Jump to content

Jimmy Page's Plant Plea


zepps_apprentice

Recommended Posts

The way I read your last post I thought you were saying that he wouldn't want to tour unless he played the big rooms.

Thanks for the clarification...

What it comes down to is what is his true level of ambition in manifesting new music? You don't need to leave

greater London to present it, but I think we can agree it would be a more satisfying experience for artist and

audience alike if the music - new and old alike - is taken places it has never been. I think China fits squarely within this context (and it also happens to be a vast relatively untapped market for the back catalog).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's already said the intent is to manifest new music, but a proper tour necessitates performing Led Zeppelin. He cannot tour without performing Led Zeppelin unless he want's to be playing 2,000 seat venues.

Well, my point was that you said it had to be "new music or nothing."

And my question is, you don't think he wants to perform Zeppelin (because I sure think he does), as opposed to just feeling he has to perform it for economic reasons? Similarly, I don't think Plant does LZ material solely because his manager thought he could get bigger audiences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The decision is made by them, not the fans. Roger Daltrey and Pete Townshend decided to go on as the Who, so be it. Jimmy Page, Robert Plant and John Paul Jones decided against it, that's their choice, too.

Did they make that choice to preserve a legacy? I don't know because I'm not as interested in a legacy as I am in the music it's self. A legacy exists in peoples minds more than anywhere else and there's something about the concern for preserving the legacy that reminds me of a forced collectors item.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, my point was that you said it had to be "new music or nothing."

And my question is, you don't think he wants to perform Zeppelin (because I sure think he does), as opposed to just feeling he has to perform it for economic reasons? Similarly, I don't think Plant does LZ material solely because his manager thought he could get bigger audiences.

The incorporation of Led Zeppelin's music into Plant's solo career was originally a management-driven outcome

(fact), and if he hadn't upheld it over the course of the past twenty fours he would not have experienced nearly the same extent of touring, let alone fame (opinion). Don't forget the impact of '94-'98 Page/Plant era, which for

many was like the second coming of Led Zeppelin. Note since then he's said continued inclusion of the Zeppelin songs is primarily (but of course not solely) a concession to the fans.

Jimmy on the other hand- at THIS point - said he wants to manifest new music, but he says a lot of things. He has intentions, but I've just posted a quote of his from seven years ago expressing these same "intentions".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is something I don't get, why is the decision to break up the band all about "perserving a legacy"? They broke up because they felt they could not go on without Bonzo, their drummer and their friend, the combination was broken, the chemistry was gone, so they could not go on making MUSIC like they did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did they make that choice to preserve a legacy? I don't know because I'm not as interested in a legacy as I am in the music it's self. A legacy exists in peoples minds more than anywhere else and there's something about the concern for preserving the legacy that reminds me of a forced collectors item.

It was a business decision Pete Townsend made on his own. I won't get into it here because it's off-topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The incorporation of Led Zeppelin's music into Plant's solo career was originally a management-driven outcome

(fact), and if he hadn't upheld it over the course of the past twenty fours he would not have experienced nearly the same extent of touring, let alone fame (opinion). Don't forget the impact of '94-'98 Page/Plant era, which for

many was like the second coming of Led Zeppelin. Note since then he's said continued inclusion of the Zeppelin songs is primarily (but of course not solely) a concession to the fans.

Jimmy on the other hand- at THIS point - said he wants to manifest new music, but he says a lot of things. He has intentions, but I've just posted a quote of his from seven years ago expressing these same "intentions".

Yes, I know that was the original argument (fact), but I'm just saying I don't think he performed that material then or now solely for economic reasons (opinion). He didn't perform Zep material at first partly because he wanted to establish an individual identity for himself--he hasn't had that issue for years, but he still performs some of the songs he loves. And since the P/P era he's also said a lot of things--including how proud he is of that material. He's not just doing it for other people--he doesn't do anything JUST because it's what other people want (opinion).

Similarly, I know what Jimmy said about the new music he wants to perform, which we've been waiting for for nearly a decade. But even if he had a whole raft of new material ready to go, I think there's zero chance he wouldn't do LZ material also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Similarly, I know what Jimmy said about the new music he wants to perform, which we've been waiting for for nearly a decade. But even if he had a whole raft of new material ready to go, I think there's zero chance he wouldn't do LZ material also.

