NobodysFaultButJimmys Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I'm a firm believer that it's actually some of the fans that are in dire need of therapy. A prime example would be this post below: What was wrong with what he said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JiMiHeNdRiX1967 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Plant leaving in 77 would have been alot worse than Jones leaving in 74 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leddy Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Plant leaving in 77 would have been alot worse than Jones leaving in 74 Blimey why ?? JPJ made Zepplein like the other 3, without him if he left in 74 we wouldn't of had Kashmir as we know it, if lets just say they had replaced him, Kashmir would not of sounded as majestic and iconic as it does, Great Page riff as it is, 8 mins of that with out JPJ arranging of the strings/keys would have me heading for the shrink...ok bit over the top but to say Plant is more important (or imply) is not rt at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missytootsweet Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 There was a comment on a You Tube clip I saw awhile back that said John Paul Jones was "the glue that held the band together". I thought that was a really nice and accurate way to summarize his importance. missy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 What was wrong with what he said? A better question would be, what's not wrong with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the chase Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Plant leaving in 77 would have been alot worse than Jones leaving in 74 not to me. obviously the reason robert wanted to leave was much more tragic and understandable than jpj's reason. but jones's musical contributions were as important as robert's. he was just more laid back about it. i will say i don't think they would have continued without robert in 77...... jpj in 1974? they might have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leddy Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 not to me. obviously the reason robert wanted to leave was much more tragic and understandable than jpj's reason. but jones's musical contributions were as important as robert's. he was just more laid back about it. i will say i don't think they would have continued without robert in 77...... jpj in 1974? they might have. History has shown that the Rhythm section of Led Zeppelin are coverted more than the front lineup, so you would like to think they would not have replaced him for all the reasons I said earlier, Walking into Clarksdale would have been so so much better if JPJ had been on it, with hi creative input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 History has shown that the Rhythm section of Led Zeppelin are coverted moore than the front lineup, Has it ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leddy Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Has it ???? In my opinion yes, when you hear other musicians talking, they have an ultimate lineup or who they would have in a band, it seems Bonzo is always mentioned, then the Rhythm section i.e JPJ too. Just something I have picked up on, don't woory I am not dismissing Rob or Jim. I personally feel have Bonzo and JPJ behind you would of made alot of bands sound better, proof in the pudding both Page and Palnt have not sounded better since 1980 without them. But that again isn't me having a go, as I still think their great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Proof in the pudding both Page and Plant have not sounded better since 1980 without them. IMHO, Plant actually became a better singer and lyricist after leaving Led Zeppelin and most if not all of Page's post-1980 tour performances surpass those of the '77-'80 era of the band. It's impossible to know but I think if JPJ had left the group they would have carried on together but as a new group with a new name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstork Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 History has shown that the Rhythm section of Led Zeppelin are coverted moore than the front lineup, so you would like to think they would not have replaced him for all the reasons I said earlier, Walking into Clarksdale would have been so so much better if JPJ had been on it, with hi creative input. history has shown that the whole band is coveted. I don't sense a disproportionate respect for Jones/Bonham over Page/Plant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leddy Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 IMHO, Plant actually became a better singer and lyricist after leaving Led Zeppelin and most if not all of Page's post-1980 tour performances surpass those of the '77-'80 era of the band. It's impossible to know but I think if JPJ had left the group they would have carried on together but as a new group with a new name. I have to dissagree with you, I do not think IMHO that Plant got better, he may well over the years as a solo artist chnaged as a singer, different stlyes to suit what he can sing and reach pitch wise, but better thats debatable. Do not get me wrong we are all on the same side here when it comes to Zeppelin. I haven't been to see these guys many times because I think they are below standard. In my opinion and its only mine Plant has never bettered the vocals from the first album, so am I saying he got worse ? no but as I write ALS vocals are also outstanding. Page live after 1980, yes his playing has been really good, I guess with