't the case when they toured with Led Zeppelin, but by the time I first saw Jethro Tull in the mid 70's, their shows included new arrangements of some of their songs, and a lot of instrumental material that wasn't on any of their albums. So while they didn't stretch Aqualung out to a ridiculous half hour, the way Zeppelin did with Dazed and Confused, they were far from one of those bands whose concerts were note for note recreations of their albums. There were a lot of bands like that actually.
My thinking was one of the reasons for Zeppelin's constant improvisation is there was no way they could re-create the songs live as they were on the recordings?🤔
Jimmy, a quite gifted guitarist and composer, was used to studio magic overlaying multiple guitars and would improvise live as a result. Not that this had any detriment on their show. I loved every minute of it
I saw Zep three times back int the day, and Tull twice. NO comparison live. Tull was tight, precise, accurately playing what I paid to hear: Live album cuts. Sound mixing was off the charts great for those days. They were the ONLY band I had ever seen that actually had sheet music visible at every position. By contrast, Zep was all over the place. Plant's voice was shot. Page was clearly drunk and his guitar was out of tune. His solos were sloppy and he was sometimes off by two bars. Bonham was also clearly drunk, but drums are more primal than guitar so his performance did not suffer. By far, the best performer in the band - and possibly the best musician was John Paul Jones, who's Fender Jazz Bass through Acoustic 360's was clear and perfect.
Seen both. Both are a tour de force on their own. Thick as A brick is a masterpiece. Have loved Zep since about 68 and even travelled to earls Court in 75. Mick Abrahams remains one of my favourite guitar players, Anderson is another Embra cliche.. and a wild Salmon destroyer, yes he and daltrey!
Around the mid-70s, John Bonham was asked who's the best drummer and he said that Barriemore Barlow was the very best drummer ever to come out of Great Britain.
Also of note, Zeppelin, when recording Zep IV, was in the basement studio, while Tull were in the upstairs studio recording Aqualung. So, many of the stories may be true, but these guys knew each other fairly well and would occasionally "bump into each other" from time to time. I don't think "hate" comes into it.
Simple fact of the matter is Tull was literally patterned after a traveling troop of Minstrals. Going from township to village and the occasional Castle! Zeppelin was closer to a traveling Circus! Both equally Entertaining! 🤣👍🏻
Tull's music can't easily be jammed; It's too complex and has to be rehearsed to the point of muscle memory taking over. Ian Anderson is a perfectionist. Two great bands, each with their own way of doing things. I doubt there was any hatred involved.
Different approaches to music is what makes it so entertaining. If every artist approached music the same way the diversity could never be as great as it is. Zeppelin and Tull are both right in that they both created very good music. No diversity should come of bands that have different ways to make music. Different musicians in the same band trying to use different approaches to the music they are making could become a problem for the band, but that is a different topic.
I saw Boston in 1977 and they played their debut album exactly like the album. The show was over in 45 mins. They were the headliner. People were pissed.
Zeppelin was mostly a studio band and couldn't quite capture the same proficiency live and were mostly sloppy and drug fueled and quite frankly for me ruined their icon status. Bands like Black Sabbath, Thin Lizzy and the Eagles did similar intoxicants and yet managed to sound as good as their studio work live.
I love both bands and have seen both live. I prefer Tull in a live setting because I love seeing the songs performed as they were written, even with a few liberties. I find the extended improvisation annoying and boring some times. The vast differences in off stage styles also made them somewhat incompatible.
In other words, 2 bands not getting along for low IQ reasons bc of ego's, not important! Both bands are great, but Tull and Ian Anderson are unique and different than just rock bands even though Zep is unique in a rock style. Tull using a classical/rock style of music with a renaissance flavor has surpassed rock and most bands, NOBODY plays acoustic guitar like Ian, it's really a beautiful and a totally unique sound and style, not to mention his flute playing! ELP, Yes are also in that category, but they are all great in their spheres! You guys are seniors now, so stop talking against each other, grow up and let's enjoy all the music together! Rock stars are getting old and are sounding like it daily, enjoy life and stop the silly low IQ hate, IT'S A WASTE OF TIME!!!! This article is true in a way, Tull always sounds great live, until Ian lost his voice, but I've seen Zep and many times they sound sloppy especially Jimmy Page, but it doesn't matter I love Zep and Tull, they need to be friends and enjoy their differences bc they both worked for the music business and importantly, their fans and that's ALL that matters! Sounding like seniors still fighting over nothing, NOT IMPORTANT!