While I freely admit I enjoy the fact TCV don't do Led Zeppelin songs and wish Robert would stop, I also admit Jimmy's performance in China will be more memorable for artist and audience alike if he does perform at least a few Led Zeppelin songs there for the first time. I have even suggested Bron-Y-Aur and Stairway to Heaven as the encore but it simply remains to be seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I freely admit I enjoy the fact TCV don't do Led Zeppelin songs and wish Robert would stop, I also admit Jimmy's performance in China will be more memorable for artist and audience alike if he does perform at least a few Led Zeppelin songs there for the first time. I have even suggested Bron-Y-Aur and Stairway to Heaven as the encore but it simply remains to be seen.

Why do you feel Robert should stop performing Zep songs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you feel Robert should stop performing Zep songs?

I only said I wish he would stop, not that he should stop or will. I no longer enjoy his renditions of those songs

and would rather hear him performing new music or some of the more obscure songs from his solo career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is something I don't get, why is the decision to break up the band all about "perserving a legacy"? They broke up because they felt they could not go on without Bonzo, their drummer and their friend, the combination was broken, the chemistry was gone, so they could not go on making MUSIC like they did.

I've never said the band's decision was or wasn't about preserving a legacy, but the legacy seems to be a frequently mentioned concept by some of their fans when speculating Led Zeppelin's future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never said the band's decision was or wasn't about preserving a legacy, but the legacy seems to be a frequently mentioned concept by some of their fans when speculating Led Zeppelin's future.

Did they make that choice to preserve a legacy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Asking if they did is not saying they did. Apparently someone has trouble comprehending what they read.

Here is the entire quote:

"Did they make that choice to preserve a legacy? I don't know because I'm not as interested in a legacy as I am in the music it's self. A legacy exists in peoples minds more than anywhere else and there's something about the concern for preserving the legacy that reminds me of a forced collectors item."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did they make that choice to preserve a legacy? I don't know because I'm not as interested in a legacy as I am in the music it's self. A legacy exists in peoples minds more than anywhere else and there's something about the concern for preserving the legacy that reminds me of a forced collectors item.

You talk about the music over the legacy, let me ask you this; have you seen Page/Plant/Jones and their Live-Aid performance? I'm sure you have and I'm sure you'll admit it was a less than stellar performance, and that was w/ two drummers! That they actually considered, however briefly, to carry on w/ Tony Thompson, where do you think the legacy of Zeppelin would be today if they had?

Say they toured in 1986 w/ Thompson and the majority of shows had been as poor as Live-Aid was. Would 20 million people make requests for tickets in 2007? Would Page/Plant have ever happened? All I am saying is that their legacy is important and one-offs like Live-Aid and Atlantic's 40th have not hurt them, but a tour w/ multiple shows like either of those performances would have because the music, which you claim to be solely interested in, would have suffered as well.

I saw Jimmy in 1985 and 1986 and while the thrill of seeing him play was great, sadly his playing wasn't at its best. I saw him in 1988 and he was much better. But it wasn't until his collaboration w/ David Coverdale from 1991-1993 that Jimmy got back to playing as a top-notch guitar player. That carried over to the P/P era as well as the Black Crowes tour.

I am an older fan and I assume you are a younger fan. I understand the bond that was Led-Zeppelin. I also understand that Robert and Bonzo were mates long before Zeppelin. So I understand Robert's decision to respect his friend's legacy and the legacy of the band he helped create over a 12 year period. I'm sure there are die-hard Skynyrd fans that cringe now when another tour is announced and that type of downfall is something nobody wants to see happen to Zeppelin. Same w/ The Who. Townshend/Daltry could have carried on in other capacities than The Who.

So many bands lose a member and keep right on going. The fact that Zeppelin didn't has always placed them on a higher level for me. You say a legacy exists in people's minds and you're correct, and if Zeppelin had tarnished theirs over the years there's a good chance this board wouldn't even exist because the interest of fans would have waned.

Led-Zeppelin handled things correctly after John Bonham sadly passed. That they have continued to do so... despite massive pressure, resonates loudly w/ me and others. I get that Jimmy wants to do it but he seems to only want to do it w/ Jason behind the kit. It wouldn't be Led-Zeppelin, but it would be as close as one could hope for. And I would be fine w/ a Zeppelin tour w/ Jason. To me it's respectful and done in taste. Robert however, doesn't want to do that. And I respect his decision as well. But getting someone else in on vocals would be the worst idea ever and the legacy that Zeppelin has spent 40 + years creating would be destroyed over night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You talk about the music over the legacy, let me ask you this; have you seen Page/Plant/Jones and their Live-Aid performance? I'm sure you have and I'm sure you'll admit it was a less than stellar performance, and that was w/ two drummers! That they actually considered, however briefly, to carry on w/ Tony Thompson, where do you think the legacy of Zeppelin would be today if they had?

