Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
ArmsofAtlas1977

What If? - Heartbreaker Tour 1977

Recommended Posts

The other day I was thinking about Led Zeppelin and had an odd idea.

In 1976, Led Zeppelin was taking a break from touring.  At the same, their biggest fans were finally getting their own big break.  Who were these fans?  A band named Heart.  Bootlegs of this group show that when they were given an hour on the radio, they would fit 3 Led Zeppelin songs into their set.  That same year, Heart was trying to part ways with their old label and find a new one.  We also know they had sent a demo to Swan Song (never listened to until they were closing their doors and cleaning out the warehouse.)  From this, we can conclude that Heart would be thrilled to work with Led Zeppelin.

Led Zeppelin was also facing difficulties as they matured.  Robert's voice prevented him from being able to sing certain songs altogether, and made other performances often lackluster.  Some of their later compositions also struggled to reach their potential in a live context, simply because they were so layered and complex.   Achille's Last Stand and The Song Remains the Same are good examples of this.  By now you might see where I'm going with this, but anyway...what if Led Zeppelin had signed Heart to Swan Song and had them open their shows on their 1977 tour?

When it came Zeppelin's turn to take the stage, members of Heart would have been happy to fill out certain songs.  Imagine Ten Years Gone with two more guitarists, or Battle of Evermore with Ann Wilson doing the counter melody.  A missed opportunity to my ears!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of them being signed by Zeppelin, but in the end it might have worked against the sisters. Probably would have been seen as a novelty act (because of the obvious Zeppelin influences). Ann and Nancy are seen as pioneering, rocking women, but their identity might have been lost had they been helped by Zeppelin at the time. Plus, I don't think Zeppelin were in a state in 77 to give them the support and push the sisters might have needed.

Edited by Tremelo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, ArmsofAtlas1977 said:

The other day I was thinking about Led Zeppelin and had an odd idea.

In 1976, Led Zeppelin was taking a break from touring.  At the same, their biggest fans were finally getting their own big break.  Who were these fans?  A band named Heart.  Bootlegs of this group show that when they were given an hour on the radio, they would fit 3 Led Zeppelin songs into their set.  That same year, Heart was trying to part ways with their old label and find a new one.  We also know they had sent a demo to Swan Song (never listened to until they were closing their doors and cleaning out the warehouse.)  From this, we can conclude that Heart would be thrilled to work with Led Zeppelin.

Led Zeppelin was also facing difficulties as they matured.  Robert's voice prevented him from being able to sing certain songs altogether, and made other performances often lackluster.  Some of their later compositions also struggled to reach their potential in a live context, simply because they were so layered and complex.   Achille's Last Stand and The Song Remains the Same are good examples of this.  By now you might see where I'm going with this, but anyway...what if Led Zeppelin had signed Heart to Swan Song and had them open their shows on their 1977 tour?

When it came Zeppelin's turn to take the stage, members of Heart would have been happy to fill out certain songs.  Imagine Ten Years Gone with two more guitarists, or Battle of Evermore with Ann Wilson doing the counter melody.  A missed opportunity to my ears!

I think Led Zeppelin & the 70s tended to be pretty sexist, far too sexist to invite a load of girls on stage to 'help' them with their set.

Not Led Zeppelin but I remember an old 70s quote from Mick Jagger that, "Having woman on a stage is like having women on a battle ship.", that's the kind of attitude we're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ArmsofAtlas1977 said:

When it came Zeppelin's turn to take the stage, members of Heart would have been happy to fill out certain songs.  Imagine Ten Years Gone with two more guitarists, or Battle of Evermore with Ann Wilson doing the counter melody.  A missed opportunity to my ears!

Heart as an opening act...they didn't need an opening act and were routinely delivering three hour shows. 

Heart filling in during Led Zeppelin's show...ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if Led Zeppelin had completed their 1977 tour with Michael Jackson filling in for Robert Plant?

Mute clip one below after the announcer says "Michael Jackson" and hit play on clip two. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Jackson would be a lot better than Heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, ArmsofAtlas1977 said:

The other day I was thinking about Led Zeppelin and had an odd idea.

In 1976, Led Zeppelin was taking a break from touring. !

Led Zeppelin WAS ?.....Who, what, is Led Zeppelin, what does he/she do, what is Led Zeppelin.Surely you mean Led Zeppelin WERE, Led Zeppelin are/were  a band, a collective of people, collectives are not an is or a was. Jimmy Page is as is Robert Plant because they are singular. To say Led Zeppelin is/was just sounds wrong, whereas Led Zeppelin are/were is the correct description for a group/collective, otherwise how does one distinguish between the two. Saying Led Zeppelin are tells the reader that they are reading about more than one person, to say Led Zeppelin is the reader may be inclined to think that they are reading about an individual, a place or an object, at least that is the way in British English. End of rant....

