I'd rather see the Wilson sisters any day over Coversongdale.

Robert Plant couldn't hit a note with a cricket bat. Give it up already. Let the young bucks sing.

"The wonder of Jimi Hendrix was that he could stand up at all he was so pumped full of drugs." Patsy, Patsy Stone

Quote
tatters
If, sometime in the 1990s, Pete Townshend and John Entwistle had recorded and toured without Roger, would that have been The Who? I think maybe yes. Just barely, but yes, maybe.

No,I don´t think so.Consider the "Queen"revival,it´s strongly questionable to name
that "Queen",not only Freddie´s dead and John Deacon not willing to take part.

The same with the Who and Led Zeppelin,because the identification belonging to groups of this caliber is mainly manifested with their singers.

So a Led Zeppelin without Plant is just anything - but really not Led Zeppelin.
That Jason Bonham was engaged at the show was to the opposite really charming,he
fitted perfectly.

Not the question, but regarding the stones - if there will be ever a show with just mick and keith without charlie and ronnie (beside others prominent or not prominent) they
COULD but they WOULDN´T call it stones - maybe glimmer twins,...remember the show
they did for NY in 2001 - they didn´t appear as the rolling stones.

Quote
shortfatfanny

Quote
tatters
If, sometime in the 1990s, Pete Townshend and John Entwistle had recorded and toured without Roger, would that have been The Who? I think maybe yes. Just barely, but yes, maybe.

No,I don´t think so.Consider the "Queen"revival,it´s strongly questionable to name
that "Queen",not only Freddie´s dead and John Deacon not willing to take part.

The same with the Who and Led Zeppelin,because the identification belonging to groups of this caliber is mainly manifested with their singers.

So a Led Zeppelin without Plant is just anything - but really not Led Zeppelin.
That Jason Bonham was engaged at the show was to the opposite really charming,he
fitted perfectly.

Not the question, but regarding the stones - if there will be ever a show with just mick and keith without charlie and ronnie (beside others prominent or not prominent) they
COULD but they WOULDN´T call it stones - maybe glimmer twins,...remember the show
they did for NY in 2001 - they didn´t appear as the rolling stones.

Good point about the Who, and if it's not the Who without Roger, then it's REALLY not Zeppelin without Plant, because unlike Roger, Robert is not just the frontman, he's also a songwriter.

I disagree with your Stones comment, though. As long as Mick and Keith are in the band, they will call it the Rolling Stones. Nobody is going to pay $500 for a "Glimmer Twins" ticket. The casual fans who fill the stadiums don't even know what that means.

Re-the Queen issue. It might seem a bit pedantic but it is always branded as 'Queen + Paul Rodgers'.
Tho' to be fair the Paul Rodgers is always in slightly smaller print.

Quote
tatters
I disagree with your Stones comment, though. As long as Mick and Keith are in the band, they will call it the Rolling Stones. Nobody is going to pay $500 for a "Glimmer Twins" ticket. The casual fans who fill the stadiums don't even know what that means.

Which is exactly why they WILL call it Led Zeppeling and May and Rogers are touring as Queen. Money. If they played just for the un of it or to proove they can still rock, why not take on a new bandname and see who would still come to see you?

Quote
mr edward

Quote
tatters
I disagree with your Stones comment, though. As long as Mick and Keith are in the band, they will call it the Rolling Stones. Nobody is going to pay $500 for a "Glimmer Twins" ticket. The casual fans who fill the stadiums don't even know what that means.

Which is exactly why they WILL call it Led Zeppeling and May and Rogers are touring as Queen. Money. If they played just for the un of it or to proove they can still rock, why not take on a new bandname and see who would still come to see you?

Re-the Queen issue. It might seem a bit pedantic but it is always branded as 'Queen + Paul Rodgers'.
Tho' to be fair the Paul Rodgers is always in slightly smaller print.

Okay, ROLLINGSTONE, but do you think that there's actually something on stage that even deserves the name Queen? Without Mercury, Queen had four members, only half of them are playing...

Quote
mr edward
Okay, ROLLINGSTONE, but do you think that there's actually something on stage that even deserves the name Queen? Without Mercury, Queen had four members, only half of them are playing...

No I tend to agree with you but this whole issue hinges on when does a band not become a band in terms of name/labelling? One of my favourites from the punk-era are the Stranglers. Hugh Cornwall left many years ago, they became a 5-piece and went from strength to strength. I don't watch them now and consciously think 'Well that's not really The Stranglers'. Never a problem for Deep Purple over the years either.

So is it all about when a lead singer leaves? Is it all about how many originals are left in a line-up? Or is it all really just about the name of a band? A mere label.

