Slate Chocolate Marble
Slate Chocolate Marble

Led Zeppelin Official Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

osoz

Did Led Zeppelin make the right decision to break up?

244 posts in this topic

I respect Zeppelin and their decision as well.

But, Bill Ward made his own bed. He's not involved by his own choice. He wasn't going to make the same money as iommi or Ozzy and frankly doesn't deserve it. Even still he mentioned he was only going to get paid $80,000 for a festival show. I have a hard time feeling bad for someone who turns his back on EIGHTY Grand for 2 hours work..

Ward has quit Black Sabbath countless times over the years. He's backed out in mid tour, he's backed out before studio sessions repeatedly.I would like him to be there as well, but it's his own doing. 

 He wasn't practicing when he wasn't with the band and his chops were way down. Ward maintains he was in studio shape, but not touring shape. There's only one shape and that's playing shape.

Sabbath's situation and Zeppelin's were totally different. Ozzy was a non functioning member since 77. Finally the band had to do something in mid to late 79. 

Zeppelin were in a different spot. They were much bigger, had much better management and more control.  Sabbath owed their label more music. Sabbath's changes in 79 weren't bought about due to anybody dying either..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Black Sabbath might as well have died after Ozzy left, it wasn't Sabbath anymore. At least Zeppelin kept their dignity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Black Sabbath might as well have died after Ozzy left, it wasn't Sabbath anymore. At least Zeppelin kept their dignity.

i respect your opinion but disagree. Heaven and Hell gave Sabbath a kick in the ass and Ozzy launched a very good solo career. It was a win win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never liked Ozzy solo stuff, I always preferred Iommi ,Butler, Ward sounds ,but  if Led Zeppelin was touring without Bonham ( If he was alive) and they replaced him with someone else I wouldn't go . Bill Ward was just as important to Sabbath as John Bonham was to Zeppelin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i respect your opinion but disagree. Heaven and Hell gave Sabbath a kick in the ass and Ozzy launched a very good solo career. It was a win win.

Yeah I love the Dio albums, but it wasn't Sabbath, Sabbath is Ozzy, Bill, Geezer and Tony, just as Zeppelin is Robert, Jimmy, John and Bonzo, no more no less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, nothing like Butler and Ward. So many of the bands copying Sabbath's sound never got even

remotely close because of this factor. Ward threw in a lot of jazzy stuff, a shame he has/had so much

trouble getting along with the rest of the band. IMO the first two Ozzy albums are great(with Randy Rhoads

they basically created a new form of metal). The Jake e Lee period (2 albums ??) is okay, but the ship

really sunk when Zakk Wyllde came in. Zak is great technically and plays some interesting solos but is

awful at composing/songwriting. Iommi has been sick for a while, so unfortunately any Sab projects

at all are tentative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I love the Dio albums, but it wasn't Sabbath, Sabbath is Ozzy, Bill, Geezer and Tony, just as Zeppelin is Robert, Jimmy, John and Bonzo, no more no less.

But, John Bonham would have never quit on his band.

Bill Ward left Black Sabbath in 1980, 1983, & 1984, he turned down invites in 1987, & 1991, he  joined and left in 1994. He threatened to back out in 99, backed out of Heaven and Hell in 2007 and again on Sabbath in 2011. He's unreliable ... and I'm not even counting times his health prevented him from touring...

there was a loyalty P P J and B had that you don't find in most other bands.

Edited by the chase

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Yeah, but music and how it was presented changed so drastically in the 80's. Music videos and other dickishness. Most bands from the late 60's/early 70's took a nosedive, had member changes, or just went away. The later versions of Sabbath didn't fit Ward's style as much. We'll never know how a complete Zep would have fared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a parallel universe, Led Zeppelin is still together and playing. Bonham is still in the band, but it's another member who is gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a parallel universe, Led Zeppelin is still together and playing. Bonham is still in the band, but it's another member who is gone.

