Jump to content

If You Think Page/Plant/Jones/Jason Bonham Should Not Perform as Led Zeppelin


Did you see them in the 70's?  

51 members have voted

  1. 1. Did you see them in the 70's?

    • I saw LZ in the 70's
      8
    • I didn't see LZ in the 70's
      18
    • I don't care if they call themselves Led Zeppelin
      25


Recommended Posts

I'm rather curious. A lot of the people I see who post about how they don't want the band to call themselves Led Zeppelin seem to have seen the band in their heyday. I just want to see if this little fact is a factor in that belief.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not old enough to have ever seen the "real" Led Zeppelin. I'd Love to be able to see them in London, but I still know they're not really Led Zeppelin. Personally, I think renaming them would be touchy ground... I support the show in London as I think it's a chance for them to erase the memory of the handful of crappy "reunions" they did in the 80's and 90's. But, I think it would stupid for them to tour after O2, I really think this should be their last show, their opportunity to go out on top. A tour would give them more chances to play bad shows, and you know if they even the tiniest bit off at O2, the critics will be All Over them. I would rather see their legacy untarnished than screwed up by a stupid tour. I'm a fan of Led Zeppelin, not some group of old men who don't know when to give it up. I think that renaming the band for O2 or after O2 would be stupid also, as this invites a tour afterwards. Whether they are called Led Zeppelin or not, they will still be considered Led Zeppelin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact is, if they didn't go by the name Led Zeppelin the press would still call them that anyway.

At Live Aid they were introduced on stage by their individual names, no mention of Led Zeppelin. In the papers the next day it was Led Zeppelin this and Led Zeppelin that.

So, they may as well use it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not old enough to have ever seen the "real" Led Zeppelin. I'd Love to be able to see them in London, but I still know they're not really Led Zeppelin. Personally, I think renaming them would be touchy ground... I support the show in London as I think it's a chance for them to erase the memory of the handful of crappy "reunions" they did in the 80's and 90's. But, I think it would stupid for them to tour after O2, I really think this should be their last show, their opportunity to go out on top. A tour would give them more chances to play bad shows, and you know if they even the tiniest bit off at O2, the critics will be All Over them. I would rather see their legacy untarnished than screwed up by a stupid tour. I'm a fan of Led Zeppelin, not some group of old men who don't know when to give it up. I think that renaming the band for O2 or after O2 would be stupid also, as this invites a tour afterwards. Whether they are called Led Zeppelin or not, they will still be considered Led Zeppelin.

:o

Link to post
Share on other sites
:o

well, I meant that I'd prefer to remember them as the Led Zeppelin I know now, The Greatest Rock Band In The World. if the show at the O2 sucks (which I don't think it will) then that will tarnish their image for me. if they were to tour, and sucked, well that would tarnish it more. the point I'm trying to make is that right now I really have a lot of respect for these guys, and I think the world does too, and I think it would be a shame for them to throw that away simply because someone pushed them into touring. Plant is reluctant to tour for a very good reason. He most likely thinks that Led Zeppelin is in a position that very very few rock bands ever attain, and he's afraid of messing that up. I'd rather see them quit while they're still good, even if that means missing a great tour, than risk seeing that all go down the drain. there will be a day when there is no more Led Zeppelin, and I think that day was 09/25/1980, are we still going to be clamoring for a tour when there's only one guy left? I don't think Led Zeppelin would ever tour without Page or Plant, why is the absence of Bonham any different?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I didn't see them in the 70s

AND

I don't care if they call themselves Led Zeppelin.

Then your vote would be the third one. That's the point of that one. For that vote, it doesn't matter whether you saw them or not. It's the first two that are matter to the question specifically.

So there you go. :D

Speaking of the poll... obviously, I'm gonna wait a lot longer, because between the two main ones, with only 7 votes, 1 more person having seen them says nothing, especially as the poll is still young, but I'm gonna go ahead and start counting my eggs before they hatch and say that I may be able to make my point.

Edited by Nathan
Link to post
Share on other sites

If Page Plant and Jones want to add someone else and still perform as "Led Zeppelin" that is only good for us fans... But the fact that it is Jason Bonham only makes it perfect... that is how they should be... with Jason they should tour and make a new album...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 years later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...