Would you have wanted Zep to perform at Woodstock?

[LedZep1969]

100000% yes

[longdistancewinner]

I'm not really bothered by the idea of it, to be honest. Would it have made them anymore successful? Probably not. They didn't need Woodstock, they didn't need Isle Of Wight, they didn't need any of that. The fact that they became so massive without any of those festivals, tells me all I need to know. And, it never hurt their career. I reckon if they had performed at Woodstock they may have been 'dwarfed', so to speak, by the bigger acts, or just lumped in the bill with the smaller ones. Some of those acts were amazing - others seem to have faded into oblivion.

There was a very wise man that once said, 'We were asked to do Woodstock and Atlantic were very keen, and so was our US promoter, Frank Barsalona. I said no because at Woodstock we'd have just been another band on the bill'.

Never underestimate the powerhouse that is Papa Grant.

[LedZep1969]

I'm not really bothered by the idea of it, to be honest. Would it have made them anymore successful? Probably not. They didn't need Woodstock, they didn't need Isle Of Wight, they didn't need any of that. The fact that they became so massive without any of those festivals, tells me all I need to know. And, it never hurt their career. I reckon if they had performed at Woodstock they may have been 'dwarfed', so to speak, by the bigger acts, or just lumped in the bill with the smaller ones. Some of those acts were amazing - others seem to have faded into oblivion.

There was a very wise man that once said, 'We were asked to do Woodstock and Atlantic were very keen, and so was our US promoter, Frank Barsalona. I said no because at Woodstock we'd have just been another band on the bill'.

Never underestimate the powerhouse that is Papa Grant.

touche

[Reggie29]

I'm not really bothered by the idea of it, to be honest. Would it have made them anymore successful? Probably not. They didn't need Woodstock, they didn't need Isle Of Wight, they didn't need any of that. The fact that they became so massive without any of those festivals, tells me all I need to know. And, it never hurt their career. I reckon if they had performed at Woodstock they may have been 'dwarfed', so to speak, by the bigger acts, or just lumped in the bill with the smaller ones. Some of those acts were amazing - others seem to have faded into oblivion.

There was a very wise man that once said, 'We were asked to do Woodstock and Atlantic were very keen, and so was our US promoter, Frank Barsalona. I said no because at Woodstock we'd have just been another band on the bill'.

Never underestimate the powerhouse that is Papa Grant.

Then why did they play the Texas festival August 1969?

[eternal light]

My boyfriend went to Woodstock. I am certain that he would have welcomed an appearance by Led Zeppelin.

But Woodstock was somewhat dangerous, although the crowd was amazingly well-behaved and considerate of each other.

At one point then-Governor Rockefeller considered sending in the National Guard to keep order. Fortunately someone advised him that was not necessary.

If he had done so, Woodstock might have become another Kent State, as the audience was so large and compacted that they would have been sitting ducks for an advancing militia.

[longdistancewinner]

Then why did they play the Texas festival August 1969?

Because the Atlanta one was so successful?

And I'm talking in reference to Woodstock and Isle of Wight, you know. I'm not saying that they didn't need to perform at any festival.

And the very large Atlanta Pop Festival in July?

They played several festivals that summer. Lots of the bands got a huge boost from Woodstock, Led Zeppelin would have been no different. Not to say they would have been the biggest there, considering The Who, Jimi Hendrix and many other big name bands were there, but it would have been a boost to them too. It's hard to say that they would have gotten bigger quicker from it, but I'd venture they would have by a smidge once the film came out.

The Atlanta and Texas festivals were organized by the same man. A lot of the Atlanta acts later went on to do Texas.

By my own admission, I've been fairly ignorant of the Atlanta and Texas festivals. Compared to Woodstock or IOW they don't appear to me as iconic - they're certainly not as commemorated - but that's not to say that they weren't just as successful. My point wasn't that they were better off not doing any festivals - it was that they didn't need to do Woodstock. And, more importantly, they didn't want to. They don't appear to have regretted it, either.

[SuperDave]

Peter Grant put them up at the Bath Festival instead during the weekend of Woodstock. Would have been interesting today, to see Zeppelin in the Woodstock film.

[Hotplant]

I would have wanted them to play at my local bar.

[kdh]

I thought that they played in Wallingford, CT the weekend of Woodstock.