Look it's not like, say, U2 can't continue if what's his face on bass goes. No offense to him as a person, and they maybe would decide not to go on without him on that account, but it's just not exactly irreplaceable bass playing there. But If there's ever been a band that not only had equally great parts but an even greater sum of them it is Led Zeppelin. It's patently clear that when it comes to Zep, no matter who passed on, the band could not and would not continue. It is as it should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well for me the decision to stop was right, But Jimmy back then and even now keeps  falling back into

inactivity, which has a huge relation to him being unable to 

sustain an ongoing solo career. His heart

is still in playing Zep songs at least partially, and it is painful to see him do nothing to move on.

I must point out that although many would like to work with him, From later Zep on Jimmy  did

unfortunately get a bad rep for the drugs/alcohol, even for a somewhat surly personality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look it's not like, say, U2 can't continue if what's his face on bass goes. No offense to him as a person, and they maybe would decide not to go on without him on that account, but it's just not exactly irreplaceable bass playing there. But If there's ever been a band that not only had equally great parts but an even greater sum of them it is Led Zeppelin. It's patently clear that when it comes to Zep, no matter who passed on, the band could not and would not continue. It is as it should be.

I like U2, mostly for their spectacular stage shows.  However, as for any of the members being able to make it as a solo act, even Bono, there's just no way.  It's all or nothing with respect to their appeal either as a band or as individuals.  I suspect that they will keep going in a Stones-like fashion, putting out an album every so often, and doing a massive world tour every 5 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like U2, mostly for their spectacular stage shows.  However, as for any of the members being able to make it as a solo act, even Bono, there's just no way.  It's all or nothing with respect to their appeal either as a band or as individuals.  I suspect that they will keep going in a Stones-like fashion, putting out an album every so often, and doing a massive world tour every 5 years.

Just to clarify, Neal, when I said 'gone' I meant pass away not leave the band; U2 could well continue with another bass player, unlike Zep. So I agree that they function best as a group, but the individual parts (most easily the bass) can be played by other musicians. I like some of U2's songs, but I'm out of the loop with their more recent output. Their shows still draw huge crowds, but I agree with your point about any of them doing solo work (not including side projects with other famous artists ie/ It Might Get Loud ;)).

Edited by Patrycja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Upon listening to several Zeppelin Tour Over.. gigs, I think it's likely management would have retained the services of a stand in drummer for the "80s and Beyond" American tour. Since Carmine Appice seems to have some sort of sense he would have gotten the gig, (Des Moines radio was saying the same) I wonder if he may have received such a contract from PG. I know it seems unlikely from a fan prospective, but from a management prospective Bonhams' 1980 playing is so erratic it would have been irresponsible not to have back up.  I'm 50/50 on whether the band would have shredded their rep in the States or would have played off the rust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respect their decision to break up. In the latter years, it was very clear that the band was going through personal struggles. 

Bonham is a magnificent drummer and it is difficult to think of any other drummer in the band.

Led Zeppelin from 1968 to 1980 has been amazing. I think if it were to continue, it may have gone in a direction we wouldn't want it to, with less input with Page. ITTOD was some good work from JPJ, but I feel if the band wouldn't have broken up, soon the album would basically be all JPJ with some input from Plant. I believe Presence is the last album with noticeable input from Jimmy, so I believe there wouldn't be much of the brilliant riffs and solos that we love so much to this day. 

Personally, I only like a handful of 80's music and I'm glad it ended before the man-made beats of the 1980s that a mass amount of rock bands that made their way to that era included into their music.

Also, based on the strong bond of all the band members Bonham can't simply be replaced for many reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Led Zeppelin did make the correct decision to disband due to Bonzo dying, since the sound would not have been Led Zeppelin anymore, as well as him being so close to the members, they were pretty much family. I'm a Led Zeppelinist and a Musician and have to agree with the decision that Page had made in 1980. Led Zeppelin will always be my number 1! All their studio album are great, all live albums, Coda, and studio companion albums, and all performances never put on albums with no errors are superb, all songs! God Bless Them!

Long Live Led Zeppelin!

Edited by Cole Foreshew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Led Zeppelin did make the correct decision to disband due to Bonzo dying, since the sound would not have been Led Zeppelin anymore, as well as him being so close to the members, they were pretty much family. I'm a Led Zeppelinist and a Musician and have to agree with the decision that Page had made in 1980. Led Zeppelin will always be my number 1! All their studio album are great, all live albums, Coda, and studio companion albums, and all performances never put on albums with no errors are superb, all songs! God Bless Them!