Sounds unlikely. I saw Tull once (about 30 minutes was all anyone needed tbh) but Robert Plant has quoted from Tull; sorry I can't remember the quote. They were Blackmore's favorite band. I do believe that Page and Bonham maybe didn't admire Tull's precise running order, but I doubt they wasted a lot of mental mintues stewing over being on the same bill. Probably less time than this commment took.
As much as I love Zeppelin… their live performances were definitely uneven and inconsistent. I’d rather see a band that sounds consistently good every night. Having seen Tull back in the 80s I can attest that they were truly excellent live.
I saw both the Who and ZED at the Pontiac Silverdome. The Who rocked so hard , Zep was near boring. Grand Funk blew ZEp off the stage in Cleveland and Grant ended the damage right there.
Yes... the audience's appreciation for GFR was so embarrassing to Led Zeppelin, that Grant came on stage, stopped GFR and kicked them off the tour. GFR went on to be a headliner and sold out Shea Stadium faster than the Beatles!
I've seen both live. Tull were far superior. Page was very disorganised and sloppy in particular. Led Zep were nothing like as good live as on record. Tull were even better live than on record.
I think from the perspective of surviving as an artist and running a business, Jethro Tull had the right idea. As much as I like many of LZ's studio recordings, their live act was a joke, and they were maybe a bit too narcissistic. If their albums weren't so great, they wouldn't have made it, especially after ticket prices were no longer cheap. IA and Jethro Tull were viable long after the death of John Bonham, which was essentially end of Plant and Page as "legends" of rock. I have a lot of respect for Ian Anderson's work ethic and the fact that he actually has always was a responsible adult and a good businessman, although maybe a little too rigid at times, but Idk, I was not privvy to his requisite day to day decisions.
MSG 1973, for example, has Zeppelin performing "No Quarter", The Song Remains the Same, The Rain Song, Dazed and Confused" etc. much better than the studio vinyl.
@@javlohudzlin4829on vinyl they had limited space, live they could extend solos, & add more to their songs. Listening to different songs from the different concerts, you can decide which version you like more. I like live at Earls Court In My Time Of Dying, more the May 25th version, then the 24th version. I think the 25th has more soulful passion vocals, & Pages guitar playing is better, not that it was bad the other night.
I saw Tull at Madison Square Garden in the early 80s the opening act was Donavan who was booed off the stage and started crying. Felt bad for him the NY crowd was ruthless. Amazing. Tull opening up for Zeppelin sounded like a great pairing
@@sicotshit7068 You can LOL all you want, but when both bands were at their peak from the early to mid 1970's, Jethro Tull absolutely was just as popular. Admittedly Led Zeppelin is much more popular now, but back then, they were both hugely popular.
@@RodericSpode Tull were very popular yes,,,,,but not as popular as Zep. Zep were selling out stadiums by 1973 and as for album sales Zep outsold Tull by a colossal amount.
All the best live shows I have ever seen were heavily choreographed, ELO, Queen, James Gang , van Hagar etc Worst live shows weren’t, ZZ Top, dead, zep
They wouldn’t tour with Grand Funk Railroad either. After GFR blew the audience away opening for them ,Peter Green LZ manager pulled the plug on them. They couldn’t take the competition Welcome to Detroit
Interesting dichotomy between title and content. "The Only Band Led Zeppelin Hated Touring With" implies deep loathing, yet the gist of the piece was that while there were fairly deep differences and some distance between the two bands, the fabled rift was overblown- and it wasn't so much Zeppelin having misgivings about Tull, but the other way around.
Shades of "clickbait"...
absolutely
and yet Tull's drummer, Barriemore Barlowe became Plant's drummer on Principal of Moments. When Zep started, Page was not 100% sure about Robert and there was talk he might not be around after the first American tour. When Page realized Plant's ability on stage and saw him develop as a performer he obviously changed his mind but on that first tour Plant was quite worried Page was going to sack him. In fact, Plant was paid the least on that first tour than anyone except for the roadies. I believe Richad Cole was making more money than Plant at the time. There is a story where Cole ordered Plant to go pick up sandwiches for everyone in January 69' and Plant never really forgave Cole for the slight. Not a coincidence that when Plant essentially took over Zep in 79' he immediately fired Cole.
By the time Zeppelin became superstars, they also maintained rigid setlists and even some "pat' introductions (Robert always seemed to mention Robert Johnson's Terraplane Blued at every intro to Trampled Underfoot). I am aware that Zeppelin had more improvisation within a song, but there setlists were almost identical within each tour. As a matter of fact, almost ALL of the British bands did that; it was American acts that varied their setlists from night to night.