Say they toured in 1986 w/ Thompson and the majority of shows had been as poor as Live-Aid was. Would 20 million people make requests for tickets in 2007? Would Page/Plant have ever happened? All I am saying is that their legacy is important and one-offs like Live-Aid and Atlantic's 40th have not hurt them, but a tour w/ multiple shows like either of those performances would have because the music, which you claim to be solely interested in, would have suffered as well.

I saw Jimmy in 1985 and 1986 and while the thrill of seeing him play was great, sadly his playing wasn't at its best. I saw him in 1988 and he was much better. But it wasn't until his collaboration w/ David Coverdale from 1991-1993 that Jimmy got back to playing as a top-notch guitar player. That carried over to the P/P era as well as the Black Crowes tour.

I am an older fan and I assume you are a younger fan. I understand the bond that was Led-Zeppelin. I also understand that Robert and Bonzo were mates long before Zeppelin. So I understand Robert's decision to respect his friend's legacy and the legacy of the band he helped create over a 12 year period. I'm sure there are die-hard Skynyrd fans that cringe now when another tour is announced and that type of downfall is something nobody wants to see happen to Zeppelin. Same w/ The Who. Townshend/Daltry could have carried on in other capacities than The Who.

So many bands lose a member and keep right on going. The fact that Zeppelin didn't has always placed them on a higher level for me. You say a legacy exists in people's minds and you're correct, and if Zeppelin had tarnished theirs over the years there's a good chance this board wouldn't even exist because the interest of fans would have waned.

Led-Zeppelin handled things correctly after John Bonham sadly passed. That they have continued to do so... despite massive pressure, resonates loudly w/ me and others. I get that Jimmy wants to do it but he seems to only want to do it w/ Jason behind the kit. It wouldn't be Led-Zeppelin, but it would be as close as one could hope for. And I would be fine w/ a Zeppelin tour w/ Jason. To me it's respectful and done in taste. Robert however, doesn't want to do that. And I respect his decision as well. But getting someone else in on vocals would be the worst idea ever and the legacy that Zeppelin has spent 40 + years creating would be destroyed over night.

Right now I'm wondering if glicine will respond to your comments about the legacy or if she was just using that as an excuse for singling me out. Ha,ha!

Anyway, it's funny that you think older fan vs. younger fan has something to do with my position. I would have thought just the opposite, that an older fan would tend to take my position. I was born in 1971, but I have a very good friend who was born in 1951 and is a big Stones fan. He's been listening to the Stones for longer than most people around here knew of them. He's also been listening to Jimmy Page for longer than anyone around here knew who he was and his feeling is much the same as mine. He always says; "I wish those people, who go to the concerts because these bands are considered legends, would get puked on."

I also find it hard to believe that Led Zeppelin or The Who couldn't find a replacement for their fallen drummers who be be more like the Bonzo or Moonie. Maybe the problem is that they seem to fall into this trap of picking an already known vs. an unknown. Even when fans speculate on a replacement for Plant, most of the names are already known. Also, look at what AC/DC did when Bon Scott died.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The music IS the legacy!

I've been listening to and learning about music as long as Gospels friend and IMO the Stones best work was with Brian Jones and after he left (sacked from the band he co-founded), their style changed radically and it was Mick Taylor's heavy blues influence that made the Stones sound of the early - mid seventies.

Then when Bill Wyman left they were down to only three original members Mick, Keith and Charlie and they continued as the Stones albeit with another new sound in Ron Wood.

The Who had Kenny Jones for a time who was not an unknown having played with The Small Faces etc then The Who and unfairly to him, he was always going to be second best to Moon regardless of his ability.

When John Entwhistle who is in my top 5 bassists died, the band carried on as The Who even though half of the original members were not there.

AC/DC lost "IT" when Bon Scott died and although Johnson is a good singer (Geordie were a great live band and I had the pleasure of seeing them once), he had very big shoes to fill.

There are certain songs they don't play out of respect to Bon (Long Way To The top) and frankly because they are not suited to Brian's vocal range.

Even Queen have tried to sustain the band but without Mercury or Deacon (who left in 1997) and until recently with Paul Rodgers of Free (who incidently lost their guitarist Paul Kossoff after they disbanded) and Bad Co.

With the exception of Scott and Mercury all those bands have lost either their bass player, drummer or both and right or wrong they continued on with the "brand".

The difference with Zeppelin is that after Bonzo died they disbanded because without John Bonham the remaining members felt they couldn't continue AS Led Zeppelin without him.

Until December 2007 that had remained a constant until Jason sat in on the drums out of respect for his dad and because he was more than capable of doing the job.

They had not played a full concert with any other billed as Led Zeppelin, sure there was Live Aid with two drummers and other "reunions" but two - three songs does not a concert make.