Long Live Led Zeppelin!

I love hardcore fans! My respects to you Cole!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.  It's best for an artist with such a legacy to retire in its prime.  Their final 3 albums were of mixed results.  And the death of Bonham pretty much settled it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this scenario: after Bonzo's passing, set aside a certain amount of time to grieve, pursue solo projects, and get healthy. Then reform with a couple more musicians (a drummer, keyboardist, maybe a 2nd guitarist?) and just form a band with a new name? And then put out a new studio record. That way Led Zep would've been put to rest, preserving Bonzo's legacy, but without ending whatever special musical collaboration that could've taken place with the surviving members. One of the mistakes that I think many business managers and musicians have made over the years is being fixated on using the old group name for marketing purposes. You want to tell me that a new band with Plant, JPJ, Page and couple of semi-famous musicians couldn't have toured sold out arenas in the U.S. without the Zeppelin brand name? Maybe it wouldn't have been a massive deal, but then again, that was part of the thing that Plant was wanting to get away from, and partly why the Tour Over Europe was played in intimate venues. The shows could've focused on the new material, some key covers, and some Zeppelin tracks that fit the other tunes in the set list.

 

It's like what other people in this thread were talking about when it comes to Black Sabbath. When Ozzy left Sabbath, the band should've just ditched the name, brought in Dio, and did what they eventually did, and that's call themselves Heaven & Hell. I personally feel that the Sabbath albums "Heaven & Hell" and "Mob Rules" are better than most of the albums with Ozzy. Yes, the band may have not initially sold out stadiums using another name besides Black Sabbath, but that music was so dang brilliant that it would've eventually caught on. But the musicians, promoters and business people lacked patience. Go for the quick buck.

 

As a side note.....if Adam Clayton ever left U2, the band would be finished. Those guys have been in a band since they were 14 or something. If you think Led Zeppelin were tight....theses guys are absolute best of friends, and they are in a band. Also, they are one of the only bands that truly collaborates on its music. The songs are almost totally based around band jams. You could stick another bass player besides Adam in there, but I am pretty sure it wouldn't work, but NOT for the reasons why Led Zeppelin wouldn't work with another drummer besides Bonzo. I think Bonzo was a musical equal to JPJ and Page, and the three of them had developed a virtual musical ESP through playing live together. Each musician knew where the other was going next without having to communicate about it. You can't create that kind of connection with a session drummer.

Edited by ThreeSticks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2015 at 8:53 PM, Cole Foreshew said:

Led Zeppelin did make the correct decision to disband due to Bonzo dying, since the sound would not have been Led Zeppelin anymore, as well as him being so close to the members, they were pretty much family. I'm a Led Zeppelinist and a Musician and have to agree with the decision that Page had made in 1980. Led Zeppelin will always be my number 1! All their studio album are great, all live albums, Coda, and studio companion albums, and all performances never put on albums with no errors are superb, all songs! God Bless Them!

Long Live Led Zeppelin!

It was the 3 of them that decided to which Grant agreed they did the right thing. No way it could've went any other way but especially for Plant, that was a knock out punch you don't get up from.

I think what they could've done had JB not passed would be spectacular, if they got their stuff together, along with Grant. Just referencing Page and Bonham's discussions on making a much harder album than ITTOD. Perhaps ITTOD was the wake up call for Jimmy to get his act together. Do some short tours, spend more time in the studio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was right that they broke-up. Because that was their wishes. Everyone is entitled to do what they want. I wish they hadnt. Then i would have had even more to listen to. The reason is understandable, Obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎30‎/‎11‎/‎2015 at 3:14 AM, LurksReturnington said:

Upon listening to several Zeppelin Tour Over.. gigs, I think it's likely management would have retained the services of a stand in drummer for the "80s and Beyond" American tour. Since Carmine Appice seems to have some sort of sense he would have gotten the gig, (Des Moines radio was saying the same) I wonder if he may have received such a contract from PG. I know it seems unlikely from a fan prospective, but from a management prospective Bonhams' 1980 playing is so erratic it would have been irresponsible not to have back up.  I'm 50/50 on whether the band would have shredded their rep in the States or would have played off the rust.

