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

1 hour ago, Amstel said:

The mention of Jason Bonham with a full fledged "reunion" is a slap in the face to John Bonham.  His kid has become a quality drummer, I'll give him that.  He is not within a country mile of his great father!  

Jason Bonham is the only drummer his father would want taking his place in a full fledged "reunion".. Anyone else would be a slap in the face to John Bonham. Country mile or not.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mithril46 said:

the guitarist's first name starts with T, right ?? Only asking because I don't understand that "unmasking" business. The guitarist I speak of has actually played with Jason since 97' in some other Zep only project.

Tony Catania, who did work with Jason for a few years in the 1990s. However, Jason attempted to keep all the identities of his JBLZE bandmates a secret until opening night. One example of this is in the link below:

http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/jason-bonham-on-his-led-zeppelin-experience-261379

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't Jason break his wrist on multiple occasions ?  I thought it was a few times but one was during a tour with Foreigner ?    This was long before the internet, and not sure if it was something I read in magazine or just word of mouth Gossip that Jason was trying to be like his dad and broke it playing too hard.    So long ago, maybe even Jason was on Mtv and said he broke it trying to be like his dad ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, the chase said:

Jason Bonham is the only drummer his father would want taking his place in a full fledged "reunion".. Anyone else would be a slap in the face to John Bonham. Country mile or not.  

Every drummer would be a slap in the face to John Bonham.  I am glad Jones, Page and Plant didn't carry on after John died.  That should show everyone how much of a bond those four had, along with the bond they had with Peter Grant as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Amstel said:

Every drummer would be a slap in the face to John Bonham.  I am glad Jones, Page and Plant didn't carry on after John died.  That should show everyone how much of a bond those four had, along with the bond they had with Peter Grant as well.

Me too. But I don't think he'd take having his son fill in for him as a slap in the face. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, the chase said:

Me too. But I don't think he'd take having his son fill in for him as a slap in the face. 

You are most likely right.  A father would never look at a son that way.  From my view, it was the connection of four particular men - Bonham, Jones, Page & Plant - that made Led Zeppelin the best band ever.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

11 hours ago, SymphonyX said:

Didn't Jason break his wrist on multiple occasions ?  I thought it was a few times but one was during a tour with Foreigner ?    This was long before the internet, and not sure if it was something I read in magazine or just word of mouth Gossip that Jason was trying to be like his dad and broke it playing too hard.    So long ago, maybe even Jason was on Mtv and said he broke it trying to be like his dad ?

Circa mid-September 1989 in Gainsville, Florida he was drunk and broke his left wrist on his third attempt to drive a monster truck up a hill with a steep bank located behind a local restaurant. Two of his Bonham bandmates were present, which only added to his embarrassment. Guilty indeed! 

He did injure the same wrist again in the middle of a tour with Foreigner, from which he had to take a leave of absence. He said it happened while riding his motorcycle, which he still enjoys doing.   

"I'm still a little reckless even in my sobriety, The alcohol didn't make the rebel, the alcohol just changed the rebel's point of stopping. The rebel's still there no matter what.I'm sure we all use alcohol as an excuse. In the past, if I was an asshole last night it was because I was drunk. Now I just say I'm sorry, if I was an asshole last night it's because I'm an ass." -- Jason Bonham (2010)

Edited by SteveAJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On the subject of Jason Bonham.  

I know things like addiction whether cigs,  alcohol or drugs can be genetic or influenced by
who you surround yourself with,   so I'm not surprised Jason in his youth was this loud mouth
drunk,   but in some of these interviews it sounds like he was told that imitating 'road'  John was
what he was supposed to do and not because he himself was an actual bar stool throwing
drunk.   

John while touring with Zep had that reputation - off the road not so much.  Jason was what..
15 when his father died.  He should know there was more than just THAT side.   It's as if he
picked up a Richard Cole type book on Led Zeppelin  tales and started acting out the John
Bonham bits - TV tossing and all.   I dunno maybe I'm not making sense.  Let's blame it on this
fish bowl sized glass of Cabernet I'm drinking.  Ha! 
:lol::beer:

As far as Jason's talent as a drummer.  One thing we know for sure is John Bonham was a big
lovin' family guy.  After the Oakland incident involving Peter Grant's son,  I think at one point in  
John Bonham's life he would have no issues introducing his fist to somebody's face if they said
something insulting about his sons skills as a drummer  Yikes!
:o 

To the original poster.  I probably gave my answer already,  but if not.  Yes I believe they made
the best choice to end when John died.  

