Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
badgeholder

Barney Hoskyns book

Recommended Posts

Wow...a lot of activity here since I last checked just about 10 hours ago! Some interesting stuff. I have a lot I'd like to respond to but I'm on the road for a few hours! Happy New Year to all of you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no Page bashing here, just some people like myself with an open mind to scenario's that were completely plausible to have possibly occurred while another segment who claim not to be fanboy's insist that these plausible situations not only could not have happend but outright didn't even though they themselves did not witness any of the scenario's. If anything is slanted towards Page here it's not the bashing of him but the unquestionable defense & idol worship of him. I read the book, Levfre might have an axe to grind as he is not pleasant but that doesn't mean he's not telling the truth or that there are elements of truth in his story. The character assassination going on here is towards Levfre quite frankly, not towards Page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no Page bashing here, just some people like myself with an open mind to scenario's that were completely plausible to have possibly occurred while another segment who claim not to be fanboy's insist that these plausible situations not only could not have happend but outright didn't even though they themselves did not witness any of the scenario's. If anything is slanted towards Page here it's not the bashing of him but the unquestionable defense & idol worship of him. I read the book, Levfre might have an axe to grind as he is not pleasant but that doesn't mean he's not telling the truth or that there are elements of truth in his story. The character assassination going on here is towards Levfre quite frankly, not towards Page.

I just don't understand the desire to tear down the things you love - do we really need to know the degree to which Page's heroin addiction damaged the lives of those around him? It's fairly obvious, to me, without the nitty-gritty details.

I guess what I'm most upset about is that the people who've read the salacious stories just outright believe them - there is no "having an open mind" or considering a story "plausible," people are stating as fact that Page and Bonham were horrible people; not only that, but posters have claimed that Page is likely still a horrible person and a miser, when there is a mountain of testimony to the contrary from those who aren't out to make either a buck or get back at their former employers.

No matter how you look at it, it's only one side of the story, and the most important side, that of the band, is still tight-lipped.

Edited by Melcórë

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, home sweet home...

Got a lot to say, but I'd like to start by saying something that might be surprising, given the tone of some of my previous posts, but I'm actually kind of sorry if I discouraged anyone from checking out this book. I actually think it's a treasure trove of information for Zep fans. But I've got a lot of problems with this book too. A few people have suggested that Hoskyns would certainly have omitted any gratuitous nastiness from people he interviewed, or weeded out people with an axe to grind. I hate to start making enemies on the first day of the year, but this is an almost insanely naive point of view. People with an axe to grind and nasty things to say are the LIFEBLOOD of investigative journalists...from the work of Bob Woodward all the way down. It's not a bad thing in itself - it's the wedge they use to crack into secretive organizations, be they the C.I.A. or...well, Led Zeppelin. But Hoskyns lost control of his sources and their poison spilled all over the later part of the book. So please, pick it up...but pick it up with rubber gloves.

This gets me to the all important term FANBOY. As in "Oh, you're just like some 12 year old girl with a copy of Zep Teen Beat Mag, swooning over the pullout poster of JImmy Page, sighing ISN'T HE SO DREAMY AND PERFECT AND I BET HE WALKS ON CANDY CANE CLOUDS IN A WORLD OF UNICORNS!!!"

Let me tell ya, I'm relatively new here, but I have really poured over a lot of the threads going way back through the years, and I have realized that maybe 95% of the time, the people using this term, or implying the idea, are doing it in a kind of Orwellian doublespeak way...it's like they're negative about Zeppelin, or some aspect of Zeppelin, or about some member or members of Led Zeppelin, and they want to badger and intimidate and shut people up who - god forbid - kind of look at said things in a positive light...ON THE FUCKING LED ZEPPELIN FORUM!!! I don't think people should tolerate this. Go ahead and debate the issues, but take your teen beat accusations elsewhere.

Yes, I'M A HUGE FAN OF JIMMY PAGE. Does that mean I think everything he's ever done is cool? No. But I think he's special and should be considered as such when evaluating his behavior. Before all you "Fanboy" term-slinging people say AH-HA!!! let me use another quote from the book to explain. PLEASE READ THIS ONE CLOSELY, BECAUSE IT REALLY SUMS IT UP NICELY...

