TheStairwayRemainsTheSame Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 It's not happening I know don't bite my dick off I was just wondering something... If Led Zeppelin were to be reunited and recording new music today, would they still be a nostalgia act to the masses and would people would still clamour for Black Dog and Stairway over any new stuff, other than us die-hards? Or are they just to big for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ledzepfilm Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 To me, it depends on what they write and how well they write it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melcórë Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 To the opening statement: Lol. To the second bit: I'm not entirely sure...a big part of me wants to say that they would undoubtedly be a nostalgia act for "the masses," as you say...but the fact that I haven't bought the latest Sabbath album because I can't find a copy of it in-store at any of my local Walmarts makes me want to believe that they'd be eaten up as something more. Sadly, there are still copies of Celebration Day on the shelves -- only the 2-CD that I've seen, though, whereas the DVD and Blu-Ray packages appear to have been bought up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Duck Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 To the opening statement: Lol. To the second bit: I'm not entirely sure...a big part of me wants to say that they would undoubtedly be a nostalgia act for "the masses," as you say...but the fact that I haven't bought the latest Sabbath album because I can't find a copy of it in-store at any of my local Walmarts makes me want to believe that they'd be eaten up as something more. Sadly, there are still copies of Celebration Day on the shelves -- only the 2-CD that I've seen, though, whereas the DVD and Blu-Ray packages appear to have been bought up. Tough economy and all that. I know that's why I haven't purchased Celebration Day. I just hope it doesn't go out of stock before my financial situation improves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles J. White Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 My wife has an employee who just discovered Zeppelin because of the release of the O2 gig and he is always playing Zeppelin now because of it. My son just discovered Zeppelin a few nights ago - while I was in the shower I could hear him playing the guitar in his bedroom. If Led Zeppelin released a new album of new unreleased material it would be a big seller. Unlike the Rolling Stones or Eric Clapton for example, Led Zeppelin were always reaching for something musically and it didn't matter if it was in the studio or on stage and that appeals to people who actually like music. So to answer your question Led Zeppelin would and still is relevant to the masses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 Unlike the Rolling Stones or Eric Clapton for example, Led Zeppelin were always reaching for something musically An absurd comparison given Led Zeppelin disbanded after just 12 years while the others have continued for more than 50 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geezer Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 An absurd comparison given Led Zeppelin disbanded after just 12 years while the others have continued for more than 50 years.I think he's referring to the substance of their output. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weslgarlic Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 I think he's referring to the substance of their output. the Stones have always tried something different such as Jumpin Jack Flash Paint It Black Ruby Tuesday 2000 Light Years From Home No Expectations Dead Flowers Turd On The Run 100 Years Ago Memory Respectable Waiting On A Friend Hang Fire One Hit To The Body Continental Drift Et Al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 It would still be an absurd comparison. Then again, in another thread he dismisses Eric Clapton as "a lazy blues tribute guitarist". I think he's referring to the substance of their output. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geezer Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 Clapton is a fucking genius and there's no question about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 Clapton is a fucking genius and there's no question about it. According to Charles J. White, Eric's just a lazy blues tribute guitarist who has overstayed his welcome by performing cover versions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles J. White Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 We are each allowed an opinion of our own. The substance of the body of music which Zeppelin recorded has simply never been matched by anyone. Back to the topic at hand, I believe Zeppelin are still relevant to the masses. I speak for no one but myself and I have not said that anyone has overstayed their welcome by performing cover versions of anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 Of course you are entitled to your opinion(s), but to me they're overtly biased if not myopic. ..."always reaching musically"..."never been matched by anyone"...you must be a retired Swan Song publicist The substance of the body of music which Zeppelin recorded has simply never been matched by anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stryder1978 Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 I believe this is one of the reasons why Robert was so reluctant to start this up again. Go on tour and play the hits and people will bitch that they are a nostalgia act doing it for money. Play new stuff and the people will bitch 'cause they wanna hear "Stairway" and Whole Lotta Love". And if they do a combination, half the audience will be pissed when they play the hits, and half will be pissed that they are wasting time doing the new stuff. It's a no win situation for them! Just my opinion of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amstel Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 Clapton is a fucking genius and there's no question about it. No he isn't! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pagesbow Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 I guess it all depends how good the material is and what they could come up with. When Page and Plant toured Walking into Clarksdale it wasn't just a nostalgia trip. If they recorded under Led Zeppelin, obviously the context would be different and there would be heaps more pressure and attention on them. I think ultimately, if they ever put something out under the Led Zep name, it would be judged by the quality of their previous work and I don't see how they could live up to their back catalogue. It would be like when the new Star Wars movies came out - it was Star Wars - but the magic of the original movies just wasn't there. I hope they never release any new material - or tour - under the Zep name . I'm probably in the minority, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles J. White Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 The fact that Led Zeppelin were always on a musical journey of discovery combined with a rare ability to replicate live, the magic created in the studio indicates to me anyways that Led Zeppelin would be relevant. In fact perhaps music needs Zeppelin, maybe Zeppelin is the oxygen that music needs to grow? The debate of old vs. new Zeppelin music is one which has existed since Led Zeppelin 2 was released as a follow-up to Led Zeppelin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 In fact perhaps music needs Zeppelin, maybe Zeppelin is the oxygen that music needs to grow? Just stop. Have you heard their solo musical output since 1998? It ain't exactly the second coming. Besides, it's not Led Zeppelin's job to save the music industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles J. White Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 The individual solo work are the streams and brooks that help make the ocean. Robert, Jimmy, and John have the ability to connect when together on stage or in a studio and those musical streams and brooks that seem boring actually create the ocean waves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 The individual solo work are the streams and brooks that help make the ocean. Robert, Jimmy, and John have the ability to connect when together on stage or in a studio and those musical streams and brooks that seem boring actually create the ocean waves Deep and meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstork Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 Clapton is great but I don't think it's a silly argument to say that the brightly burning comet can make a greater impact than the long "slow(hand) and steady" career. The Beatles were around (in the greater consciousness anyway) for a mere 6 years, a shorter career than Zeppelin. Anyone care to make the argument that Clapton is as great as the Beatles because he's been recording and touring for 50 years and they only did it for 6? In fact, if you're talking about big tours, they really only did that for three years! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geezer Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 The Beatles recorded a whopping 300 songs in that short time period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstork Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 The Beatles recorded a whopping 300 songs in that short time period. I wouldn't count Revolution #9, so let's say it was a mere 299 songs. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 Clapton is great but I don't think it's a silly argument to say that the brightly burning comet can make a greater impact than the long "slow(hand) and steady" career. The Beatles were around (in the greater consciousness anyway) for a mere 6 years, a shorter career than Zeppelin. Anyone care to make the argument that Clapton is as great as the Beatles because he's been recording and touring for 50 years and they only did it for 6? In fact, if you're talking about big tours, they really only did that for three years! Well, I wasn't making that argument. My comments were directed towards Charles' assertion that although Led Zeppelin was always reaching musically, The Rolling Stones and EC haven't. My point was it's obviously easier to keep reaching musically over a mere 12 year span than a 50 year span. With regard to cultural impact, one of the long-standing criticisims of Led Zeppelin is that they did not have the cultural impact of The Beatles or The Rolling Stones. People can either agree or disagree - it's a purely subjective - but in any case EC is certainly an icon of popular music, the blues in particular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geezer Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 I wouldn't say Clapton had a bigger cultural impact than Zep. If anything, Zep are the most iconic rock band after the Beatles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.