him its the studio output (C/P aside), WitC is a weak album, but live there is know denying they were really very good. history has shown that the whole band is coveted. I don't sense a disproportionate respect for Jones/Bonham over Page/Plant. Yes history has and also there is no disproportionate respect, they are all respected as a band, almost to much sometimes (although by earlier posts in threads, people seem to dismiss JPJ contribution sometimes, thats disproportionate , like saying less important than if Plant had gone in 1977). I still hold by my statement though that the the rhythm section is highly coverted, thats not direspecting Plant and Page, just they are highly regarded a little bit more thats all if their was a pole, i could be wrong but i doubt it . People get really defensive about Zeppelin, don't worry that maybe just maybe Bonham and Jones are thought more highly than the other two as a unit and a rhythm section is a unit, if it were the case the other two are also thought of very highly, its objective thats all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Leddy, personally I'm not worried about it or defensive about it - I just completely disagree with you, and in a totally non-argumentative way. It didn't help that you framed your point with "History has shown that...." , in other words presenting it as a historical fact and not just an opinion. You're bound to get people posting to disagree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leddy Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Leddy, personally I'm not worried about it or defensive about it - I just completely disagree with you, and in a totally non-argumentative way. It didn't help that you framed your point with "History has shown that...." , in other words presenting it as a historical fact and not just an opinion. You're bound to get people posting to disagree with that. I am hardly the wordsmith here and should word it all better, anyway its fine people get back and challenge it as thats what its all about, if I am wrong I am wrong, I should have worded it "I think history blah blah" or IMHO. Thing is if there were a poll outside of here the rhythm section would be more coverted IN MY HUMBLE OPINION Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 I have to dissagree with you, I do not think IMHO that Plant got better, he may well over the years as a solo artist chnaged as a singer, different stlyes to suit what he can sing and reach pitch wise, but better thats debatable. Do not get me wrong we are all on the same side here when it comes to Zeppelin. I haven't been to see these guys many times because I think they are below standard. In my opinion and its only mine Plant has never bettered the vocals from the first album, so am I saying he got worse ? no but as I write ALS vocals are also outstanding. Page live after 1980, yes his playing has been really good, I guess with him its the studio output (C/P aside), WitC is a weak album, but live there is know denying they were really very good. I don't see how any of them are considered below standard - standard to what, Zep? Gotta disagree mate. Zep was what it was based on the chemistry of the four of them together. If history were different and one of them wasn't involved, they'd not have sounded as they were. Post Zep output is never going to sound like Zep and quite frankly, I think it shows talent on the part of RP that he wasn't stuck in the past. He branched out into many different directions over the years and was more interested in that than relying or going back with Zep. I think his song writing within his own career definitely grew as did his voice. Just my thoughts... Yes history has and also there is no disproportionate respect, they are all respected as a band, almost to much sometimes (although by earlier posts in threads, people seem to dismiss JPJ contribution sometimes, thats disproportionate , like saying less important than if Plant had gone in 1977). I still hold by my statement though that the the rhythm section is highly coverted, thats not direspecting Plant and Page, just they are highly regarded a little bit more thats all if their was a pole, i could be wrong but i doubt it . People get really defensive about Zeppelin, don't worry that maybe just maybe Bonham and Jones are thought more highly than the other two as a unit and a rhythm section is a unit, if it were the case the other two are also thought of very highly, its objective thats all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leddy Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Thats the beauty of debate, we all think differently, thank goodness for that. Planty branching out as you say was a great pun....Plant/Branch...nice one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgio Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Plant is probably the most sensitive member of the band - he's the singer after all. He was aware, but what makes me wonder is the presence of Peter Grant. Peter was really running the show and bad things happened under his watch. Many unsavoury events were glossed over in light of the band's success, so I could understand Plant's disillusionment. Revisit the lyrics of "Sick Again" and you'll see some insight... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Hoyland Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Plant is probably the most sensitive member of the band - he's the singer after all. He was aware, but what makes me wonder is the presence of Peter Grant. Peter was really running the show and bad things happened under his watch. Many unsavoury events were glossed over in light of the band's success, so I could understand Plant's disillusionment. Revisit the lyrics of "Sick Again" and you'll see some insight... I dont know about sensitive, maybe, but I do know this. He was into and or doing a tremendous amount of drugs at the time (They all were I think). Couple that with the lose of your first born son, a serious car accident and probaly other bad stuff we dont even know about, and your creating a recipe for personal disastor that can ruin a life for years to come. (unless you get it handled). I've seen it before, many times having worked in the field for years, and personal experience unfortunatly . Both he and Page have exibited this type of behavior over time, just in different ways. BUT the amazing thing is, they BOTH have shown incredible artistic integrety at the same time by not totally cashing in despit any damage to their personal being and the temptation to do so. Led Zeppelin as it was known ended with the death of Bonzo, it simply would not be the same without him, thats a fact. BUT, that doesnt mean they couldnt have worked together with a new drummer and called it something else. And they all could have done solo careers at the same time as well, why not? Which is why Plant comes off as being a bit of a self absorbed wank for not doing so and being totally fixed on his solo stuff. He claims to want to explore a lot of musical venues, and a new group with Page, and maybe JPJ could have been one of several, and an exciting one IMO. Of course the above statments are my opinion based on what I've read and heard over the decades being a Fan. And it might be close to truth, or utter bull shit as well, cause I wasnt there and may not know what really happened at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 And they all could have done solo careers at the same time as well, why not? Which is why Plant comes off as being a bit of a self absorbed wank for not doing so and being totally fixed on his solo stuff. He claims to want to explore a lot of musical venues, and a new group with Page, and maybe JPJ could have been one of several, and an exciting one IMO. I get what you're saying but I think if they were to do that, people would still think of it as Zep to a certain extent and the pressure of that would be very present. They've also all grown in different directions musically so who's to say that magic they once had would even still be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Hoyland Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 I get what you're saying but I think if they were to do that, people would still think of it as Zep to a certain extent and the pressure of that would be very present. They've also all grown in different directions musically so who's to say that magic they once had would even still be there. Well from what I know of artist in general, the second you worry about what other people, fans and critics alike, think about your art, you've had it. If they dont like it, they can look away from your painting, or turn the dial ect. cause its not a democracy, you have to be true to what your doing regardless. But these guys know what their doing and can handle that Im certain. As far as the magic, IMO its not something that just flashes out if the blue by chance, its CREATED by the artist. Any magic that is no longer there, is simply not there because someone doesnt want to create it anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquamarine Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 As far as the magic, IMO its not something that just flashes out if the blue by chance, its CREATED by the artist. Any magic that is no longer there, is simply not there because someone doesnt want to create it anymore. Of course it flashes out of the blue by chance, that's what makes it magic. Sometimes the chemistry of four people just works together perfectly, for no single reason you can put your finger on, while four other people can spend years trying to find that spark and it's just not there, no matter how much they want it or try to create it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 When one is missing they simply cease to be Led Zeppelin. The sort of chemistry they had together can't be replicated or duplicated. That's not just true of Zeppelin but of many bands who've tried to carry on even though they've lost a vital member of the band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kat24 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Just reading through this thread what gets me is how Plant's words are dissected. Even when it comes to a reunion his words are dissected. Apparently looking for some other reason.. up to and possibly including PTSD . I mean didn't Zeppelin face enough rumors and speculation in the 70's? Just sayin. Maybe take him at his word.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kat24 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 When one is missing they simply cease to be Led Zeppelin. The sort of chemistry they had together can't be replicated or duplicated. That's not just true of Zeppelin but of many bands who've tried to carry on even though they've lost a vital member of the band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Hoyland Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Well I dont think theres any harm done by speculation, we're trying to make sense out of Led Zeppelin. lol And honestly only a few people actually know what really happened back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.