There's a quote from some record company guy or production crew guy...people can check...but it's during the very beginning of the No Quarter project, and JImmy and Rob were filming that segment in the Marrakesh market...doing Yallah. There was a break in the filming and Jimmy wanted to go back to the hotel for a bit, and he was feeling really NERVOUS. This guy in question drove him, and when Jimmy started lighting up a cigarette, the guy got all upset because he had just quit smoking, and he really didn't want people to smoke in "his" car (I'll have to explain those quotes another time). And they got in a fight about it, and this guy was actually quoted as saying he was ready to knock JImmy out over this. Now, if I was a passenger in someone's car, and I was about to light up, and they asked me not to do it for the above reasons, I simply wouldn't light up...I think it would clearly be the cool thing to do to NOT LIGHT UP. But in the scenario in the book THIS IS JIMMY FUCKING PAGE THE LEADER OF LED ZEPPELIN AND HE'S NERVOUS BECAUSE HE'S PLAYING IN AN OPEN AIR MARKET IN MARRAKESH WITH A CROWD OF LOCALS WATCHING INTENTLY...PLAYING WITH A GUY HE HAS SOME VERY HEAVY HISTORY WITH...AND IT'S THE BEGINNING OF SOME KIND OF WORLDWIDE COMEBACK CAMPAIGN FOR WHAT HE LOVES THE MOST...AND DID I MENTION THAT HE'S JIMMY PAGE AND HE'S NERVOUS? FUCKING LET HIM SMOKE A CIGARETTE AND JUST OPEN YOUR WINDOW...ASSHOLE. I swear some of the people on this forum are the types who would punch Jimmy rather than let him smoke.

And remember those quotes about "his" car? In all likelihood IT WAS MORE JIMMY'S CAR THAN HIS, FINANCIALLY SPEAKING. I don't know that for sure though, and it doesn't matter anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

idk why people are focusing on LeFevre's comments. It's not as if he's the only one who had harsh things to say about JP. The overall impression I got from the book was that whereas there were plenty of people who had good things to say about JP's professionalism and artistry, there were just as many who got to experience the man behind the mask, and didn't like what they saw. Kudos to them for having the balls to say so.

Besides, Hoskyns is a professional, with vast experience and a reputation to maintain. As such, if he had reason to believe that any of his interviewees were trolls with an axe to grind, he would presumably have omitted any blatantly gratuitous nastiness, or at least balanced it with positive comments from other parties. Yet the consensus concerning JP's personality seems to be overwhelmingly unfavourable - which, when you consider what we already knew, is hardly surprising. After all, nice people don't tend to incorporate Crowleyism into their lifestyles.

In the end, anyone who wanted or expected this to be a sycophantic hagiography is a delusional fanboi/girl, IMO.

This right here. +1

It's important to note that the comments on Page in the book are fairly consistent, not only with each other, but also with Page's observable behaviour in interviews and quotes etc. There's negative comments about everyone in the book, from Jimmy to Grant, and also a ton of praise for the band members, every one of them. Jimmy has never been private with the media, always been the one to keep a shroud of mystery around everything, always the one giving ambiguous answers. Everything we as fans can observe and know about him fits in fairly well with the picture given in the book. Of course, it's impossible for us to know if Jimmy did really spit on his roadies, threw trash bins over them, fucked over people on a regular basis, humiliated women and was rude and obnoxious to H. Goldsmith over the 02 gig. But you also have to realise that making such acussations is rarely done without any basis in reality whatsoever. When yo u have like 10 different people all saying the same things about Jimmy it's either rooted in reality or an absurd conspiracy. What I do know is that we are talking about a band surrounded by heavy drugs, money and power. It'd be quite the miracle if they all stayed grounded.

