Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Zeppelin without Plant?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 8bit Fighter
    replied
    Originally posted by devilmaycare View Post
    Further to this, Pagey's management went on the record today regarding touring with another vocalist...

    "Whatever this is, it is not Led Zeppelin. Not without the involvement of Robert Plant."

    Amen to that.
    Fair enough.

    Leave a comment:


  • devstorm
    replied
    I respect that decision. Also I've heard the management say if this all happens
    with another singer there will be an album recorded before they hit the road.

    I think if they did go out without an album to promote they could just do something like what the members of Yes have done & say "An evening of Led Zeppelin Music." without actually naming the band. Sure everyone would still say "I'm going to see Led Zeppelin tonight" But it would avoid the term reunion that way.

    Leave a comment:


  • devilmaycare
    replied
    Further to this, Pagey's management went on the record today regarding touring with another vocalist...

    "Whatever this is, it is not Led Zeppelin. Not without the involvement of Robert Plant."

    Amen to that.

    Leave a comment:


  • devilmaycare
    replied
    Originally posted by 8bit Fighter View Post
    So in November, Jason doesn't count then. Right. Okay.
    Y'know, you can roll your eyes as much as you want, but the fact remains that there has only EVER been one line up of Led Zeppelin. Jason was a stand in for one show (plus 20 godawful minutes at the Atlantic Records show at MSG), so that is hardly Led Zeppelin Mk ll is it!?

    On top of that Jason wasn't featured in the cover shoots forany of the many magazine features surrounding the reunion of Page, Plant & JPJ and had THEY considered him an OFFICIAL member he would have been... They certainly would have had approval of the shots used.

    So NO, last November doesn't count. If Page & JPJ go out with Jason & a vocalist & THEY call it Led Zeppelin, then that I guess will be Mk ll... But I'm sure they're more than aware how much that will leave a bad taste in the mouths of so many of their true fans.

    I'll be there, but the last time I'd have seen the one true Led Zeppelin will still have been that incredible first night at Knebworth all those years ago.

    Leave a comment:


  • 8bit Fighter
    replied
    So in November, Jason doesn't count then. Right. Okay.

    Leave a comment:


  • airdance
    replied
    Originally posted by 8bit Fighter View Post

    That's fine, but bands other than Zeppelin have continued on one way or another, Black Sabbath being a huge example. If they like MK1 Zeppelin, fine. That's their preference, but don't tell me otherwise that I would be wrong into thinking that what Zeppelin they have now is not the real Zeppelin that others have longed for so long.



    Your analogy of Zeppelin to Sabbath falls short because of one critical point. There is no such thing as a "MK 1 Zeppelin". Zeppelin is one of those few bands that retained their original lineup right up to the very end.

    With other bands such as Sabbath, Purple, AC/DC etc, the fans got the chance to get used to a lineup change. It was perfectly validated by other bands that there was a MK1, MK2 etc. Plenty of other bands had lineup changes that lasted for a respectable amount of time and were successful. You had Dio with Sabbath, Johnson with AC/DC etc. You have very popular and successful albums of original bands with lineup changes, such as "Back in Black", "Heaven and Hell", "Burn" etc. The combination of lineup changes that lasted for a while with successful albums makes those lineup changes credible and considered to be as much of that band as the original band. Only a few very die hard fans would consider "Back in Black" not to be real AC/DC, or "Heaven and Hell" not to be real Sabbath, or "Burn" not to be real Deep Purple.

    But Zeppelin were always just Led Zeppelin with no lineup change. You cannot suddenly introduce a new member on a reunion tour and expect people to be happy or consider it to be legitimately Led Zeppelin. Because it's not. Any new member was not there when Zeppelin were recording albums and is not part of Zeppelin's history.

    It is a shamble to have someone other than Plant singing for Zeppelin when Zeppelin were original from the first day to the last.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ozzien82
    replied
    Originally posted by devilmaycare View Post
    I loved Keith... he was a neighbour of mine when I was growing up... Always so sweet to all the kids in the area & used to take over the milkman's route occasionally!
    Now that truly is priceless, having had Keith Moon as a neighbor. The closest I've come is living around the block from Tom Petty's family.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ady
    replied
    Originally posted by devilmaycare View Post
    Spot on... Collins intruduced them individually along with Paul Martinez, & Tony Thompson.