Edited by KellyGirl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting story, thanks.  Recently was just reading about the motorcycle accident.   Bonzo was always portrayed as a monster, so it really seemed believable story Jason was trying to reach that level at all cost. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SymphonyX said:

Interesting story, thanks.  Recently was just reading about the motorcycle accident.  

I just realized I typed monster truck. Apologies to all. I meant to type all terrain vehicle (ATV).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They did the right thing. It only helped their long term legacy and mystery more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-3-31 at 10:50 PM, JeffLZ said:

Source of the almost touring in 91 comment?

I am sure they considered touring at various times since their initial break up.  They've probably got all kinds of offers and ideas floated by them over the years by people who want to make money.  In terms of a tour almost happening but then shit down at the last minute, this might be believable.  But what does 'last minute mean'?  I would imagine it means that they were set to sign something, but no actual preparations took place.

To me, Zeppelin's legacy cannot be tarnished.  They could reunite in 2018, sound awful on stage, produce a terrible album or original new songs, and they would still be one of the greatest bands in history.  Nothing can change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They did the right thing, left it alone. Pete Townshend said the biggest mistake he made he was carrying on The Who after Keith Moon passed. They were never the same with a different drummer, I would believe that would have been the same result for our faves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Left alone, right. But I also think a lot of Jimmy's playing with Zep , Bonzo provided an inspiration/adrenaline machine not

present in any other drummer. When Bonzo died, Jimmy knew that whatever lied in his musical future, It very likely wouldn't

approach Zep. You may think this is rather presumptuous, but Jimmy didn't really regain form till the Outrider tour/project.

Jimmy wasn't sloppy with the Firm, at some shows he did play some amazing B-bender solos, but many times he was

pretty uninspired. No Bonzo really floored him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zeppelin was done by 1980 even if John Bonham had lived. Jimmy was too far gone past his good and creative days. Plant wanted away from the circus and Peter Grant was a mess as well at that point. The young  and hungry band was gone and the 80's version would have been a drug addicted alcoholic shame to the great band they once were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The Rover 75 said:

They did the right thing, left it alone. Pete Townshend said the biggest mistake he made he was carrying on The Who after Keith Moon passed. They were never the same with a different drummer, I would believe that would have been the same result for our faves.

I think its hard to really make the case that The Who were never the same with a different drummer.  First of, they have recorded some excellent music and done some awesome performances after the death of Moon.  Secondly, they were experiencing other changes in their lives and their music was changing.  So you can't be sure if it was Moon's death or other things that changed them.

Its like looking at the progression of the Rolling Stones.  They lost Jones, then the acquired Mick Taylor and lost him too.  They have had some distinct phases in their 50 plus year career and each brought some qualities different from the previous ones.

I'm a big Who fan and I think they have some very fine music post-Moon, although they have not been that active (25 years between albums, for example)

As far as I know, it was the three remaining members decision to end things.  Was it right?  I don't see it as right or wrong.  Zeppelin might have made some good albums in the 1980s, toured, etc.  Of course its doubtful that they would have produced music as great as they did in the late 60s and 70s, but that does not mean that we would not now be praising their 80s albums to some degree or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2017 at 9:36 PM, irondirigible said:

I think its hard to really make the case that The Who were never the same with a different drummer.  First of, they have recorded some excellent music and done some awesome performances after the death of Moon.  Secondly, they were experiencing other changes in their lives and their music was changing.  So you can't be sure if it was Moon's death or other things that changed them.

Its like looking at the progression of the Rolling Stones.  They lost Jones, then the acquired Mick Taylor and lost him too.  They have had some distinct phases in their 50 plus year career and each brought some qualities different from the previous ones.

I'm a big Who fan and I think they have some very fine music post-Moon, although they have not been that active (25 years between albums, for example)

As far as I know, it was the three remaining members decision to end things.  Was it right?  I don't see it as right or wrong.  Zeppelin might have made some good albums in the 1980s, toured, etc.  Of course its doubtful that they would have produced music as great as they did in the late 60s and 70s, but that does not mean that we would not now be praising their 80s albums to some degree or another.

I'm going to have to completely disagree, to me everything post-Moon was shiite, to each their own.

I am glad our boys decided not to carry on without Bonzo. Never tarnished the legacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, The Rover 75 said:

I'm going to have to completely disagree, to me everything post-Moon was shiite, to each their own.

I am glad our boys decided not to carry on without Bonzo. Never tarnished the legacy.

Agreed 100%.

If only other bands had maintained their dignity the way Led Zeppelin did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, The Rover 75 said:

I'm going to have to completely disagree, to me everything post-Moon was shiite, to each their own.

I am glad our boys decided not to carry on without Bonzo. Never tarnished the legacy.