Also remember, we are fans, we jump to the defense of our heroes quite quickly, we are not exactly unbiased. For every 10 people saying Bonzo was a violent drunk maniac you will find 10 people elsewhere who will say he was the kindest, sweetest man you could meet. A few people on these board have met the members of Zep, but how many can say they actually knew/know them, on a personal level? We're looking at a very small amount of people here. I guess what I'm trying to say is that we are not the authority regarding this, all we can do is make up our own minds based on stories, intervews, quotes, and whatever else we come across. Be a critical thinker and come to your own conclusion, but don't ever expect to have an absolute knowledge on these matters. As for me, while I found some of the things in the book quite fascinating, some other things were repulsive and gave me second thoughts, as much as I love this band I just can't ignore it when you have 20 people saying things that are consistent with each other. I truly don't believe all these people around Zeppelin have some hidden agenda, and Shep is right when he says Hoskyns is one of the most serious rock journalists out there, I've read his books on The Band and Tom Waits, he is nowhere near being a sensationalist tabloid hack.

I found this to be the most damning quote in the book:

Janine Safer: Jimmy Page? Not a very nice person. He was a looming presence in my life for several years, and my theory was - is - that he was a horrible four-year-old, a horrible eight-year-old, a horrible sixteen-year-old... and so on. If a child is born a bad seed, I don't think you can love him out of it. I think he's a profoundly lonely man. He has no friends, and the minute anybody tries to approach him in friendship he spits on them.

I don't know what's true or not, but shit like this doesn't come from nowhere, that's my belief anyway. Don't forget, there is a lot of praise for Jimmy in the book too!

At the end of it all, it's just a reminder that deep down I'm a fan of the music and not the people making it, and it's important to keep your distance or you might just be very let down, they are mortals like us, with their faults.

Edited by Henrik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For my part when it's a book or film documenting a person or incident, I tend to catch on details that don't jive. That's why I questioned the idea of merch arguments before the concert was even performed and the idea of a film on the drawing board. Unless a CD/DVD package was envisioned from the onset along with the performance and it's been downplayed for some reason. I wasn't bashing anyone just questioning journalistic integrity. Even it is quoting someone else or a third party recollection, an author or journalist has a responsibility to double source and confirm with research. I realize not all authors adhere strictly to that ethic but it is a marker that we should hold them to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mielazul, I have the book in front of me now so I'll post the quote you referenced:

David Bates: At some point during all this filming, Jimmy wanted to go back to the hotel. He was highly agitated. Now I had given up drugs and I had even given up smoking. In fact, I had a no-smoking policy in my car. And Jimmy got got in and he was smoking away, and I said, "Jim, put the cigarette out..." And he fucking lost it, and I saw another side to Jimmy Page. It got very ugly. Because I have a reputation as well, and I lost it. I said, "Jimmy, if you're a friend and if you're going to work with me, you have to fucking understand. Where's the respect in this? I'm not your fucking chauffeur."

I could have given in, but it probably would have happened in the future. The person who was in between us was Bill Curbishley, who wanted one of us to back down. And I wouldn't; I'd have fucking knocked him out. And it's something I regret, because you look at it on a piece of paper and you think, "Why fall out over something like that?" But we did and it was a huge shame. From that day on, it affected Jimmy as to how he talked to me or dealth with me. It was sad, odd and weird.

Edited by Henrik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ yeah, that's it. And I stand by interpretation of it, and my reaction to it. Do you think I got something wrong? Just because this guy said Jimmy got "ugly?" Henrik, you've posted in a very intelligent way, so I should just stop for a moment here and say that I respect where you're coming from too. But Jimmy Page is in a very stressful situation in the scenario in question. He probably thinks he should be able to smoke a cigarette in that scenario, and I do too. And I don't blame him for getting upset when this guy tries to stop him. Do you? Can you try to put yourself in JImmy's position in that moment? I honestly don't see how anyone could suggest he shouldn't be able to smoke a cigarette (I mean, barring some kind of fatal asthmatic scenario or something like that). And this thing with the car that I was alluding to - again, it's not at the heart of the matter at all, but don't you think that the car was probably a record company rental car (or production rental car...sorry I don't have the book open right now). I know you can take a ferry from Gibraltar to Morroco...and maybe that was Bates' car...but I bet it wasn't. The point being that Jimmy was directly or indirectly paying for that car anyway. That's getting out in the weeds, I know, but it does have a bearing in my mind. Anyway, all the best, Henrik, no offense intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point being that Jimmy was directly or indirectly paying for that car anyway.

