Jump to content

IF Led Zeppelin made a new album (Read before you groan and sigh)

TheStairwayRemainsTheSame

Recommended Posts

Amstel

Amstel

Posted
Posted

I wouldn't say Clapton had a bigger cultural impact than Zep. If anything, Zep are the most iconic rock band after the Beatles.

As time goes on, Led Zeppelin becomes the bigger iconic band! The Beatles are fading in that regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SteveAJones

SteveAJones

Posted
Posted

I wouldn't say Clapton had a bigger cultural impact than Zep. If anything, Zep are the most iconic rock band after the Beatles.

I wouldn't say he did either. I would say the most iconic, culturally-impacting rock band after The Beatles is The Rolling Stones. I should think anyone who grew up in the 60s would be inclined to agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charles J. White

Charles J. White

Posted
Posted

Led Zeppelin over the last 2 decades has become a star surrounded by planets and their influence has expanded into all genres of rock music. The Beatles and Rolling Stones popularity has been receding – The Beatles and Stones were much more a singles oriented bands of the here and now, whereas Zeppelin was an album experience or a complete body of work experience that will last over eons. And so Zeppelin's need to do something unique and exciting would mean that a new album would be relevant to the masses at large.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
#1fan

#1fan

Posted
Posted

Led Zeppelin over the last 2 decades has become a star surrounded by planets and their influence has expanded into all genres of rock music. The Beatles and Rolling Stones popularity has been receding – The Beatles and Stones were much more a singles oriented bands of the here and now, whereas Zeppelin was an album experience or a complete body of work experience that will last over eons. And so Zeppelin's need to do something unique and exciting would mean that a new album would be relevant to the masses at large.

I dont see the Beatles popularity in decline at all, Stones yeah I agree

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstork

mstork

Posted
Posted



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.

I get it. I've seen you write that Page peaked as a creative force with Presence. I'd say Clapton did the same a few years earlier than that with Layla, and even that album wasn't creatively dominated by Eric the way Presence was by Page. Fact is, very few artists of the rock era are still doing incredible work on a par with their earlier output once they get past their 20's or 30's. If I had to name one guy who kept producing stuff on a par with his earlier stuff for the longest time, I'd probably say Neil Young, but that's just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jabe

jabe

Posted
Posted

Stairway, your dick needn't be chopped off or Popeiled at all.

"Nostalgia act," in my mind reminds me of older bands (rarely retaining all original members) trying to vacuum monies from pockets with no new material. Not saying that's a bad thing by any means.

If Led were to tour with Jason, why I would expect several of the past masterpieces to be played.

That being said, 'New Material' wise, "John Paul Jones, piano!" in my estimation, would likely be the major creative catalyst or driving force intuitionally (new word I created to replace intuitive) wise, to make a project like this excell. My gut tells me Jimmy still has it to a competent degree, and famialiarity would be a good thing, but he wouldn't use it unless the 'right' opportunity presents itself. And Robert, hell, I'm betting he could write an albums woth of lyrics hanging out with these guys for a week or two. No worry of Jason.

Stairway, lets say your original post were to become reality.

I would guess 3-4 songs off new material played in concert.

I highly doubt money would be a motivation.

And I have no doubt that some fucking killer new music could be created.

I would love to witness, experience it, but history is history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
weslgarlic

weslgarlic

Posted
Posted

Black Sabbath triumphant reunion shows in 1997 led to on-off dull time reunion that has eventually led to an new studio album that apes classic sabbath yet sound modern , Iommi's

illness and a general feeling that they are getting on a bit and it maybe their last chance to record together ,may have forced such a decent effort

Led Zeppelin equally had triumphant return in 2007 , but for some reason Plant just did not want to know , the other three have demoed new material , but its all if's but's and maybe's

Van Halen also recorded an half decent album again with DLR

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Geezer

Geezer

Posted
Posted

Led Zeppelin equally had triumphant return in 2007 , but for some reason Plant just did not want to know , the other three have demoed new material , but its all if's but's and maybe's

Equally triumphant return? They played one gig, for God's sake. Sabbath recorded a new album and embarked on a 50+ date tour.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
weslgarlic

weslgarlic

Posted
Posted

Equally triumphant return? They played one gig, for God's sake. Sabbath recorded a new album and embarked on a 50+ date tour.

Both played great comeback shows ,BS IN 1997 LZ 2007 but Sabbath ran with the stick it took but BS 16 years back together on=off before new material

Link to comment
Share on other sites
the chase

the chase

Posted
Posted

I wouldn't count Revolution #9, so let's say it was a mere 299 songs. ;-)

I would. I've always loved it.



