That Led Zepplin Devil Worship Discussion

Originally posted by asmeone2
I think it's asking a bit too much to say that someone should keep their personal beleifs under wraps just because they are famous.

Actually - just the opposite. If they are into it and their music reflects that, then they should be WIDE OPEN about it so that people know what is in the albums and how the music was obtained (automatic writing). There are no laws saying that they have to - of course - but it would be nice if they were open about it.

Originally posted by Dulcimer

Originally posted by FlyersFan
People have a right to know what they are exposing themselves to.

Its crap like this that sends me over the edge. The people choose to listen to the music, buy the albums and attend the concerts. Nobody ever pinned me down and told me to listen to Zeppelin.

:shk: Oh the drama!

No one said that people were 'pinned down and told to listen to Zepplin'.
Get over yourself.

Yes, people can choose to listen to the music. But people have a right to know what they are exposing themselves to BEFORE they listen. If someone doesn't want to expose themselves to the occult, then they have a right to know that there is occult material in the music and so that they won't expose themselves to it.

People have a right to ask the question.

That's not 'crap' and if that basic right 'sends you over the edge' then you are just unbalanced to begin with. Get a grip.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by asmeone2
I think it's asking a bit too much to say that someone should keep their personal beleifs under wraps just because they are famous.

Actually - just the opposite. If they are into it and their music reflects that, then they should be WIDE OPEN about it so that people know what is in the albums and how the music was obtained (automatic writing). There are no laws saying that they have to - of course - but it would be nice if they were open about it.

Plant saying that freely in an interview isn't good enough for you?

Please Stay On Topic.

Further derailment due to personal commentary and off topic posts will be subject to removal at staff discretion.

Thanks and carry on.

Edit: BB code

[edit on 12/21/08 by niteboy82]

Levay totally idolised Crowley. If he could have, I'm sure he would have been Crowley, completely. Except it had already been done, so he moved the theater deeper into a 'satanic' type theme.
You have to realise that people like Crowley rely very much on their persona for their attention, and in a lot of cases, their income. It is something they spend a lot of time on. It is the larger than life theatricals.
Behind that, there is actually a very good philosphy, and some very interesting thoughts about life and the universe and his place in it. Crowley was a smart man, but the whole magick thing is an illusion, and a dangerous one at that.
I have admiration for Crowley for bucking the trend, and making a mockery of the establishment, but I don't admire him for his grandoise delusions and his hideous drug habit. He was someone that dreamt of having an important place in the universe - of being someone great - alas he ended up dying, being a decrepit heroin junky in a cheap rent room.
I wouldn't worry about Jimmy Page being an admirer, or Led making music with occult (hidden?) influences. This doesn't make them satan worshippers! And even if they were devil or satan worshippers, it really doesn't matter, as there are neither satans, nor devils. My only cause for concern is the mental state of the individuals that feel the need to embrace such things at that kind of level.


[edit on 21-12-2008 by cruzion]

reply to post by DarrylGalasso

Correction, the best "sloppy" guitarist is Angus Young from AC/DC.

I am a christian and a big zeppelin fan. I haven't heard anything that comes close and unfortunately most of the good popular music was made between 1968-1972, which includes some of zep.s best work. (Though physical graffiti is my favorite album of theirs.)

At one time I had convinced myself they were satanic and threw all my zep. albums out. Later I realized that it's what you make of the music. Claim it for Jesus or for your dark gods if you must.

I also found it interesting that zeppelin covered and remade two obscure blues classics by blind willy johnson, who was a gospel blues performer. The songs are "nobody's fault but mine", a song about repentance from sin and redemption and the other one is "In my time of dying."

Those songs just rock and are some of my favorite zep. tunes. If zep are devils, it's hard to figure out why a devil worshiper would cover gospel songs. I finally just figured they just loved the blues and didn't care where it sourced from.

This is from a court case where Crowley admits to calling himself 'The beast 666' in court.C\P from here.

Little Sunshine
Crowley tried to explain this in court when he testified in a 1934 lawsuit. He was asked, "Did you take to yourself the designation of 'the Beast 666'?"
"Yes."
"Do you call yourself the 'Master Therion'?"
"Yes."
"What does 'Therion' mean?"
"Great wild beast."
"Do these titles convey a fair impression of your practice and outlook on life?"
"It depends on what they mean."
"The Great Wild Beast and the Beast 666 are out of the Apocalypse?"
"It only means sunlight; 666 is the number of the sun. You can call me 'Little Sunshine.'"

Crowley believed that spiritual ages on earth are determined by humanity's evolving level of consciousness, and that around the turn of the 20th century we did indeed enter a new age. A new age naturally means the "end of the world" of the previous age. In Crowley's dramatic and colorful mind, the Book of the Revelation of Saint John the Divine provided the perfect narrative of this cosmic event.