So fucking what? Good manners don't cost a penny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should add that the way you quoted it totally takes the whole Marrakesh performance thing out, which is why Jimmy was nervous in the first place. And that's the human aspect...and that IS at the heart of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yeah I didn't bother putting it in since you already mentioned it, it was already a long quote and I couldn't be arsed, I just wanted to get to the meat of it. :lol:

Oh no, I'm not putting any interpretation on it, just posting it for reference. I don't really have an opinion on that incident lol.

Edited by Henrik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, home sweet home...

Got a lot to say, but I'd like to start by saying something that might be surprising, given the tone of some of my previous posts, but I'm actually kind of sorry if I discouraged anyone from checking out this book. I actually think it's a treasure trove of information for Zep fans. But I've got a lot of problems with this book too. A few people have suggested that Hoskyns would certainly have omitted any gratuitous nastiness from people he interviewed, or weeded out people with an axe to grind. I hate to start making enemies on the first day of the year, but this is an almost insanely naive point of view. People with an axe to grind and nasty things to say are the LIFEBLOOD of investigative journalists...from the work of Bob Woodward all the way down. It's not a bad thing in itself - it's the wedge they use to crack into secretive organizations, be they the C.I.A. or...well, Led Zeppelin. But Hoskyns lost control of his sources and their poison spilled all over the later part of the book. So please, pick it up...but pick it up with rubber gloves.

This gets me to the all important term FANBOY. As in "Oh, you're just like some 12 year old girl with a copy of Zep Teen Beat Mag, swooning over the pullout poster of JImmy Page, sighing ISN'T HE SO DREAMY AND PERFECT AND I BET HE WALKS ON CANDY CANE CLOUDS IN A WORLD OF UNICORNS!!!"

Let me tell ya, I'm relatively new here, but I have really poured over a lot of the threads going way back through the years, and I have realized that maybe 95% of the time, the people using this term, or implying the idea, are doing it in a kind of Orwellian doublespeak way...it's like they're negative about Zeppelin, or some aspect of Zeppelin, or about some member or members of Led Zeppelin, and they want to badger and intimidate and shut people up who - god forbid - kind of look at said things in a positive light...ON THE FUCKING LED ZEPPELIN FORUM!!! I don't think people should tolerate this. Go ahead and debate the issues, but take your teen beat accusations elsewhere.

Yes, I'M A HUGE FAN OF JIMMY PAGE. Does that mean I think everything he's ever done is cool? No. But I think he's special and should be considered as such when evaluating his behavior. Before all you "Fanboy" term-slinging people say AH-HA!!! let me use another quote from the book to explain. PLEASE READ THIS ONE CLOSELY, BECAUSE IT REALLY SUMS IT UP NICELY...

There's a quote from some record company guy or production crew guy...people can check...but it's during the very beginning of the No Quarter project, and JImmy and Rob were filming that segment in the Marrakesh market...doing Yallah. There was a break in the filming and Jimmy wanted to go back to the hotel for a bit, and he was feeling really NERVOUS. This guy in question drove him, and when Jimmy started lighting up a cigarette, the guy got all upset because he had just quit smoking, and he really didn't want people to smoke in "his" car (I'll have to explain those quotes another time). And they got in a fight about it, and this guy was actually quoted as saying he was ready to knock JImmy out over this. Now, if I was a passenger in someone's car, and I was about to light up, and they asked me not to do it for the above reasons, I simply wouldn't light up...I think it would clearly be the cool thing to do to NOT LIGHT UP. But in the scenario in the book THIS IS JIMMY FUCKING PAGE THE LEADER OF LED ZEPPELIN AND HE'S NERVOUS BECAUSE HE'S PLAYING IN AN OPEN AIR MARKET IN MARRAKESH WITH A CROWD OF LOCALS WATCHING INTENTLY...PLAYING WITH A GUY HE HAS SOME VERY HEAVY HISTORY WITH...AND IT'S THE BEGINNING OF SOME KIND OF WORLDWIDE COMEBACK CAMPAIGN FOR WHAT HE LOVES THE MOST...AND DID I MENTION THAT HE'S JIMMY PAGE AND HE'S NERVOUS? FUCKING LET HIM SMOKE A CIGARETTE AND JUST OPEN YOUR WINDOW...ASSHOLE. I swear some of the people on this forum are the types who would punch Jimmy rather than let him smoke.