It is blatantly obvious that when you take the voice(s) away from any band they cease to be that band from a vocal and even a musical standpoint when they play an instrument be it guitar or harmonica etc.

Had Paul, George and Ringo gotten together with Julian Lennon (after John was murdered), would it still have been The Beatles?

No.

By all means go out and play the songs that we all know and love but without the "original" frontman don't market it for what it isn't, especially

Led Zeppelin.

While the music plays the legacy will live on in our hearts, souls and minds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lotta thoughts there Reggie, many of which I agree with. Gotta say I respectfully disagree that the Stones' best work was with Brian Jones (in that I thought the Mick Taylor years were equally good--great in a different way), and also although it's true Jones was sacked from the band he co-founded, even he agreed at the time it was necessary, as he was in no shape to perform, and couldn't get into America to tour because of his many drug busts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lotta thoughts there Reggie, many of which I agree with. Gotta say I respectfully disagree that the Stones' best work was with Brian Jones (in that I thought the Mick Taylor years were equally good--great in a different way), and also although it's true Jones was sacked from the band he co-founded, even he agreed at the time it was necessary, as he was in no shape to perform, and couldn't get into America to tour because of his many drug busts.

I'm not saying that Taylor's contribution wasn't good live, quite the contrary, it's just that Jones was more melodic and they were more adventurous in the studio with him introducing sitars etc, it was Jones not Richards.

I hadn't thought about his health or the legal side of him getting into America but the fact remains they approached him to leave not the other way around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference with Zeppelin is that after Bonzo died they disbanded because without John Bonham the remaining members felt they couldn't continue AS Led Zeppelin without him. Until December 2007 that had remained a constant

Jimmy was considering a reformation soonafter Live Aid, and rehearsals with Robert and JPJ were held in January 1986. I'm sure you know this, so it's for the benefit of anyone who really believes Jimmy hasn't harbored band reunion desires many times over the past 29 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at Led Zeppelin from a business perspective, it is amazing that Page & Plant were able to share the "creative control" of the band, and its direction, for over a decade. In the business world Co-CEO's do not work. I happen to work for a company that has tried this...did not last long. It is amazing to me that we are talking about two talented musicians sharing something as sacred/emotional as the creative direction of their music. I do not see how one can perform Led Zeppelin without the other. On the otherhand, I was really impressed with the Page / Plant tour clips that I have seen on this site. Not saying that this is a possibility, but I did notice that the chemistry was there. Page admitted that little practice went into the Live-Aid concert...and that the O2 was different in this respect. The ability for Page / Plant to compromise over the years may actually lead to the possibility of those two playing together sometime in the future. Heck...maybe even some new stuff.

Still dreaming and waiting for warmer weather...I will definitely be doing some 100 mile rides this summer, and if I can do that at my age then getting together to do some gigs don't sound to painful now does it?

B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jimmy was considering a reformation soonafter Live Aid, and rehearsals with Robert and JPJ were held in January 1986. I'm sure you know this, so it's for the benefit of anyone who really believes Jimmy hasn't harbored band reunion desires many times over the past 29 years.

From what I remember of Live Aid they weren't "officially" introduced as Led Zeppelin.

Now that you mention it I do recall (I had forgotten about it!) reading something about it at the time but as usual it all petered out.

Was it that they couldn't find a suitable drummer?

I know Robert was on good terms with Phil Collins after The Principle of Moments sessions and while he may not've been as dynamic as Bonzo I think with some rehearsal he may have been adequate.

Back to topic....

I'm wondering about whether all this inactivity from Robert is affecting his creativity from both a recording and performance perspective because we don't know for certain when or if anything with Alison is happening in the short term.

If by all accounts he checked out JPJ with TCV and (surely) is aware of the Beijing thing with Jimmy hopefully it has gotten the juices flowing and he will do some kind of gig / tour this year though not necessarily with the above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also find it hard to believe that Led Zeppelin or The Who couldn't find a replacement for their fallen drummers who be be more like the Bonzo or Moonie. Maybe the problem is that they seem to fall into this trap of picking an already known vs. an unknown. Even when fans speculate on a replacement for Plant, most of the names are already known. Also, look at what AC/DC did when Bon Scott died.

It's easy to find somebody who can do the same skill, known or unknown. But the other thing to consider is will they be able to work together as a unit and produce the same level of energy? I'm sure anybody else in the creative field will understand what I am trying to say. Sometimes we work with people who are very good in their fields but the combined effort is just ok and sometimes with other people the effort is out of this world. As we all know the sum that was Led Zeppelin is irreplaceable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...