 

Edited by JTM

Share this post


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

Michael Jackson would be a lot better than Heart.

Hell no. The first 4 Heart albums are excellent at least. Bebe has Silver Wheels. Love that instrumental (too short though)They are similar to Zep in that they had their rockers and acoustic numbers. Like all bands things go downhill somewhere down the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tremelo said:

Hell no. The first 4 Heart albums are excellent at least. Bebe has Silver Wheels. Love that instrumental (too short though)They are similar to Zep in that they had their rockers and acoustic numbers. Like all bands things go downhill somewhere down the line.

Sorry, not for me, I would rather listen to The Jackson 5 or Off the Wall than Heart any day of the week.

Share this post


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

Sorry, not for me, I would rather listen to The Jackson 5 or Off the Wall than Heart any day of the week.

Its all good. Music is very subjective. Jackson 5 are great.

Share this post


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

Led Zeppelin WAS ?.....Who, what, is Led Zeppelin, what does he/she do, what is Led Zeppelin.Surely you mean Led Zeppelin WERE, Led Zeppelin are/were  a band, a collective of people, collectives are not an is or a was. Jimmy Page is as is Robert Plant because they are singular. To say Led Zeppelin is/was just sounds wrong, whereas Led Zeppelin are/were is the correct description for a group/collective, otherwise how does one distinguish between the two. Saying Led Zeppelin are tells the reader that they are reading about more than one person, to say Led Zeppelin is the reader may be inclined to think that they are reading about an individual, a place or an object, at least that is the way in British English. End of rant....

 

Wow, and I thought I WAS an asshole.

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JTM said:

Led Zeppelin WAS ?.....Who, what, is Led Zeppelin, what does he/she do, what is Led Zeppelin.Surely you mean Led Zeppelin WERE, Led Zeppelin are/were  a band, a collective of people, collectives are not an is or a was. Jimmy Page is as is Robert Plant because they are singular. To say Led Zeppelin is/was just sounds wrong, whereas Led Zeppelin are/were is the correct description for a group/collective, otherwise how does one distinguish between the two. Saying Led Zeppelin are tells the reader that they are reading about more than one person, to say Led Zeppelin is the reader may be inclined to think that they are reading about an individual, a place or an object, at least that is the way in British English. End of rant....

 

 

1 hour ago, SteveAJones said:

Wow, and I thought I WAS an asshole.

 

:D

 

:D

 

JTM, this is just a difference between UK English and US English. Collective nouns where you are have plural verbs; here, they have singular verbs - both countries are employing correct grammar based on their own rules. Led Zeppelin was a group of four individuals - the grammar of UK English acknowledges the four members individually (thus, a plural verb is correct); the grammar of US English acknowledges that these four individuals created ONE group (thus, a singular verb is correct). Each use is correct in each country.

'Different' is not the same as 'wrong'... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, ForEvermore said:

 

 

:D

 

JTM, this is just a difference between UK English and US English. Collective nouns where you are have plural verbs; here, they have singular verbs - both countries are employing correct grammar based on their own rules. Led Zeppelin was a group of four individuals - the grammar of UK English acknowledges the four members individually (thus, a plural verb is correct); the grammar of US English acknowledges that these four individuals created ONE group (thus, a singular verb is correct). Each use is correct in each country.

'Different' is not the same as 'wrong'... 

I know we both have different rules,  it just bugs me a little sometimes so I thought I'd have a little rant, no malice intended, I was trying to sound tongue  in cheek, it's not easy on a keyboard...I should leave comedy to the professionals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, JTM said:

I know we both have different rules,  it just bugs me a little sometimes so I thought I'd have a little rant, no malice intended, I was trying to sound tongue  in cheek, it's not easy on a keyboard...I should leave comedy to the professionals.

I still get a laugh at the times people introduced the band as The Led Zeppelin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Strider said:

I still get a laugh at the times people introduced the band as The Led Zeppelin.

That doesn't sound right at all, "The" Led Zeppelin !!!! no... Sometimes though like when on BBC Radio shows Pink Floyd would be introduced as The Pink Floyd, now that works, it sort of  has a slightly more elite ring and in the collective/singular noun/verb argument there is no mistaking that "The Pink Floyd" is not a person (by the way, which one's pink)....but The Led Zeppelin....nah...

Edited by JTM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JTM said:

I know we both have different rules,  it just bugs me a little sometimes so I thought I'd have a little rant, no malice intended, I was trying to sound tongue  in cheek, it's not easy on a keyboard...I should leave comedy to the professionals.

Yes, I have had the same problem on message boards more times than I care to remember. No worries! :D

 

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

Sign in to follow this  

×