And remember those quotes about "his" car? In all likelihood IT WAS MORE JIMMY'S CAR THAN HIS, FINANCIALLY SPEAKING. I don't know that for sure though, and it doesn't matter anyway.

First of all, while there are methods employed by journalists and researchers to unlatch information from informants or subjects, you can bet that Woodward/Bernstein did not publish without grounded sources and a lot of editorial discussion. They were publishing back in the days when the media was held more tightly to answer for inaccuracies and shoddy reportage. Also publishing companies demand, as in you warranty and indemnify in your contract that your work grounded, factual and does not infringe upon the rights of others. Shoddily published works can be recalled and legal actions taken against the author.

As for Page smoking in a car and other comments on this forum that seem to suggest that celebrities should be allowed privileges not afforded the rest of society, I disagree. You either have a moral compass or you don't. You either know and practice right from wrong and have empathy and concern for people in the world around you or you don't. People scream that the Wall Street barons should be held to the fire for acting above the law. Well, they are of the wealthy privileged class - why is it not okay for them to take advantage of people but okay for those who pass as celebrities to act with impunity for their indiscretions? If fame makes you so self-centered that you cannot grant a simple request to not smoke in an enclosed space with someone who doesn't smoke, if you see your need as so much more important than their need, then you deserve a smack in the face to wake up. To accept someone's rude behaviour or illegal actions simply because they are in the public eye is to enable bad behaviour. It is a matter of separating the person from the talent: you can respect one and not the other should it not be deserved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I should add that the way you quoted it totally takes the whole Marrakesh performance thing out, which is why Jimmy was nervous in the first place. And that's the human aspect...and that IS at the heart of it.

No matter what his anxiety was about, that isn't an excuse for having no concern for anyone but himself if that is in fact what went down. We all have stress, I would in the creative arts field and emotional outbursts and anxiety is rampant but that doesn't mean you cannot conduct yourself with a degree of compassion and understanding. Sounds like that exchange was possible more a battle of male wills than about smoking at all. If you are a smoker you have it set up ahead of time that you'll have a smoking room, car, etc. It's a simple thing your PR person does for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nothing patronizing there, either, by the way. I mean it.

Oh no please give me your thoughts. I don't scratch that easily. I'm not trying to argue, just presenting a position on the subject. I respect your thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...I mean apart from you being a sweetie, you're also right in so many ways. And I'd just be repeating myself anyway. But to keep myself brief - for once - I do believe, kind of generally, in the idea that people are not "above the law" regardless of their station in life...and the law here obviously meaning behavioral codes as well as literal laws. But first, it's a big stretch in my mind - you seem to feel differently - to compare the atrocities of Wall Street Barons to Jimmy Page wanting a cigarette. Big stretch. And perhaps more importantly - and I don't want to sound like a bad guy here - I personally think there are a lot of exceptions to be made to the "no one's above the law" thing. Forget about me being a Jimmy Page fan. I'm a musician (who doesn't smoke, by the way) and when I read about this guy in an almost unimaginably stressful creative situation, I'm the guy who says "Ah, just let him smoke, for god's sake!" I respect it if you're not. That's all, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, while there are methods employed by journalists and researchers to unlatch information from informants or subjects, you can bet that Woodward/Bernstein did not publish without grounded sources and a lot of editorial discussion. They were publishing back in the days when the media was held more tightly to answer for inaccuracies and shoddy reportage. Also publishing companies demand, as in you warranty and indemnify in your contract that your work grounded, factual and does not infringe upon the rights of others. Shoddily published works can be recalled and legal actions taken against the author.

