ninelives Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Bands didn't play those festivals to get famous. You usually had to be famous before hand. It is not a matter of needing to play them. Do you imply that other bands that played those shows did need those festivals in order to get famous? Carlos Santana might feel differently. He begged to get a slot on Woodstock and was relatively unknown at the time. His performance pretty well put him on the map. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reggie29 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Bands didn't play those festivals to get famous. You usually had to be famous before hand. It is not a matter of needing to play them. Do you imply that other bands that played those shows did need those festivals in order to get famous? Not so. What about CSN & Y? They were all famous in their own right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquamarine Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 wow did i say it was a competition? u are dead wrong.. thats not what i meant.. thats how great zep was.. hendrix was amazing from everything i hear and listen to and still woulda been swept away by the mighty zeppelin.. just the truth.. not knocking hendrix one bit "Blowing him out of the water" sounds like knocking him to me. You're still making it a competition by insisting one would have been swept away (=beaten) by the other. Why couldn't they just both have been great? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoso2112 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 wow did i say it was a competition? u are dead wrong.. thats not what i meant.. thats how great zep was.. hendrix was amazing from everything i hear and listen to and still woulda been swept away by the mighty zeppelin.. just the truth.. not knocking hendrix one bit There are bands equally as good as zeppelin. Its all subjective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I've heard that they want to do a 40th anniversary of Woodstock show this summer. Quite possibly in New York's Central Park. Not sure about this. How many more of these do we need? Supposely, The Who and Santana are signed on. This was just a little news item are heard the other day. The latest I've read is that it might not happen this year but it will happen eventually. I haven't read anything about it being held in Central Park but I seriously doubt that would be an ideal locale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrios Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 .there would of been too much of a clash witht the other big artists, namely hendrix. zep and hendrix avoided touring in the same cities at the same time. grant's decision to not play woodstock was very astute, who cares anyway ? get a life Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ledzeppelinfan1 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Heck yeah they would have been great at woodstock! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zachman Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 "Blowing him out of the water" sounds like knocking him to me. You're still making it a competition by insisting one would have been swept away (=beaten) by the other. Why couldn't they just both have been great? ok... if you say so................ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 What's with this "blowing Hendrix out of the water"? If they'd played Woodstock, they'd undoubtedly have been great. Hendrix was great. Why does it have to be a competition, where they're only great at someone else's expense? I agree with you, it´s not necessary to said than one would be better than the other, you could enjoy both, besides the whole thing enters in subjective theme, by the way I think It would have been great, (although i wasn´t here in that time ) but also I think it wasn´t "necessary" for led to do it, anyone here think that? , y really doubt so, zeppelin was and its great enough for rising for themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El_Hermitaño Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 One thing is certain...thay did not need Woodstock to be succesfull...thay disn't need woodstock at all....but, would it be cool to see Zep at Woodstock....HELLYEAH!!! And maybe thay would bejust another band on the bill a Grant once said, but i think they would have gained the attention of the audience, as Santana who was an outsider came out from nowhere...Zep would hace blown the place to aches IMO. Anyway...woodstock was great any way...but who won't be pleased to see ZEP on that amazing FESt...or The Doors too??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hats off to LZ Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 If they preformed there i think it would have had to be renamed Zepstock. Zeppelin featuring Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, and so on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.