Hardley any improvisation, not there thing.
I thought Grand Funk would have been the band in question, since Zeppelin manager Peter Grant was furious with them in 1970 when they were just too damn good for Zeppelin to have to follow.
Maybe this wasn't the case when they toured with Led Zeppelin, but by the time I first saw Jethro Tull in the mid 70's, their shows included new arrangements of some of their songs, and a lot of instrumental material that wasn't on any of their albums. So while they didn't stretch Aqualung out to a ridiculous half hour, the way Zeppelin did with Dazed and Confused, they were far from one of those bands whose concerts were note for note recreations of their albums. There were a lot of bands like that actually.
My thinking was one of the reasons for Zeppelin's constant improvisation is there was no way they could re-create the songs live as they were on the recordings?🤔
No, because Zeppelin was about creating music in the moment.
@@javlohudzlin4829yes exactly!
"I can't tolerate repetition." -- Robert Plant
Jimmy, a quite gifted guitarist and composer, was used to studio magic overlaying multiple guitars and would improvise live as a result. Not that this had any detriment on their show. I loved every minute of it
@ me too.
I saw Zep three times back int the day, and Tull twice. NO comparison live. Tull was tight, precise, accurately playing what I paid to hear: Live album cuts. Sound mixing was off the charts great for those days. They were the ONLY band I had ever seen that actually had sheet music visible at every position.
By contrast, Zep was all over the place. Plant's voice was shot. Page was clearly drunk and his guitar was out of tune. His solos were sloppy and he was sometimes off by two bars. Bonham was also clearly drunk, but drums are more primal than guitar so his performance did not suffer. By far, the best performer in the band - and possibly the best musician was John Paul Jones, who's Fender Jazz Bass through Acoustic 360's was clear and perfect.
Seen both. Both are a tour de force on their own. Thick as A brick is a masterpiece. Have loved Zep since about 68 and even travelled to earls Court in 75. Mick Abrahams remains one of my favourite guitar players, Anderson is another Embra cliche.. and a wild Salmon destroyer, yes he and daltrey!
Wild salmon destroyer? Care to explain this?
I’m I alone thinking how overrated Zeppelin were?
Yes
Oui le seul de l’univers😂
Around the mid-70s, John Bonham was asked who's the best drummer and he said that Barriemore Barlow was the very best drummer ever to come out of Great Britain.
One song by Jethro Tull outdoes everything that Led Zeppelin ever did. Thick As A Brick.
Also of note, Zeppelin, when recording Zep IV, was in the basement studio, while Tull were in the upstairs studio recording Aqualung. So, many of the stories may be true, but these guys knew each other fairly well and would occasionally "bump into each other" from time to time. I don't think "hate" comes into it.
Probably explains why Tull could change personnel and zep couldn’t.
Simple fact of the matter is Tull was literally patterned after a traveling troop of Minstrals. Going from township to village and the occasional Castle!
Zeppelin was closer to a traveling Circus!
Both equally Entertaining!
🤣👍🏻
Tull's music can't easily be jammed; It's too complex and has to be rehearsed to the point of muscle memory taking over. Ian Anderson is a perfectionist. Two great bands, each with their own way of doing things. I doubt there was any hatred involved.
Two entirely different bands. I saw them both and they were great, Zeppelin as rock behemoths, and Tull prog masters with a sly grin.
Different approaches to music is what makes it so entertaining. If every artist approached music the same way the diversity could never be as great as it is. Zeppelin and Tull are both right in that they both created very good music. No diversity should come of bands that have different ways to make music. Different musicians in the same band trying to use different approaches to the music they are making could become a problem for the band, but that is a different topic.
Love both bands, but "Jethro Dull" was too funny
I saw Boston in 1977 and they played their debut album exactly like the album. The show was over in 45 mins. They were the headliner. People were pissed.
O9/05/ 1971-- at the Amphitheater in Chicago, I saw Zeppelin-- best concert EVER; also saw Tull same place diffetent date; good concert.
That surprises me. Loved both bands. Wish I'd seen that tour.
Zeppelin was mostly a studio band and couldn't quite capture the same proficiency live and were mostly sloppy and drug fueled and quite frankly for me ruined their icon status. Bands like Black Sabbath, Thin Lizzy and the Eagles did similar intoxicants and yet managed to sound as good as their studio work live.
In Led Zeppelin Chicago Kinetic playground Feb 7, 1969 I saw Zeppelin, Tull, and Vanilla Fudge, the FUDGE being the A Band. It was excellent.