As for Page smoking in a car and other comments on this forum that seem to suggest that celebrities should be allowed privileges not afforded the rest of society, I disagree. You either have a moral compass or you don't. You either know and practice right from wrong and have empathy and concern for people in the world around you or you don't. People scream that the Wall Street barons should be held to the fire for acting above the law. Well, they are of the wealthy privileged class - why is it not okay for them to take advantage of people but okay for those who pass as celebrities to act with impunity for their indiscretions? If fame makes you so self-centered that you cannot grant a simple request to not smoke in an enclosed space with someone who doesn't smoke, if you see your need as so much more important than their need, then you deserve a smack in the face to wake up. To accept someone's rude behaviour or illegal actions simply because they are in the public eye is to enable bad behaviour. It is a matter of separating the person from the talent: you can respect one and not the other should it not be deserved.

When I read that section of the book I just shook my head. It seems, according to various stories from various people in the book, that Jimmy had a habit of pitching fits when he was upset. I would not put up with that sort of behavior, not even from him. He is an adult and should behave accordingly. My theory is that as an only child coupled with also being a pampered rock star, Jimmy expects to have what he wants, when he wants it and if he is not happy, sh** hits the fan. We all have the capacity for bad behavior but who, or what you are does not excuse rude manners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...I mean apart from you being a sweetie, you're also right in so many ways. And I'd just be repeating myself anyway. But to keep myself brief - for once - I do believe, kind of generally, in the idea that people are not "above the law" regardless of their station in life...and the law here obviously meaning behavioral codes as well as literal laws. But first, it's a big stretch in my mind - you seem to feel differently - to compare the atrocities of Wall Street Barons to Jimmy Page wanting a cigarette. Big stretch. And perhaps more importantly - and I don't want to sound like a bad guy here - I personally think there are a lot of exceptions to be made to the "no one's above the law" thing. Forget about me being a Jimmy Page fan. I'm a musician (who doesn't smoke, by the way) and when I read about this guy in an almost unimaginably stressful creative situation, I'm the guy who says "Ah, just let him smoke, for god's sake!" I respect it if you're not. That's all, I guess.

Nice that you think I'm a sweetie - I really am, as those who know me say at least : )

But I do have opinions and I'm not afraid to share them, as you, not for argument's sake but to discuss.

It is a long walk from Wall Street to the concert stage, but strip away the name tags and it boils down to people who feel entitled and sequestered in insular worlds guided by private rule books.

I do understand your perspective on the smoking situation, and agree it's not an earth-shaking moment in history in itself. That was a situation which could have completely been avoided had someone done their homework to ensure that Page had what he needed from food and accommodation to smoking environments. Why Page would not have people around them to ensure his comfort so he can concentrate on the music is beyond me. Since you are a musician you understand how stressful Page's situation probably was in Marakesh and I understand that and the need for a cigarette at stressful times. When I have worked with people who smoked, I made sure that everything from their transport and hotel room to media suites were smoking so they would be comfortable. All media were briefed and afforded the respect of knowing ahead of time that smoking would be going on. I completely applaud Page's talent wholeheartedly, but if I were ever to meet the guy and if he were to be rude or throw a hissy fit, he would be told to get over himself and get real. In a sweet way, of course.

Edited by Shadecatcher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I read that section of the book I just shook my head. It seems, according to various stories from various people in the book, that Jimmy had a habit of pitching fits when he was upset. I would not put up with that sort of behavior, not even from him. He is an adult and should behave accordingly. My theory is that as an only child coupled with also being a pampered rock star, Jimmy expects to have what he wants, when he wants it and if he is not happy, sh** hits the fan. We all have the capacity for bad behavior but who, or what you are does not excuse rude manners.

Totally agree. Keywords are grow up and get real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...Mr. "I'll knock Jimmy Page Out!" said soon afterwards in the book that he had to go on leave for psychological issues. I think you guys are really focusing on the wrong person here in terms of questionable attitudes, but I won't beat it to death anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I get into someone's car and they don't want me to smoke, I don't.

It's just common courtesy and no-one should ever be above that.