Ridiculous extreme: The Classical Masters are long gone but their music thrives and lives on.

Quote
ROLLINGSTONE

So is it all about when a lead singer leaves? Is it all about how many originals are left in a line-up? Or is it all really just about the name of a band? A mere label.

Ridiculous extreme: The Classical Masters are long gone but their music thrives and lives on.

It boils down to whether or not the audience ACCEPTS that what they are seeing and hearing is the band they paid to see. When Roger Waters left Pink Floyd, he believed that the fans were smart enough to realize that HE was Pink Floyd and would support HIS tours and would shun Dave Gilmour's "Pink Floyd" tours. But Waters had trouble filling arenas while Gilmour's "Floyd" played to sold-out stadiums. What Waters didn't consider was that fans WANTED the brand name and, as long as the tickets SAID "PINK FLOYD" would be EXTREMELY willing to suspend disbelief and accept that what they were seeing and hearing WAS the brand name band even when it SHOULD have been clear to them that it wasn't and that they were being ripped off.

Gilmour knew that he was able to give the fans just enough to make them BELIEVE. I saw it, and I believed. I heard Dave's voice. I heard his guitar. I saw a lot of pretty lights. PINK FLOYD!!!


Another ridiculous extreme: The Glen Miller Orchestra. Still touring, 64 years after Miller's death!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-08-30 17:46 by tatters.

It could be possible, that the 3 do the music and when it's nearly finished Robert Plant join them and does the vocal parts! I do not think, they will release an instrumental album.

Well when Plant/Page toured together without Jones. They didn't call it Led Zeppelin. It would seem to be hard to call it LZ without Plant.

The problem with Led Zeppelin is that everybody's image of the band/brand is that of Paige and Page. To reinvent the four piece guitar formation with Plan's distinctive voice thirty years after it's last activity is a bit weird isn't it?

Quote
Ladykiller
It could be possible, that the 3 do the music and when it's nearly finished Robert Plant join them and does the vocal parts! I do not think, they will release an instrumental album.

He would have to write the lyrics before he could do any vocal parts. That's what makes me think he's NOT going to be involved. Although there ARE a few Zep songs that were done that way, with Plant writing lyrics to an already finished piece of music, they usually began work on an album by having Page and Plant spend a few weeks writing TOGETHER at some remote, mystical cottage.

Quote
shortfatfanny


No,I don´t think so.Consider the "Queen"revival,it´s strongly questionable to name
that "Queen",not only Freddie´s dead and John Deacon not willing to take part.

The same with the Who and Led Zeppelin,because the identification belonging to groups of this caliber is mainly manifested with their singers.

The main identification with The Who is manifested through Roger Daltrey???

Quote
Gazza

Quote
shortfatfanny


No,I don´t think so.Consider the "Queen"revival,it´s strongly questionable to name
that "Queen",not only Freddie´s dead and John Deacon not willing to take part.

The same with the Who and Led Zeppelin,because the identification belonging to groups of this caliber is mainly manifested with their singers.

The main identification with The Who is manifested through Roger Daltrey???

To a large degree, yes.

Quote
tatters

Quote
Gazza

Quote
shortfatfanny


No,I don´t think so.Consider the "Queen"revival,it´s strongly questionable to name
that "Queen",not only Freddie´s dead and John Deacon not willing to take part.

The same with the Who and Led Zeppelin,because the identification belonging to groups of this caliber is mainly manifested with their singers.

The main identification with The Who is manifested through Roger Daltrey???

To a large degree, yes.

Gazza,I said : "...the identificatio....is mainly manifested..."
which means of course : "yes" but "in some other cases",so I built a nice
little backdoor for me.

Of course Pete is/was the musical leader and of such unbelievable importance
(as Keith Moon was with his fantastic drumstyle-endless rolls but as powerful as
an elephant stampede),but for some more or less good reasons it is spoken
about the singers as frontmen,so are Daltrey,Plant,Jagger,...

Have to admit I haven´t read the whole posts in this thread,but AC/DC might be
a good example to counter me,but here could be said that Angus did the frontman
part as well as Bon did,so it really depends on the artists or groups.

Quote
tatters

Quote
Gazza

Quote
shortfatfanny


No,I don´t think so.Consider the "Queen"revival,it´s strongly questionable to name
that "Queen",not only Freddie´s dead and John Deacon not willing to take part.

The same with the Who and Led Zeppelin,because the identification belonging to groups of this caliber is mainly manifested with their singers.

The main identification with The Who is manifested through Roger Daltrey???

To a large degree, yes.

Considering Townshend writes almost every song, and every career decision they make seems to originate from him, I wouldnt have thought that to be the case to anyone who knows the first thing about the band.

