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

Wasn't it the case that most members of the Who thought they were the focal point, not at least in their playing???

..and look where it got two of the poor buggers!

You could say that about Cream as well, I suppose. They always sounded like they were trying to play each other to death.

Haircutter´s Revenge

And jeopardy: Rolling Stones minus Jagger minus Watts minus Wyman = ???

It´s very difficult...

If given a choice, I'd rather see Townshend solo live than Daltrey solo live.
After all, Townshend literally wrote the book on the Who.
He's the mastermind AND focal point as far as I'm concerned.
Great vocalist Daltrey is though, but thats about it.

well please no live reunion tour. I hope Plant keeps the mythos of Led Zep.
Frankly said I would have liked the Stones to stop playing live after the 73 european tour. Its a Las Vegas show what they are doing and everybody know it.

"Frankly said I would have liked the Stones to stop playing live after the 73 european tour."

What? And miss the great tours that followed??? Bah!

Quote
jamesjagger
well please no live reunion tour. I hope Plant keeps the mythos of Led Zep.
Frankly said I would have liked the Stones to stop playing live after the 73 european tour. Its a Las Vegas show what they are doing and everybody know it.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

how many shows have you seen post-1973?

If it was more than one, why did you go back?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-09-01 15:40 by Gazza.

If you have music to offer that people wants to hear. Why not play it?

Quote
jamesjagger
well please no live reunion tour. I hope Plant keeps the mythos of Led Zep.
Frankly said I would have liked the Stones to stop playing live after the 73 european tour. Its a Las Vegas show what they are doing and everybody know it.

its only been vegas since 89, so why would you want them to stop after 73?

75 through 82 were all fantastic, as have been most since 89, but yes a little to vegas at times

Paul Rodgers has a great, strong voice, but come on it's not really Queen without all of Freddie's drama, camp and theater is it? I saw the show on pay per view here in the states and it was competent, but certainly it smelled like a business venture.

I think Zeppelin would be the same thing. They could come up with something decent, but without Plant it's not the real thing.

Quote
mckalk
Paul Rodgers has a great, strong voice, but come on it's not really Queen without all of Freddie's drama, camp and theater is it?

Freddie did give Queen its sound but, that man could not dance and looked very awkward on stage. Stiff as a.....

I never saw Queen 'back in the day', but I did catch them at the Nelson Mandela gig a couple of months ago, and was quite impressed with the way Paul handled the material...especially since his style is almost the opposite of Freddie Mercury (cock-rock as opposed to camp). Maybe worth noting that there are only two original members; John Deacon wasn't interested. I suppose you can say the same about The Who, though.

As far as I'm aware, without all three members, Led Zep can't legally use the name unless all the living members are present. Although I see Gazza's point of view, and agree to a certain extent, they played such a blindingly brilliant show at the O2 last year, I certainly wouldn't object to seeing them a few more times. As to whether that will happen...

Led Zep with another singer wouldn't be Led Zep. End of story.

Lee

Quote
The Stones
There's no Zeppelin without Plant. Simple as that.

Here here.


[thepowergoats.com]

The Rolling Stones featuring (enter name here) singing...would not go over.

No Plant, no Zep.

IMO bringing in Jason Bonham to play drums for the 02 Reunion show was the ONLY thing that give calling it "Led Zeppelin" any credibility at all. I mean, I'm as big a Zeppelin fan as I am a Stones fan, and I would be extremely cheesed off if Jones, Page and Bonham Jr made a record or toured without Plant- whether it was under the Zeppelin banner or not. I thought excluding Jonesy from the Page/Plant projects in the nineties was a total insult to the man- if it was me I wouldn't have a thing to do with them at all these days.

Robert Plant's problem is that since Zeppelin folded when John Bonham died, he has done just about everything in his power to distance himself from the old days. Which is understandable; the last few years of Zeppelin were not the most pleasant of times for Robert (Greek car smash; death of his son, etc). Yet he can't escape it- whether he likes it or not, he knows what the fans really want...and as good as most of his solo material is, that's not it. I think this whole Alison Krauss project was just a passing fancy for Percy. I think he will eventually take part in a "Led Zeppelin" project, but unfortunately, I have a feeling it will be for the bucks only. One last big payoff before retirement.