Jimmy Page is a man and musician and as much as I admire his musical achievements (and that is all I admire), he is not a god as some foolishly put him up as.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One helluva book.

It was like I needed an industrial scrubbing and delousing upon completion.

Paints a far from pretty picture, but it sucked me in like it should have.

I'll digest, and read it again one day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a quote from some record company guy or production crew guy...people can check...but it's during the very beginning of the No Quarter project, and JImmy and Rob were filming that segment in the Marrakesh market...doing Yallah. There was a break in the filming and Jimmy wanted to go back to the hotel for a bit, and he was feeling really NERVOUS. This guy in question drove him, and when Jimmy started lighting up a cigarette, the guy got all upset because he had just quit smoking, and he really didn't want people to smoke in "his" car (I'll have to explain those quotes another time). And they got in a fight about it, and this guy was actually quoted as saying he was ready to knock JImmy out over this. Now, if I was a passenger in someone's car, and I was about to light up, and they asked me not to do it for the above reasons, I simply wouldn't light up...I think it would clearly be the cool thing to do to NOT LIGHT UP. But in the scenario in the book THIS IS JIMMY FUCKING PAGE THE LEADER OF LED ZEPPELIN AND HE'S NERVOUS BECAUSE HE'S PLAYING IN AN OPEN AIR MARKET IN MARRAKESH WITH A CROWD OF LOCALS WATCHING INTENTLY...PLAYING WITH A GUY HE HAS SOME VERY HEAVY HISTORY WITH...AND IT'S THE BEGINNING OF SOME KIND OF WORLDWIDE COMEBACK CAMPAIGN FOR WHAT HE LOVES THE MOST...AND DID I MENTION THAT HE'S JIMMY PAGE AND HE'S NERVOUS? FUCKING LET HIM SMOKE A CIGARETTE AND JUST OPEN YOUR WINDOW...ASSHOLE. I swear some of the people on this forum are the types who would punch Jimmy rather than let him smoke.

And remember those quotes about "his" car? In all likelihood IT WAS MORE JIMMY'S CAR THAN HIS, FINANCIALLY SPEAKING. I don't know that for sure though, and it doesn't matter anyway.

i haven't read the books or seen the exact quotes but is it possible the guy didn't really make it clear to Jimmy that he really didn't want him to smoke and why ? you know sometimes you don't like it when someone does something but don't really say anything or at least not clearly. you kind give a hint hoping they will take it. and you just get angry inside.

also as you say the car might not have belonged to that guy and was something Jimmy more so had paid for. although even then if someone who is trying to quit smoking asked you not to in that situation the best thing would be to wait until you get out of the car to do it.

based on the comments seems like there isn't much or anything of Bonham and John Paul. or maybe it's just not controversial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't understand the desire to tear down the things you love - do we really need to know the degree to which Page's heroin addiction damaged the lives of those around him? It's fairly obvious, to me, without the nitty-gritty details.

I guess what I'm most upset about is that the people who've read the salacious stories just outright believe them - there is no "having an open mind" or considering a story "plausible," people are stating as fact that Page and Bonham were horrible people; not only that, but posters have claimed that Page is likely still a horrible person and a miser, when there is a mountain of testimony to the contrary from those who aren't out to make either a buck or get back at their former employers.

No matter how you look at it, it's only one side of the story, and the most important side, that of the band, is still tight-lipped.

No one here throughout this thread is tearing down the things "we" love, I have not seen one instance of that. Again it's one segment of people who have read the book with an open mind & left the book with an open mind, the other segment who read the book with whatever approach they went into it with but left the book with their minds shut to the negative comments that they didn't particularly like & decided that those comments/observations are not only lies but in no way plausible. That to me is ridiculous. Then to claim character assassination to only do it themselves & to misquote what was actually said & put a spin on it is totally hypocritical & self-serving. I don't have a horse in this race, I'm not looking to build up or destroy anyone's reputation in regards to this book, I merely read it & enjoyed it for what it is: the people in the Led Zeppelin circle giving their impressions, observations, & first hand encounters in how they remembered things taking place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...