I would not have wanted to be MJ at the O2, because it must be frightening to watch a band that sounds so totally powerful....but the Stones still rule for me, so hopefully it will encourage the Rolling ones to pull their collective fingers out and get seriously competitive!

I just read that Jagger was there and I was glad that Zeppelin was so good because that may wake up the Stones.On the other hand Stones played so many times the last 20 years that is natural to be much more strict on them.

I think the whole event will prove good for the institution of Rock n' Roll

Do any of you remember a comment Robert Plant made in the mid to late 70's?
"If the Beatles ever got back together, they would forget all about us"
Nobody was sure if he was referring to the fans or the industry.

I find it very strange that after something like 20 years of inactivity all of a sudden a band have single handedly saved the face of Rock and Roll just by performing one gig.

It seems quite sad that some people have short memories about a band who have stuck to their principles and have continued to perform worldwide and produce albums during the same period of time and are now being shown the way forward by these saviours.

amen stonesrick

Zepp'lin is an auld dinosaur, Stones is a quick lizard.

stonesrick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I find it very strange that after something like
> 20 years of inactivity all of a sudden a band have
> single handedly saved the face of Rock and Roll
> just by performing one gig.

It wouldn't be the first time Zeppelin was given credit for a feat like this. Back when In Through the Out Door was released, the record industry was in the midst of a serious slump. Demand for their new album was so great that they were recognized at that time as having been responsible for getting the biz out of the tailspin it was in.

The Stones just keep on Rolling, that's what they do, Zeppelin was considered a saviour back in 1969, and I guess now, although those are not my words. I don't see this as a negative toward the Rolling Stones, in fact I think because they have been together so long and keep it alive is why we see all these reunions. Now, if LZ goes into the studio and comes out with something that sells and is well received, that would be a glorious triumph for Rock n' Roll. The Stones have nothing to prove, they ARE the foundation. It's just us OCDers that keep complaining about their setlists and wish ABB could have been better and maybe it would have sold more. Really...I have no complaint about the way the Rolling Stones have handled their career over the past 10 years (except to occassionally complain about their setlist).

What the rock industry needs is some new blood. At one point I thought that The Black Crowes would be the new kings of rock. They didn't cut it. Later it was The Strokes.They didn't cut it either. The White Stripes were on the way to becoming very big, but they aren't exactly saving rock at the moment.
The thing that troubles me about the Led Zeppelin gig is that it was sure to be a success no matter what. I think it's great that they're playing again, but there's nothing new in it. The Police just ended a successful tour too. Again it was sure to be a success. That's a problem I think. There's been no struggling to become a success on their tour (Just as there was no struggling for LZ to be a success at the O2). I mean: It's a sure cure for a band to stop playing. That way they can become a very big legend. And then years later they can play a gig or go on tour. It's all sure to be successful.

JumpingKentFlash

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What the rock industry needs is some new blood. At
> one point I thought that The Black Crowes would be
> the new kings of rock. They didn't cut it. Later
> it was The Strokes.They didn't cut it either. The
> White Stripes were on the way to becoming very
> big, but they aren't exactly saving rock at the
> moment.
> The thing that troubles me about the Led Zeppelin
> gig is that it was sure to be a success no matter
> what. I think it's great that they're playing
> again, but there's nothing new in it. The Police
> just ended a successful tour too. Again it was
> sure to be a success. That's a problem I think.
> There's been no struggling to become a success on
> their tour (Just as there was no struggling for LZ
> to be a success at the O2). I mean: It's a sure
> cure for a band to stop playing. That way they can
> become a very big legend. And then years later
> they can play a gig or go on tour. It's all sure
> to be successful.



It's like visiting a museum. If they have a new Rembrandt exhibit, there's not going to be anything new to look at, but it's still going to be a successful show.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-13 16:56 by tatters.

"It's like visiting a museum. If they have a new Rembrandt exhibit, there's not going to be anything new to look at, but it's still going to be a successful show."


That could be a description of Stones gigs during A Bigger Bang that were packed with warhorses and sometimes featured only one new song i.e Rough Justice.

The Stones Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "It's like visiting a museum. If they have a new
> Rembrandt exhibit, there's not going to be
> anything new to look at, but it's still going to
> be a successful show."
>
>
> That could be a description of Stones gigs during
> A Bigger Bang that were packed with warhorses and
> sometimes featured only one new song i.e Rough
> Justice.



At least there was ONE new one to create the illusion of a still-working band, but when they did that one gig where Start Me Up was the newest song they played, THAT was a museum show.