And yes, sure, I would have wanted them to play. However, Peter Grant understood the long term ramifications of playing at that event. Easier to say no than have to deal with saying yes

[reids]

Alex Cooley (promoter extroardinaire; now retired) helped to bring Rock 'N' Roll to the southeast US; primarliy Atlanta (as it was (historically) primarily the chitlin' circuit before that where Rhythm and Blues artists like Little Richard (featuring a much younger Jimi Hendrix with him as well as the Isley Brothers), Ray Charles, Chuck Berry, etc.. were making the rounds performing & paving the way for future artists/groups like Led Zeppelin.

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-1715

Cooley is also a very cool guy (as I met him back in 2005).

R

Edited March 19, 2009 by reids

[Vega]

I would have wanted them to play at my local bar.

Anything's possible, Hotplant! (whistling that fine little tune in the beginning of "Dance on my own") Edited March 19, 2009 by Vega

[Wolfman]

I really wished they had done Woodstock. It would be another filmed event we could watch now. I understand why they didn't do more filmed events, but you can only watch so many grainy, two-minute 8mm films and not want more filmed concert like Earl's Court. Plus, I think they would have blown away most of the acts there.

[SuperDave]

I really wished they had done Woodstock. It would be another filmed event we could watch now. I understand why they didn't do more filmed events, but you can only watch so many grainy, two-minute 8mm films and not want more filmed concert like Earl's Court. Plus, I think they would have blown away most of the acts there.

Absolutely! Couldn't agree with you more.

[Melanie_72]

I really wished they had done Woodstock. It would be another filmed event we could watch now. I understand why they didn't do more filmed events, but you can only watch so many grainy, two-minute 8mm films and not want more filmed concert like Earl's Court. Plus, I think they would have blown away most of the acts there.

Agreed!! It would have been cool to see them there.

[kakdaddy]

It would have been cool for the filmed aspect of it, even if they didn't agree to be in the movie like CCR, but the film still exists. I wish the Jeff Beck Group didn't back out at the last minute, there's practically no footage of them.

[lzfan715]

Then why did they play the Texas festival August 1969?

I don't know if they were or not but they played festivals if they were headliners.

[Aquamarine]

[Aquamarine]

What does this post mean?

Just letting darkmorder know I'm here. Carry on.

[JimmyPageZoSo56]

I think they should have played. Then Jimmy could see Jimi Hendrix like he told Jeff Beck he would but never did. Also they would have rocked the place. They would have been to hard for some of the hippies but they would have been amazing.

[JimmyPageZoSo56]

No, its a matter of opinion. But most of the hippies I have talked to don't like Led Zeppelin. they like the flower power stuff and lighter rock. Its not that my view is "amusing," its a generalization. The Who was more punk rock than anything i.m.o. Pete Townshend's stage movements were punk rock. Its just my opinion. If people thought Zeppelin was too hard and heavy when they first started, I think some people at Woodstock would still thing so.

Edited March 20, 2009 by JimmyPageZoSo56

[Aquamarine]

Your contribution is so interesting.

You're a self admitted lurker and peeper, how about an opinion on the "Zep performing at Woodstock" scenario? Is it within you?

It's only you I'm keeping an eye on, Jo darkmorder--and your other incarnations. You're not going to make me sound sinister to the people who know me, just because I choose not to post for a while.

Zeppelin at Woodstock seems a non-topic since they didn't play there.

[Vega]

It's only you I'm keeping an eye on, Jo darkmorder--and your other incarnations. You're not going to make me sound sinister to the people who know me, just because I choose not to post for a while.

Zeppelin at Woodstock seems a non-topic since they didn't play there.

I don't know you, Aqua, but you don't seem sinister to me.

[Aquamarine]

I don't know you, Aqua, but you don't seem sinister to me.

Thanks, Vega, it's mutual.

[Aquamarine]

Here's another non-topic post, even more side-splitting--you're rumbled. So are Gomper and the others. Folks are having a good ROAR at that over in the Post a Pic of Yourself thread.

[Melcórë]

In response to the thread: No, because then they wouldn't have been able to play some awesome shows elsewhere.

That being said, playing at Woodstock might have earned them more notoriety (if that's possible) and (?maybe) endeared some of their (harsher) critics to them...

Wait. Actually, that's not likely at all.