    And yes... Painful goes a little way to describing it!
    It's even worse than I remembered!

    Leave a comment:


  • devilmaycare
    replied
    Spot on... Collins intruduced them individually along with Paul Martinez, & Tony Thompson.

    And yes... Painful goes a little way to describing it!

    Leave a comment:


  • Ady
    replied
    They never went under the name Led Zeppelin at Live Aid, they just used their individual names.

    Edit - I posted a youtube link, but deleted it - it's too painful!
    Last edited by Ady; 11-09-2008, 05:42 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • devilmaycare
    replied
    Live Aid was for a cause other than their wallets... And Collins was thrust upon them... They had only rehearsed with the late great Tony Thompson. Collins fucked it up.

    I posted my thoughts on the O2 gig a couple of days after I attended.

    Leave a comment:


  • 8bit Fighter
    replied
    I still rather have something than nothing. Zep or not. And also, if it was okay then in November, then by that, it should of been okay now. I would also guess the other fans would feel the same way to, the ones that could not make it.

    EDIT: I don't want to post another post, but there has been another instance since Bonham's death that the band played with a different drummer. Live Aid 1985. Embarrassing? Yes, but since they thought of pulling Phil Collins to fill in as a guest for a day, than that would not be under "class" then either.
    Last edited by 8bit Fighter; 11-09-2008, 02:09 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • devilmaycare
    replied
    Originally posted by Ozzien82 View Post
    Perspective really plays in. After all, The Who is down 2 members, and are continuing to go under the moniker 'The Who.' Personally, without the members that have passed, I see them as a glorified tribute band. But I guess that it's still legitimate for them to use the name. Zep, on the other hand, has a dissenting member. Call the project something else - I don't think that it will keep fans away.
    The Who have never been the same since Moon died, I saw them with Moon & Kenny Jones and Zakk Starkey is probably the closest they've been in spirit since the mighty Moon died (I loved Keith... he was a neighbour of mine when I was growing up... Always so sweet to all the kids in the area & used to take over the milkman's route occasionally!). But The Who never said 'we can't carry on without him' they just (like AC/DC) got on with it & carried on... Seeing them now is nothing compared to when I saw them back in the mid 70's as a kid. The Who is Townshend's baby, but the heart & soul is gone from the band.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ozzien82
    replied
    Originally posted by devilmaycare View Post
    The four members of the band have always been very clear that Led Zeppelin were Jimmy Page, John Paul Jones, Robert Plant & JOHN Bonham... Replacing one of them just 'cos there's a lot of money on the table doesn't make any new line up Zeppelin... Replacing TWO of them is just ripping a lot of people off.

    If they'd said from the moment Bonzo died "We're gonna carry on" then fine, but they made such a big deal out of the fact that NOBODY could replace their friend & drummer that to do it now is just in bad taste & lacks class.
    Perspective really plays in. After all, The Who is down 2 members, and are continuing to go under the moniker 'The Who.' Personally, without the members that have passed, I see them as a glorified tribute band. But I guess that it's still legitimate for them to use the name. Zep, on the other hand, has a dissenting member. Call the project something else - I don't think that it will keep fans away.

    Leave a comment:


  • devilmaycare
    replied
    Originally posted by 8bit Fighter View Post
    And while I'm at it, what's the big deal about the younger generation saying that they did see Zeppelin when they probably only saw three guys and the drummer's son. Let them think what they want, you're making sound like it's a crime.
    I didn't mention any 'younger generation' here... Lots of people missed out on seeing Led Zeppelin first time round. I was one of the VERY fortunate ones...

    The four members of the band have always been very clear that Led Zeppelin were Jimmy Page, John Paul Jones, Robert Plant & JOHN Bonham... Replacing one of them just 'cos there's a lot of money on the table doesn't make any new line up Zeppelin... Replacing TWO of them is just ripping a lot of people off.

    If they'd said from the moment Bonzo died "We're gonna carry on" then fine, but they made such a big deal out of the fact that NOBODY could replace their friend & drummer that to do it now is just in bad taste & lacks class.

    For some people class is very important commodity.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X