I don't really understand why some folks are feeling that the Stones' status is somehow threatened by Zep.
They are two wonderful but very different entities.
I'm sure that if Zep had remained together and worked regularly over the last twenty odd yeras as the Stones have, they'd have had their own share of ups and downs along the way.
You might also wonder how well Mr Plant's voice might have stood up to performing Zep material on a regular basis over that period of time.
I'm glad that Zep put on a good show... and I hope they do a few more.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-13 19:02 by Spud.

I have been going to Stones shows since the 60's and let me set you younger guys straight.I do not give a damn if they ever play any new songs.Just to get to see the do their thing is enough.If you want something new go see Hannah Montana.Same goes for Zep.I saw them in 72 and would be damn happy to say I saw them again.True artist only put out so many works of art through their caree.They do not keep painting new canvas they just let you look at the old ones.

I still think that The Stones are the greatest rock and roll band in the world and Led Zep are also the Greastest Band of there kind in the world , so are Pink floyd the greatest band. There all different and Great in there own right and I enjoy them all so well done to Led Zeppelin and I hope Pink floyd and Zeppelin tour soon.

Although I have followed the Stones for 40 years and have always said they are my favorite band I am not sure who I would go and see if I had a choice of all three playing on the same night. If I hadn't seen the Stones then it would be them but I have seen them about 20 times and only seen Zeppelin and Pink floyd once....how about anyone else? who would you go and see if you only had one choice/

Kent, what makes you think it was a sure thing? Remember how shitty they were at LIVE AID '85. Someone said recently that was there and up close that PAGE was totally shit faced. I don't know what the problem was (I thought it was lack of rehearsal myself) but they were VERY SLOPPY, missing cues, horrible drumming by Phil Collins,all trying to wing it, still cool to see them but..... Not that good at the ATLANTIC RECORD ANNIVERSARY CONCERT either. Really shinned at the Rock and Roll hall of fame jam but that was around the time of the PAGE/PLANT tour and unplugged/unledded so they were well oiled. I think rehearsal went on for weeks for the 02 show and it showed.......

It was because of their earlier "reunions" they felt the need to show the world that they could still do it. No wonder they rehearsed this time...

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What the rock industry needs is some new blood. At
> one point I thought that The Black Crowes would be
> the new kings of rock. They didn't cut it. Later
> it was The Strokes.They didn't cut it either. The
> White Stripes were on the way to becoming very
> big, but they aren't exactly saving rock at the
> moment.
> The thing that troubles me about the Led Zeppelin
> gig is that it was sure to be a success no matter
> what. I think it's great that they're playing
> again, but there's nothing new in it. The Police
> just ended a successful tour too. Again it was
> sure to be a success. That's a problem I think.
> There's been no struggling to become a success on
> their tour (Just as there was no struggling for LZ
> to be a success at the O2). I mean: It's a sure
> cure for a band to stop playing. That way they can
> become a very big legend. And then years later
> they can play a gig or go on tour. It's all sure
> to be successful.


Fully agree with this statement.

My comments would be that The Stones did pave the way to those old and forever " Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World". They all overcome our dynausorus Band. They are solely far more popular than The Stones. They outsold them in the charts. Those acts are what the world has been waiting for such a long time; more than 2O years or so. Charlie is fed up with touring; Ron is in permanent rehabilitation centers, Mick can't even sing 3 days in a row and is a pure capitalist, and Keith can't even climb a palm tree and play a decent intro or solo.

I just don't understand the love fest for LZ. They were an average band at best in the 70's. This cult status has always confused me.

I don't think LZ will have any impact on the Stones other than hopefully to get them back to touring for $$.

phd Wrote:

>
> Fully agree with this statement.
>
> My comments would be that The Stones did pave the
> way to those old and forever " Greatest Rock and
> Roll Band in the World". They all overcome our
> dynausorus Band. They are solely far more popular
> than The Stones. They outsold them in the charts.
> Those acts are what the world has been waiting for
> such a long time; more than 2O years or so.
> Charlie is fed up with touring; Ron is in
> permanent rehabilitation centers, Mick can't even
> sing 3 days in a row and is a pure capitalist, and
> Keith can't even climb a palm tree and play a
> decent intro or solo.

well you obviously have no idea what you speak of, you're just a acting like a monkey mimicking what others have spewed before...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-13 22:44 by coocooforcoconuts.

has this become a led zeppelin site?

stonesrick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> It seems quite sad that some people have short
> memories about a band who have stuck to their
> principles and have continued to perform worldwide
> and produce albums during the same period of time
> and are now being shown the way forward by these
> saviours.