Zep would have loved touring with Nirvana. That'd be a great pair I believe. 😊🎉
They would’ve hated Rush even more, a band whose shows were all about rehearsed precision.
Not about hating, just two different approaches.
Yet some try to claim Rush is better, I personally would rather see concerts preformed differently, it’s performed with real passion.
@@sicotshit7068 I agree with you. Just think of the monotonous nature of playing the same thing, night after night!
@ yes
@@javlohudzlin4829 I love both bands. Just posting in response to the video title.
Sen both bands in the 70s great shows both bands but The Who blew them away back in the 70s,, very explosive band!!
This is horrible AI.
Tull was a little too Spinal Tap/ Shire of Frodo for me lol
Apples and oranges!.
Tull way better than Zeppelin live. Tull was tight. Zep sloppy as hell. Very disappointing. Saw them both at Chicago Stadium
Zeppelin all great musicians, but very undisciplined live , out of tune and just nothing like the records. Left the show early
Tull was great
Who cares... it's music,not ww3...
Did they ever tour with the Fall?
I saw led Zeppelin live and they were really good but nowhere as good live as the Who .They were incredible!
There was no comparison
Having seen both Tull and Led Zep in the 70’s… Tull was far and away the better live band.
I love both bands and have seen both live. I prefer Tull in a live setting because I love seeing the songs performed as they were written, even with a few liberties. I find the extended improvisation annoying and boring some times. The vast differences in off stage styles also made them somewhat incompatible.
I saw LZ in 1970. No opening act. LZ live were spotty.
Two Leos going head to head was never going to be a good combo!
In other words, 2 bands not getting along for low IQ reasons bc of ego's, not important! Both bands are great, but Tull and Ian Anderson are unique and different than just rock bands even though Zep is unique in a rock style. Tull using a classical/rock style of music with a renaissance flavor has surpassed rock and most bands, NOBODY plays acoustic guitar like Ian, it's really a beautiful and a totally unique sound and style, not to mention his flute playing! ELP, Yes are also in that category, but they are all great in their spheres! You guys are seniors now, so stop talking against each other, grow up and let's enjoy all the music together! Rock stars are getting old and are sounding like it daily, enjoy life and stop the silly low IQ hate, IT'S A WASTE OF TIME!!!! This article is true in a way, Tull always sounds great live, until Ian lost his voice, but I've seen Zep and many times they sound sloppy especially Jimmy Page, but it doesn't matter I love Zep and Tull, they need to be friends and enjoy their differences bc they both worked for the music business and importantly, their fans and that's ALL that matters! Sounding like seniors still fighting over nothing, NOT IMPORTANT!
Does anybody remember laughter? Not exactly spontaneous on the part of Plant.
I love Robert Plant, but I always thought that was a goofy line anyway. What does it even? Who doesn't remember laughter?
It's a good story, but I wish they muted that background noise.
Don't know what came over the Managers, thinking the tour would be a good idea.
Sounds unlikely. I saw Tull once (about 30 minutes was all anyone needed tbh) but Robert Plant has quoted from Tull; sorry I can't remember the quote. They were Blackmore's favorite band.
I do believe that Page and Bonham maybe didn't admire Tull's precise running order, but I doubt they wasted a lot of mental mintues stewing over being on the same bill. Probably less time than this commment took.
How many times will you repeat the same basic story. We got it. Zep liked freedom, Tull needed order.
As much as I love Zeppelin… their live performances were definitely uneven and inconsistent. I’d rather see a band that sounds consistently good every night. Having seen Tull back in the 80s I can attest that they were truly excellent live.
Bull crap - inconsistent? WTF do you know….
I’m with Tull on this one after hearing Page play so crappy and even out of tune.
LOL
Zep's complaints seem rather adolescent.
If any of that is even true.
Seen both live,Tull was better no question about it!
Zep didn't like touring with Grand Funk Railroad as the opening act because they were too hard to follow.
I loved both bands. Different approaches and equally powerful each in their own way. The disrespect was uncalled for.
I've always loved both bands. Totally different. Having seen both bands live, in my opinion, Tull were the better live band.
I much prefer the improvised Zeppelin approach.
Zeppelin putting down another bands live act? 😂Zep was a HORRIBLE live band. Great in the studio though
Mind you, the best live band❤❤
I saw both the Who and ZED at the Pontiac Silverdome. The Who rocked so hard , Zep was near boring. Grand Funk blew ZEp off the stage in Cleveland and Grant ended the damage right there.