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.

fair enough

I wouldn't say Clapton had a bigger cultural impact than Zep. If anything, Zep are the most iconic rock band after the Beatles.

and next to The stones..

As time goes on, Led Zeppelin becomes the bigger iconic band! The Beatles are fading in that regard.

Bullshit. Led Zeppelin have become more iconic, But so haven't The Beatles.

You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Led Zeppelin is most certainly NOT becoming a bigger band than the Beatles, and the Beatles are most certainly not fading.

The Beatles are the band that every band has to tip their hat to.. even Led Zeppelin.. Just like every film comic owes Chaplin, every major band that cane along after them owe The Beatles..That's the way it is..

I wouldn't say he did either. I would say the most iconic, culturally-impacting rock band after The Beatles is The Rolling Stones. I should think anyone who grew up in the 60s would be inclined to agree.

Zeppelin came after but their impact is (at least since 69) as great as The Stones..

The Beatles have sold 64 million albums in the Us since 1991. Zep has sold 25 million.

25 million ??? is that all.. Those bums.. Actually that sounds low...

Led Zeppelin over the last 2 decades has become a star surrounded by planets and their influence has expanded into all genres of rock music. The Beatles and Rolling Stones popularity has been receding – The Beatles and Stones were much more a singles oriented bands of the here and now, whereas Zeppelin was an album experience or a complete body of work experience that will last over eons. And so Zeppelin's need to do something unique and exciting would mean that a new album would be relevant to the masses at large.

i don't think any of them have faded.. all of their legacy's are intact and growing..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dowsey

Dowsey

Posted
Posted

Black Sabbath had a full-fledged tour in 1997. Zep played one show.

I know I went to the NEC in Birmingham to see them..

Robert Plant doesn't need Led Zeppelin as much as Jimmy Page or John Paul Jones...If they did do an album,IMO it would be in the style of ITTOD with an eastern feel..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
weslgarlic

weslgarlic

Posted
Posted

I know I went to the NEC in Birmingham to see them..

Robert Plant doesn't need Led Zeppelin as much as Jimmy Page or John Paul Jones...If they did do an album,IMO it would be in the style of ITTOD with an eastern feel..

Saw the second night at N.E.C ...they did some summer dates in 1997 with FAITH NO MORE drummer standing in for Bill Ward ...he only rejoined for the two N.E.C shows onwards ..the original four did four songs together at the end of Ozzy's "Retirement" gig in 1992 Rod Halford did the full Black Sabbath gig because RJD would not do it Black Sabbath "Dehamanizer " line-up minus RJD opened then Ozzy solo , then Original four.a planned reunion tour was scrapped in 1994 .that's why we had two more albums with Tony Martin

No answer

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dowsey

Dowsey

Posted
Posted

Saw the second night at N.E.C ...they did some summer dates in 1997 with FAITH NO MORE drummer standing in for Bill Ward ...he only rejoined for the two N.E.C shows onwards ..the original four did four songs together at the end of Ozzy's "Retirement" gig in 1992 Rod Halford did the full Black Sabbath gig because RJD would not do it Black Sabbath "Dehamanizer " line-up minus RJD opened then Ozzy solo , then Original four.a planned reunion tour was scrapped in 1994 .that's why we had two more albums with Tony Martin

No answer

I meet Tony Martin at a club in Birmingham,he was a very nice person to talk to..I went to there "secret" Gig (warm up to the NEC shows) ,in Birmingham as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grits 'n' Gravy

Grits 'n' Gravy

Posted
Posted

If LZ did release an album today, it'd be fun watching the media fall all over themselves praising it regardless of the quality. I think they learned their lesson in the 70's about criticizing a band that was (is?) strangely thin-skinned about negative reviews.

To address the question: they'd have to be a nostalgia band. People would lose their minds if they didn't get a greatest hits show.

"I hope they never release any new material - or tour - under the Zep name . I'm probably in the minority, though." Then we're both in the minority regarding a tour. But, it'd be interesting to see what they could come up with on an album at this point in their lives.

"When Page and Plant toured Walking into Clarksdale it wasn't just a nostalgia trip." ?? How was it anything but a nostalgia trip? Tossing in a few songs from Clarksdale didn't change the fact that the set list was primarliy LZ. Excellent concert, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

LEDZEPPELIN.com

Site Navigation

  • LedZeppelin.com Home
  • News
  • Discography
  • Merchandise
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy

    • Led Zeppelin Timeline

  • Concert Timeline / Database
  • Events
  • Photos
  • Video
    • ×
    ×
    • Create New...