Are you talking about KISS?

OK, now that I just closed one of my oldest case files here at work, I can vent.
Let's take this thread for what it says.

First an old dog can represent many rock acts. (To me, it's not the Rolling Stones). Maybe I'm the old dog.
I have been playing with 2 other musicians since 1973, usually with other people involved, but in 1992 we started jamming on a regular basis, by '94 it was weekly or more.
Some of what we did was extraorinary. We didn't play songs, we created original pieces of art in the form of music. Anyway, by 2003 we were getting sick of each others habits and reduced our playing to less than once a month. At the end of 2004 we decided to take a year off from playing with each other, which was fine, because my blues band was starting up. by the end of 2005, our drummer, who had the studio, moved to Las Vegas, so that made our break a bit more perminant.
When the drummer comes into town we get together socially, but we haven't played together in almost 3 years (no not 23 years, but it seems loke it at times).
Monday night I get a call from both other musicians, totally moved by the whole Zeppelin thing, and they are not fans like I am. Anyway bottom line is that the "Zeppelin Thing" is responsible for us getting together this Saturday at a Reseda Rehearsal studio and blow it out for 4 to 5 hours.

...Who knows, if we don't kill each other, maybe a world tour is next? (ya right)

Zeppelin, I dont even know her...

Put this to rest....if I even think about Stairway, I get a Migrane...ouch..I cant stop my leg..there it goes again...MY HEAD!

JR

RRMan03 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> True artist only put out
> so many works of art through their career.They do
> not keep painting new canvas they just let you
> look at the old ones.


A true artist does what??? Dylan still "paints" new ones, doesn't he? And the new ones are really good!

tatters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> A true artist does what??? Dylan still "paints"
> new ones, doesn't he? And the new ones are really
> good!


the 'new ones' are really good, no doubt. but the classics are already written at this point in time, and Im sure Dylan knows this. its not just the music, its the times the music is released and the general impact. as it is a case with a lot of great and influental artists, new music adds some nice aspects to an already beautiful picture. new music by Dylan, Springsteen, Stones, Neil Young ... (fill in whatever artist you like) ... can be and often is really really good. but their classic recordings are what all those artists will be remembered for in future times.

alimente Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> tatters Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > A true artist does what??? Dylan still "paints"
> > new ones, doesn't he? And the new ones are
> really
> > good!
>
>
> the 'new ones' are really good, no doubt. but the
> classics are already written at this point in
> time, and Im sure Dylan knows this. its not just
> the music, its the times the music is released and
> the general impact. as it is a case with a lot of
> great and influental artists, new music adds some
> nice aspects to an already beautiful picture. new
> music by Dylan, Springsteen, Stones, Neil Young
> ... (fill in whatever artist you like) ... can be
> and often is really really good. but their classic
> recordings are what all those artists will be
> remembered for in future times.



Yes, but when I go see a band I DON'T want it to feel like I'm visiting a museum. I don't want the newest song I hear to be 20 years old, as was the case with the recent Police and Genesis tours (and Who tours from 2000-2004). At least give me ONE new song (it doesn't even have to be any good) to help me suspend disbelief and pretend that the band is still alive creatively.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-14 16:58 by tatters.

I have come to believe that for as huge a sum of money that the boys took in on the ABB world tour, if Zep tours, not only will they shatter the boys half a billion mark, but it will force them back out on the road for as long a stint at higher prices to get the title back, which seems to be the only thing that the band cares about anymore.

as for me and who I'd see? Well Floyd wouldn't be one of my choices, but if it were Zep, the Who, and the Stones, well I've seen the Stones 12 times and have given them a shload of money so they come up 3rd next year. In fact I'm probably not going to see them next year, knowing that Zep is going to cost a fortune. Zep is probably the biggest event next year, although I like the Who a helluva lot more and was bummed to have missed the last tour. A coin toss for those two, and I still might pick Zep depending on the outcome lol

I'd pick up the Stones again, instead. They are much better and are my favourite band. To be honest I'd pick up also McCartney over Led Zeppelin, which I find quite boring.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-14 17:32 by Wild Slivovitz.

Macca is the only 1 left on my list that I've not seen and wanted to but I don't really listen to him anymore and not sure I'd wanna sit thru a concert where he played songs from that crappy excuse of an album. He's not put out a great album since Flaming Pie in my opinion - the covers album that follow was good, but not great or a classic, and its been a downward slide ever since.