For Crowley, the Whore of Babylon, the great Dragon, and the Beast 666 now represent perfectly wholesome spiritual characters who are instrumental in bringing about the birth of a new and eventually wonderful age.

Of course, not everyone will appreciate Crowley's point of view or his admiration of the number 666. But the 21st century is a kinder, gentler place for the memory of the wickedest man in the world. Even his native England, whose opinion of him in life was so terribly misguided, has now awakened to the fact that the man who called himself the Beast 666 was a national treasure. In 2002, the BBC conducted of poll of 30,000 Britons, asking them to vote for the person who was in their opinion the "Greatest Briton of All Time." Named number 73 in the top 100 (sandwiched between King Henry V and Robert Bruce) stands the "famous poet, author and philosopher, Aleister Crowley."

The Occult is not about the devil, its about learning... reaching gnosis to better yourself and mankind. I do not think of myself at all as being a devil worshiper but if Adam and Eve never left the garden then I doubt we would ever have things like Computers and The Internet... or maybe not even steaks, not sure if they ate meat pre 'Tree of Knowlege' or not. Life would be boring running around naked in the woods when everyone is doing it, and think how fun it is now. SO for that I guess I have to thank Lucifer for the apple.

Also read up on his WW2 work with many governments and even the CIA. He was working rituals to help win the war, we could all be speaking German right now if it was not for Crowley.

I also wonder if the fallout with the Masons did not happen (See Blue Equinox Journal: Panic In Detroit: The Magician and the Motor City') and they did merge if Crowley would have a different image now. Long story short... I guess the fallout had to do with Crowley telling the 32degree masons they would not get all the degrees in the OTO. The higher degrees have to do with Sex Magick and how could an all men organization have done those.

Crowley was the original 'Shoc Jock' and was the Howard Stern of religion. Also a little ahead of his time, and that's why more of his books sell now then when he was alive.

Led Zepplin Devil Worship=False (Myth Busted)

You can call me 'Little Sunshine.'

Funny.

Also read up on his WW2 work with many governments and even the CIA. He was working rituals to help win the war, we could all be speaking German right now if it was not for Crowley.

This is total speculation! Crowley claimed he brought Rudolph Hess to Britain, but this was after Hess crashed. He never mentioned it to anyone beforehand - and Crowley was well known to let everyone know what he was up to. His pretend secrecy.

The higher degrees have to do with Sex Magick and how could an all men organization have done those.

It never stopped Crowley having sex with men! Why would he be bothered if masons are teabagging each other?

Also a little ahead of his time, and that's why more of his books sell now then when he was alive.

Considering all his works were privately printed, in runs of 50 and 100 etc, when he was alive, that isn't saying much.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Yazman
at the end of the day such things are personal.

Not when you are an international rock star and there is occult symbology and lyrics strewn throughout your products in which millions and millions of children (and adults) are exposed to.

People have a responsibility to know what they are subjecting themselves to. They have a right not to expose their children (and themselves) to things that they deem wrong.

Philistine tripe.

An artist's only responsibility is to his or her art.

The existence of the human race is only justified by its art. Who cares what the blocks of wood and clods of earth 'deem wrong'?

[edit on 22-12-2008 by Astyanax]

Thanks for the thread, anything to do with LZ is a pleasure to read, I've been looking at the links and symbols connected to this thread for 2 hours now and it lead me to other things, like the Sargent Peppers album cover! Interesting thread, S&F

reply to post by marydoll



Did you see this:
en.wikipedia.org...
I knew Page had sold it a while back, but I didn't realise it was back in the 80's.
Other weird thing is, what is the chance of a world famous occutist and magician living on the shores of a lake, where a monster appears?

Originally posted by asmeone2
Plant saying that freely in an interview isn't good enough for you?

yes. It definately is good enough.
You and I have no arguement.

Back a few pages ago someone claimed that their religion was their own business and they had a right to privacy - that they didn't have to say anything. My response is that normally I agree BUT in this case they are putting out art (music) which does influence young minds (and us oldsters as well) and that it would be NICE for them to be open about it. They don't have to be of course. But it is NICE if people are open about it so others can decide if they want their children exposed to it.

My remarks were in response to that person's statement. That's all.

Originally posted by SevenThunders
Later I realized that it's what you make of the music. Claim it for Jesus or for your dark gods if you must.

That's pretty much the conclusion that I came to a few pages back.
It's SUBJECTIVE. Also the claim of 'devil worship' can be very, very,
subjective. What is devil worship to one person is occult to another and
even 'truth' to yet another person.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Philistine tripe.

That's a new one for me!

An artist's only responsibility is to his or her art.