The irony? Zeppelin fans the world over will shell out the bucks for the album and/or tour (myself included, I freely admit), all for the purpose of watching and hearing the other three give their all but Plant merely going through the motions. He did a good job at the 02, granted, but my best friend from high school was fortunate enough to attend and he got the impression that Plant was thinking, "Oooookay...only four songs left to go..."

Having seen the Plant/Krauss show in Columbia, MD recently, I would say that this venture is no mere passing fancy. Plant spoke onstage of having been newly exposed to a whole body of American music and seems genuinely inspired by his collaborators. My guess is that he'll do the Zep thing and then make another set with Krauss.

Lost in the shuffle with all this Zep or Plant/Krauss talk is the demise of the Strange Sensation band. Plant's work with them was the most interesting post-Zep. Mighty Rearranger might have been the best album by anyone from Zep since Physical Graffiti.

Plant seems to have a weird sense of wanderlust, abandoning projects before their sell by date. Even though Walking into Clarksdale was a disappointment, Page was convinced that he and Plant had another album in them. Plant, however, thought otherwise.

Quote
Jesus Murphy
He did a good job at the 02, granted, but my best friend from high school was fortunate enough to attend and he got the impression that Plant was thinking, "Oooookay...only four songs left to go..."

I was fortunate enough to attend too...and certainly didn't get that impression.
If he wasn't up for it, he wouldn't have done it. I suspect there was very much an element of proving they could still pull it off, after the below-par performances in 1985 and 1988....and Ahmet's widow's request was one they could not refuse.

I don't know how reliable this site is, but it doesn't look good for a tour, and Page even denies any new recording:

[www.musicradar.com]

OK, I'm going to put in another couple cents worth... responding to the above speculations on Plant's attitude toward LZ... I think he had fun at the O2 show, but we all know how reserved he is about the idea of being LZ again. While the O2 show was fun and those who were at the show seemed to love it, the boots simply reveal the show was full of imperfections, and even contained mistakes. Jason was not, and never will be, as good as his brilliant father, and that makes for a sub-par LZ. Then add age into the equation, and you've got and uninterested Robert Plant. My guess is Plant really just wants to be creative and not nostalgic, knowing a 2008/2009 LZ will never meet the brilliance of the 69-80 LZ. It will only be a tribute band. When you're an accomplished artist, you have no interest in being in a tribute band. Page and Jones obviously feel differently, but I can totally see the perspective of being uninterested.

All this talk of Led Zep being a tribute band, what a load of old tosh! Of cause it's not a tribute band if it them playing themselves, I think it would be fantastic if they toured together again, there are not enough new bands around to fill the gap in the market for bands like Zepplin, stones Floyd etc. Let them all do it for as long as they can.

As for Zepplin playing without Plant it just won't be them, I know Queen have done it and i think there very brave but it's not really Queen. Someone said about the Who without Daltry would be OK as Townsend wrote all the songs BUT it's the sound of the main vocalists that make a group and of cause the music but without that special vocal sound it won't be the same Group.

You just can't imagine
Stones without Jagger
Who without Daltry
Zepplin without Plant
Pink floyd would be diifferent as it't not really the vocal sound that matters
Motor head without Lemmy
Quo without Rossi
Police without Sting
Sex pistols without Lynham

A good example is Slade, the're called Slade 2 now but a mere shadow without what's his name?

For a band to carry on with a new singer who have had fame and fortune with a particular sound would be a very brave move, I'm not saying that they shouldn't But they would have to start from scratch again and build a whole new fanbase.

Quote
pgarof
All this talk of Led Zep being a tribute band, what a load of old tosh! Of cause it's not a tribute band if it them playing themselves, I think it would be fantastic if they toured together again, there are not enough new bands around to fill the gap in the market for bands like Zepplin, stones Floyd etc. Let them all do it for as long as they can.

As for Zepplin playing without Plant it just won't be them, I know Queen have done it and i think there very brave but it's not really Queen. Someone said about the Who without Daltry would be OK as Townsend wrote all the songs BUT it's the sound of the main vocalists that make a group and of cause the music but without that special vocal sound it won't be the same Group.

You just can't imagine
Stones without Jagger
Who without Daltry
Zepplin without Plant
Pink floyd would be diifferent as it't not really the vocal sound that matters
Motor head without Lemmy
Quo without Rossi
Police without Sting
Sex pistols without Lynham

A good example is Slade, the're called Slade 2 now but a mere shadow without what's his name?

