I and III both deserve to be in the top 100. Even though III caught people off guard upon its release, haven't people realized after almost 40 years that its still on par with 1, 2, and 4?
I like this album because there is a nice blend of music like folk, blues rock and rock. I am one person who is not stuck on innovation like some people here. Though I will defend a act or a album if it was innovative.
Musically, Led Zeppelin III did not break any ground musically except I think the Immigrant Song sounds so much like alternative rock to me. The problem is if this album came out in 1964-1965 they would be hailing it as one of the greatest albums ever. It came out to late. That's my opinion why this album is so low. For me it does not matter. Anyway this album is still better than 99 percent of the albums that was out at the time. It's high quality stuff.
Well, I shouldn't even be credited to Led Zeppelin as it ripoffs tons of old blues songs. So, if it were to be in the top 100 it should be called History of Music- As performed by Led Zeppelin.
Their theft spans their career but I has always been the one most people consider the most blatant. It wouldn't have been so bad if the original artists were credited.
I think that if they had thought of themselves as "ripping off" that stuff, they wouldn't have named their songs the exact same title as the songs they were ripping off. I believe they felt they were paying tribute. It would be hard to deny their talent.
A tribute would have been putting the names of the original artists in the liner notes instead of their own. I fail to see how that's a tribute. I'm not disputing how good they were, II and IV are great albums and I isn't bad. But, it's hard to look past all of the music they passed off as their own.
that was Blind Willie McTell in 1928 withhis masterpiece, "Statesboro Blues", the most beautiful prewar blues recording I guess
Isn't that amazing ? Really sounds (voice and 12 string) like LZ III