Yes... the audience's appreciation for GFR was so embarrassing to Led Zeppelin, that Grant came on stage, stopped GFR and kicked them off the tour. GFR went on to be a headliner and sold out Shea Stadium faster than the Beatles!
I've seen both live.
Tull were far superior. Page was very disorganised and sloppy in particular. Led Zep were nothing like as good live as on record.
Tull were even better live than on record.
Never a Zep fan. Plant’s screeching, effeminate voice ruined it for me. But that’s just me.
I think from the perspective of surviving as an artist and running a business, Jethro Tull had the right idea.
As much as I like many of LZ's studio recordings, their live act was a joke, and they were maybe a bit too narcissistic.
If their albums weren't so great, they wouldn't have made it, especially after ticket prices were no longer cheap. IA and Jethro Tull were viable long after the death of John Bonham, which was essentially end of Plant and Page as "legends" of rock. I have a lot of respect for Ian Anderson's work ethic and the fact that he actually has always was a responsible adult and a good businessman, although maybe a little too rigid at times, but Idk, I was not privvy to his requisite day to day decisions.
Both bands were much better on vinyl than live, although I preferred Zeps live show than Andersons spastic posturing & inane banter.
MSG 1973, for example, has Zeppelin performing "No Quarter", The Song Remains the Same, The Rain Song, Dazed and Confused" etc. much better than the studio vinyl.
@@javlohudzlin4829on vinyl they had limited space, live they could extend solos, & add more to their songs. Listening to different songs from the different concerts, you can decide which version you like more. I like live at Earls Court In My Time Of Dying, more the May 25th version, then the 24th version. I think the 25th has more soulful passion vocals, & Pages guitar playing is better, not that it was bad the other night.
Ridiculous… Neil Peart was the greatest ever.
I saw Tull at Madison Square Garden in the early 80s the opening act was Donavan who was booed off the stage and started crying. Felt bad for him the NY crowd was ruthless. Amazing. Tull opening up for Zeppelin sounded like a great pairing
Jazz odyssey.
It was the drugs.
I love Led Zeppelin, but what a bunch of wussy’s. They have their manager pull the plug on GFR and talk behind Tulls back like little girls
Grant would never let another band upstage his boys.
Clickbait
Tull are way better.
Give me Tull anytime.
They co headlined with the Who in 69, the Who blew them off the stage.
Like it or not Jethro Tull was just as popular
LOL!
@@sicotshit7068 You can LOL all you want, but when both bands were at their peak from the early to mid 1970's, Jethro Tull absolutely was just as popular. Admittedly Led Zeppelin is much more popular now, but back then, they were both hugely popular.
@@RodericSpode Tull were very popular yes,,,,,but not as popular as Zep. Zep were selling out stadiums by 1973 and as for album sales Zep outsold Tull by a colossal amount.
Sir page.. What a Sellout
All the best live shows I have ever seen were heavily choreographed, ELO, Queen, James Gang , van Hagar etc Worst live shows weren’t, ZZ Top, dead, zep
That’s a pretty silly thing to say honestly
More clickbait bs.
They wouldn’t tour with Grand Funk Railroad either. After GFR blew the audience away opening for them ,Peter Green LZ manager pulled the plug on them. They couldn’t take the competition Welcome to Detroit
Peter Greene was a guitarist. Never managed Led Zeppelin. Peter Grant was Led Zeppelin’s manager.
Peter Green huh ???
Every word you said is officially debunked because you thought Peter Green is LZ manager.
😂🤣😂🤣😆🤣😆😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣
GFR isn't even in the same universe as Zeppelin.
Maybe even beyond Zeppelin...
@@larryh8072 Good joke.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah
They still suck
Is there a more overrated band than zeppelin?
Oasis
No that’s because they’re not over rated you ❄️
Greatfull Dead
Tull = Dull
go and get your flowers pressed....
They were both brilliant and appealed to different audiences . If I was in a venue waiting to see Led Zepp I wouldn't appreciate Jethro Tull
Zepplin always sucked live…alcohol….heroin…..coke…they sucked.
@peterSokol-bi5vz. Well you might as well include all rock bands then. Hahahahaha
You disrespectful pig !!! You suck ! You don't have to like them ! Disrespectful ass was uncalled for!
Did you ever see them? You are clueless.
Peter ?? Townshend??
Go back to your internet investigating
I’m just glad my parents didn’t name me Peter
I’m I alone thinking how overrated Zeppelin were?