For a band to carry on with a new singer who have had fame and fortune with a particular sound would be a very brave move, I'm not saying that they shouldn't But they would have to start from scratch again and build a whole new fanbase.

His name is Noddy. Noddy Holder. One of the finest Rock singers ever.

i always think its ridiculous when others don't want others to see a band they have no interest in seeing.

i mean: you don't want to see led zep?? fine don't!

but if you don't want to see them whats it to you if they do tour?

its particularly ridiculous on a stones board! you don't mind them touring year after year but if its led zep then you're agains it?

Quote
ROLLINGSTONE

Quote
pgarof
All this talk of Led Zep being a tribute band, what a load of old tosh! Of cause it's not a tribute band if it them playing themselves, I think it would be fantastic if they toured together again, there are not enough new bands around to fill the gap in the market for bands like Zepplin, stones Floyd etc. Let them all do it for as long as they can.

As for Zepplin playing without Plant it just won't be them, I know Queen have done it and i think there very brave but it's not really Queen. Someone said about the Who without Daltry would be OK as Townsend wrote all the songs BUT it's the sound of the main vocalists that make a group and of cause the music but without that special vocal sound it won't be the same Group.

You just can't imagine
Stones without Jagger
Who without Daltry
Zepplin without Plant
Pink floyd would be diifferent as it't not really the vocal sound that matters
Motor head without Lemmy
Quo without Rossi
Police without Sting
Sex pistols without Lynham

A good example is Slade, the're called Slade 2 now but a mere shadow without what's his name?

For a band to carry on with a new singer who have had fame and fortune with a particular sound would be a very brave move, I'm not saying that they shouldn't But they would have to start from scratch again and build a whole new fanbase.

His name is Noddy. Noddy Holder. One of the finest Rock singers ever.

Thanks, Off cause it's Noddy, I've been racking my brains all day, just couldn't think of his name.Luv him.

"A good example is Slade, the're called Slade 2 now but a mere shadow without what's his name?"

Actually their bloomin fab live. Great fun!

No plant no Zep. But the other members could easily tour and have a great time. Just call themselves something else. You used to get Supergroups all the time in the 70's....

Quote
tatters
For starters, do you think it would even BE Led Zeppelin? Or should they call it something else?

They could call themselves The Nobs as they did for a couple of Danish gigs in 1970 due to legal reasons.

Quote
stoned in washington dc
its particularly ridiculous on a stones board! you don't mind them touring year after year but if its led zep then you're agains it?

If the Stones had split in 1980 and then reunited for a tour in 2009, just playing nothing but songs from the 60s and 70's, I'd actually consider the idea equally ridiculous and utterly pointless.

How can it be pointless if the band wants to do it and a lot of people are longing to see them?

Quote
Gazza

Quote
stoned in washington dc
its particularly ridiculous on a stones board! you don't mind them touring year after year but if its led zep then you're agains it?

If the Stones had split in 1980 and then reunited for a tour in 2009, just playing nothing but songs from the 60s and 70's, I'd actually consider the idea equally ridiculous and utterly pointless.

I'm opened minded on this whole thing but maybe The Stones have covered all bases by never actually announcing a split, retirement etc. In the UK they did go from 1982 to 1990 without touring. Now (imo) 8 years is a considerable period of time by any standard for a 'live' act to go without performing. Some bands could have split, reformed and toured several times in that timeframe.
When they did reappear in 89/90 the use of material from the three albums from the gigging hiatus was minimal, mainly culled from Steel Wheels.
However testament to The Stones that their public stayed with them and came back in even bigger numbers.

yes, but as they released two studio albums in that time (not touring behind either) its not quite the same and, as you correctly say, theyve never announced a farewell/retirement/split etc.

It was only really late 1986 and through 1987 that it seemed unlikely there would be no more activity by them.

Quote
Svartmer
How can it be pointless if the band wants to do it and a lot of people are longing to see them?

Pointless from my own personal perspective (which is what I indicated) which, as a potential ticket buyer, is the only perspective that matters as I'm not remotely interested in nostalgia acts. Goes without saying that if thats what floats their boat and appeals to some people, good for them. I'd just find the idea artistically redundant and quite laughable.