If ever there was a band where one member could be justified in appropriating Charlie's quote of "you're MY f***ing singer", it's The Who.

Lynrd Skynrd is a perfect example - it's barely a shadow of the original band. Whereas the Waters-less Pink Floyd was just that.

Another worthless one is The Beach Boys. Oh yeah - Boston.

I think the fact that Lynyrd Skynyrd continues to use the name is sacrilegious.
Johnnie Van Zandt? Gimme a break!

Queen as well...why couldn't they come up with new name, it's just not right.
Perhaps Queasy or Queer would have suited them better.

And the Doors...they actually released an album without Jim after he died.
It's practically unlistenable. And on American Prayer a few years later,
at least they inserted the voice of Jim, but the results are still inferior to the original.

And The Clash? Cut The Crap! Without Mick Jones, they became a ridiculous parody.

Quote
skipstone
Lynrd Skynrd is a perfect example - it's barely a shadow of the original band. Whereas the Waters-less Pink Floyd was just that.

Another worthless one is The Beach Boys. Oh yeah - Boston.

Here in Scotland we still have The Sensational Alex Harvey Band gigging even tho' Alex has been dead for well over 20 years. Have to say in this case however the SAHB are still adored and remain true to the original spirit of Alex's music. You feel that still using his name is more of a tribute than anything else. Sh*t-hot musicians too.

The example of Rage Against the Machine comes to mind. When Zack de la Rocha left them, the rest of the band stayed together, found a new frontman and took on a new name: Audioslave.

The started calling themselves RATM again when Zack rejoined last year.

Led Zeppeling isn't a functioning band: a new singer would't get the chance to leave his own mark, he'd just be singing the songs Plant made famous. And Plant's voice is as distinctive as Page's guitar playing. Without it, it would sound as Led Zep. Creedence Clearwater Revisited isn't CCR. INXS with Terence Trent Darby isn't INXS. Queen without Mercury isn't Queen. Led Zeppelin without Plant isn't Led Zeppelinn.

As for the Stones"the Glimmers wouldn't tour without Watts under as the Rolling Stones. I'm not so sure what they would call it without Woody. The Stones aren't the Stones without Mick/Keith/Charlie.

Gazza,

I don't agree with you at all about The Who. Granted, Pete is the creative force (and has long used that to get his own way), but he would be that as a solo artist only, if it wasn't for Roger (let alone not being in the band in the first place), and if you remenber, Townshend, Entwistle and Moon did try doing without Daltrey back in the day but had to re-instate him in a hurry when they found they couldn't do without him.

Roger has always been the heart, as well as the face, of the band.

You might have to scrape me off the floor at the end of the tour, but it'll be really good scrapings. - Mick Jagger

Zep isn't Zep unless Plant is singing, imo. I always think of the Plant/Page combo when I hear a reference to Led Zep.

Maybe they could call themselves "Led Zeppelin-Unplanted".

Quote
Gazza

Quote
tatters

Quote
Gazza

Quote
shortfatfanny


No,I don´t think so.Consider the "Queen"revival,it´s strongly questionable to name
that "Queen",not only Freddie´s dead and John Deacon not willing to take part.

The same with the Who and Led Zeppelin,because the identification belonging to groups of this caliber is mainly manifested with their singers.

The main identification with The Who is manifested through Roger Daltrey???

To a large degree, yes.

Considering Townshend writes almost every song, and every career decision they make seems to originate from him, I wouldnt have thought that to be the case to anyone who knows the first thing about the band.

If you're not Who-obsessed, it may be difficult to understand exactly what Roger's contribution is and why his contribution is so important. Roger is the "Face" of the Who, not Pete. Roger IS Tommy, not Pete. Look at it this way: Even if a guy writes a screenplay, AND directs and produces the movie, the public's main identification with that movie will still be manifested through the STAR of the movie. Pete is the genius mastermind. Roger is his star "actor".

Maybe I can explain it better after I've had my coffee ....



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-08-31 16:57 by tatters.

LOL...well you made a good effort!

I do think you dont have to be 'Who-obsessed' to know who the main focal point of the band is, though.

I always thought Pete was the main focal point of the band. Then again, I've never been really THAT excited about the Who.

Quote
Gazza
LOL...well you made a good effort!

I do think you dont have to be 'Who-obsessed' to know who the main focal point of the band is, though.

If you watch the "Woodstock" movie, it's pretty clear that the cameramen thought ROGER was the focal point. Roger found his voice within the Who while performing Tommy live onstage. He BECAME Tommy at a time when the Who were almost TOTALLY identified with that one album.

True...but then that was 1969!

They became much better known after that.