it would never have happened that way. there were several drummers supposedly set to join the band but that was just radio speculation without and evidence. replacing a drummer in a band is incredibly difficult as beyond the basic learning of the songs and the style, there are so many visual and aural cues given by others in the band to each other that a newcomer cant just pick up as easily as you may suppose

Planty had already had to be talked back into the band after the 77 tour ended, without Bonham there was only one outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2015 at 1:50 PM, Patrycja said:

Look it's not like, say, U2 can't continue if what's his face on bass goes. No offense to him as a person, and they maybe would decide not to go on without him on that account, but it's just not exactly irreplaceable bass playing there. But If there's ever been a band that not only had equally great parts but an even greater sum of them it is Led Zeppelin. It's patently clear that when it comes to Zep, no matter who passed on, the band could not and would not continue. It is as it should be.

That's a bit naive to say that. A band member's musical parts don't have to be technically impressive to be important to a song. But I know what you meant, I think.

Agree that often it the musicians' personalities that make the band as a whole. That is the irreplaceable part.   And I can't stand U2, so I don't have any interest in defending them, just making a point about bands that last longer than a couple of years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2015 at 8:04 AM, The Old Hermit said:

I don't know anyone - ANYONE! - who thinks LZ made a mistake in not carrying on after Bonzo's death, for any number reasons;

 

1) Aside from the fact they were all understandably distraught at the loss of their friend and colleague, with the very thought of replacing him simply unthinkable, who could possibly have replaced Bonzo, and why would they even want to?

 

2) Creatively, the band had peaked with Physical Graffiti and I think they knew it, why continue further on a downward trajectory and ruin all the good work they had already done?

 

3) Considering the personal circumstances at the time prior to September 25th, 1980 - Robert Plant's tragedies, Jimmy Page and Peter Grant's spiralling heroin addictions, Bonzo's rampant alcoholism - it was utterly inevitable that someone was going to die in the immediate short-term (and end the band by consequence), Jimmy Page's fragile and genuinely precarious health in 1980 made him a prime candidate for that fate, I really believe that Bonzo dying saved Jimmy's life, it's very possible Mr Page would not have survived to make a ninth studio album... either way, the band's days were numbered, too much damage had been done to keep it going much longer, Bonzo's demise just forced the inevitable sooner than expected.

 

4) Robert Plant's position and future in the band was already on somewhat shaky ground as it stood, he was but one further bad experience away from quitting altogether (I believe), and Bonzo's death was that experience, it was the final knockout blow for Plant and Zeppelin, this last and most devastating gut-punch of all was one they wouldn't be able to recover from... even if Jimmy Page and John Paul Jones had wanted to continue, Plant most certainly would NOT have, it was over for him in more ways than one, it's little wonder he worked so hard to put so much distance between himself and his Zeppelin days, the memories of that 12-year period have some very painful moments Plant had no desire to remind himself of any longer.

 

The best move the surviving band members did was call it a day after Bonzo's demise, but what else could they have done...?

I don't think Page would have lost his life if Bonham would have lived.  Although he was doing heroin, even in that state - he was always in control and would not have overdone it.  That's just my gut feeling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My two cents worth. Zeppelin were doomed from the moment of karacs death (and possibly before) and . Robert has admitted the guilt he felt at being away and not being there for his son. To reunite with the band that resulted in him being away, in conjunction with the fact that it was jimmys band (not his)...was always going to lead to resentment. As a father I can completely understand that point of view. Bonham's death was the straw that broke the camels back. They were on life support 1977-80....and then that was the end. 

And when you throw into the mix jimmy's heroin abuse....

The decision to split was not so much the right decision. It was the only decision. And I completely understand Roberts decision to never re-unite. He has mixed feelings about Zeppelin. Amazing band. Amazing times. But it caused him to be away from his son when he died. He lost his best mate. And he was always second fiddle to Jimmy, who was also best mates with the manager. After a successful solo career, why would he? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now