Well... Yes and no - IMHO. There are two ways to look at this. Well ... perhaps dozens of ways to look at this. Their art is their passion and so they create their art as is their right and inspired duty. But at the same time we have products in supermarkets that have warning labels to warn people and to help them make good choices in their purchases according to their own needs and desires. There is freedom of expression but there is also responsibility in marketing.

reply to post by FlyersFan

There are two ways to look at this. Well ... perhaps dozens of ways to look at this. Their art is their passion and so they create their art as is their right and inspired duty. But at the same time we have products in supermarkets that have warning labels to warn people and to help them make good choices in their purchases according to their own needs and desires. There is freedom of expression but there is also responsibility in marketing.

You're comparing art with consumer products? Hmm.

Perhaps we should get Tipper Gore on the case. A new CD stickering campaign: PARENTAL ADVISORY: MAY CONTAIN SATANIC REFERENCES.

To say it again: it is not the responsibility of the artist to pander to the neuroses and taboos of the public. It is the responsibility of the artist to challenge orthodoxy, to remodel reality, to make people look at familiar things in a new way, to make them think and to question their own assuptions and prejudices. Above all it is the responsibility of the artist to hold himself open to inspiration and to be as faithful to the visions it brings as he possibly can.

To the extent that he succeeds in this, he may be called an artist.

By those lights, Led Zeppelin conducted themselves magnificently. They never compromised with record companies, commercial imperatives and popular taboos. In the UK, they never even released a single (though they were forced to do so in the US), nor, while the group was still recording, did they ever produce a compilation album. They obliged their listeners to get to know their albums as albums, because that was the format in which they chose to work. Their live shows and tours were undertaken on their own terms, to the chagrin of promoters. They shunned the media as much as they could, never played the celebrity game and never produced, as far as I know, a 'radio edit' of anything. You got Led Zeppelin uncut, or you got nothing.

Best of all, they resisted the temptation to continue after John Bonham died, and have since regrouped on only three occasions: Live Aid (a worthy cause), John Bonham's son's wedding (likewise) and finally, one single gig in December 2007. This is what all great bands should - and very few actually - do.

Finally, Led Zeppelin never pretended to be some innocent, sanitized Sesame Street kind of outfit. They were utterly, completely frank about just who and what they were. Page was talking about his fascination with Crowley almost as soon - as far as we can tell - he conceived it.

Not enough? Better forget Led Zeppelin, then, and try someone nice and family-friendly and harmless... like Michael Jackson.

[edit on 22-12-2008 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by Astyanax
You're comparing art with consumer products? Hmm.

Yes. Because they sell the art.
Anyone who sells anything has marketing responsibilities.
When you sell things there are social responsibilities as well - IMHO.
You are free to disagree. That's fine.

it is the responsibility of the artist to hold himself open to inspiration and to be as faithful to the visions it brings as he possibly can.

Absolutely. I fully agree.

Led Zeppelin never pretended to be some innocent, sanitized Sesame Street kind of outfit.

I never said they did.

Not enough?

I never said that it wasn't enough. Read the thread. There was a remark - paraphrasing - that their religion was their own business. My response was that if it was their own business then they'd have to keep it to themselves. Once they made it public through their art - the religion in the art becomes the business of the capitalist society consumer.

I never said they had to change. I never said they didnt' 'say enough'.
I said that anyone in this same position SHOULD say something for the
sake of the consumer. And from what I see - Led Zepplin did.

You guys are looking for a fight where there really isn't one.

Back a few pages ago someone claimed that their religion was their own business and they had a right to privacy - that they didn't have to say anything. My response is that normally I agree BUT in this case they are putting out art (music) which does influence young minds (and us oldsters as well) and that it would be NICE for them to be open about it. They don't have to be of course. But it is NICE if people are open about it so others can decide if they want their children exposed to it.

I really think anyone in Zep's situation woudl be condemned either way.

They'd be open about it, and people would go "ZOMG! They're trying to convert us to Satanism!"

They's hide it, and it would be, "Sweet Jesus! Stealth Satanism!"

Originally posted by asmeone2
I really think anyone in Zep's situation woudl be condemned either way.

Sadly, I think that's true.

Zepplin did a fine job of being open. I have no problem with them and I don't think they tried to hide anything. They were very much open about everything. THAT is a true artist. Not being afraid to share their inspirations, their muse, with the world.

reply to post by FlyersFan


I do think they had a good balance between including their personal beleifs and not pressing them o n the listener.

Originally posted by asmeone2
Some quotes and interviews I could dig up:

An Interview Very long but interesting. Worth the read.

Awesome! I was going to post this myself. William Burroughs himself was an awesome writer and quite a magickal genius, and reading his interview with Page is just brilliant. You can tell both me were really "in tune" with what's going on. Satan has nothing to do with it.

reply to post by asmeone2


The second picture was made in the 1800's by some European guy can't remember his name, anyways it's titled "Evening: Fall of Day" and is depicting the daily descend of Apollo.