^+2. The Who without Moon was like Cornflakes without the milk. In Zep I believe the impact even greater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On June 13, 2017 at 10:36 PM, irondirigible said:

I think its hard to really make the case that The Who were never the same with a different drummer.  First of, they have recorded some excellent music and done some awesome performances after the death of Moon.  Secondly, they were experiencing other changes in their lives and their music was changing.  So you can't be sure if it was Moon's death or other things that changed them.

Its like looking at the progression of the Rolling Stones.  They lost Jones, then the acquired Mick Taylor and lost him too.  They have had some distinct phases in their 50 plus year career and each brought some qualities different from the previous ones.

I'm a big Who fan and I think they have some very fine music post-Moon, although they have not been that active (25 years between albums, for example)

As far as I know, it was the three remaining members decision to end things.  Was it right?  I don't see it as right or wrong.  Zeppelin might have made some good albums in the 1980s, toured, etc.  Of course its doubtful that they would have produced music as great as they did in the late 60s and 70s, but that does not mean that we would not now be praising their 80s albums to some degree or another.

Question? How long did it take The 'fucking' Who to replace John Entwistle?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mook said:

Agreed 100%.

If only other bands had maintained their dignity the way Led Zeppelin did.

 

5 hours ago, The Rover 75 said:

I'm going to have to completely disagree, to me everything post-Moon was shiite, to each their own.

I am glad our boys decided not to carry on without Bonzo. Never tarnished the legacy.

Damn straight, Our boys did the right thing. How many bands can say that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, blindwillie127 said:

Question? How long did it take The 'fucking' Who to replace John Entwistle?  

The Who with  Moon did their best work.  I simply believe there are there are a few very good songs and good concerts post-Moon.   I can't see all of their out-put (what little there is) after Moon's time as being all bad.  It's certainly not on the level of what they did while Moon was around.  But also my point was that we can't be 100% sure that there decline was because of Moon's absence.  I don't begrudge the decision of a band to carry on or to keep going even after it appears their best songs have been written and their best performances have been done.  If we'd gone back in time and changed the future to make Zeppelin continue into the 1980s and 1990s, results may have been interesting, but they made their decision and it one we all accept.  However I don't begrudge the decision of band to go on after it seems their best work is behind them or their best performances are behind them.  Zep didn't move forward, and i accept and respect what they decided. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I like some of the later Who as well. I also respect that they didn't go out and get a Moon clone. John Entwistle really came through as well. With simpler drumming going on, Entwistle stood out more than ever.  But it wasn't the same as the original band. Seemed safe.  Moon wasn't the same either though. His drumming chops were way down the later years. The Sheperton footage on The Kids Are Alright is sad.  But he was still the heart of The Who. 

 I've read that some of the later Who tours were due to John Enwistle being heavily in debt and PT and RD wanting to help him out. Understandable. 

Edited by the chase

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel that they made the perfect decision. 80's production quality and the "new innovative recording technology of the 80's" would've tarnished the legacy of led zeppelin even if John lived on. Even outrider doesn't sound right, I mean it's good. It is definitely much better production wise than most 80's albums but it doesn't have the organic, honest, soulful, mystical and complimentary feel of the first six led zeppelin albums. The 80's was the epitome of everything Jimmy and the band disliked about the music scene The Yardbirds were involved in. Everything was about gimmicky popularity, more than ever before. This was due to the onset of MTV. Every band had to focus on the formula which would get them seen on MTV. It truly killed mainstream music, everything became about trends and throughout the years it has become increasingly more difficult to make a living as a trendsetter or influential and unique band. Literally the entire industry is

As a result everything has become canned, bands no longer record as a unit. Everything is micro-analyzed and is done to a click and it must always follow the click. You're literally just turning yourself in to a machine, in a way. I mean it's a totally efficient way to record, helps your timing, and assists with production; but if you're a tight band then wouldn't you want the energy of your life performance to be carried over to the representation of the band on your album?

What I think would be interesting is if John Paul Jones was able to take some of those great song  from zooma and the thunderthief and combine them with some of the ideas Page and Plant had on walking in to clarksdale. It would've produced am exceptional album or two for sure.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is hard to imagine them as an 80s era band.  And for the record I am not unhappy with them calling it quits when they did.

What would they have sounded like?  I don't really know.  I am thinking about the Stones in the 80s with Dirty Work, but also a White Snake sort of sound.  I'm also thinking of the sounds of the Page and Plant solo albums.

They would not likely have ever equaled their greatness of the 1970s.  But they would have been Led Zeppelin so a few gems might have come forth.  But again, they made the choice best for them and it was there decision alone.

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