Jump to content

If someone other than Bonzo had died


Recommended Posts

If it had been Page, Plant or Jones that had died back in 1980, not Bonham, would it still be "Led Zeppelin" today if they'd replaced that person? I guess what I'm saying is that is seems to me like Bonham can be replaced, since they've done that on 4 occasions now with 3 different drummers. Personally, I don't think it's Led Zeppelin unless it's got Page, Plant, Jones and Bonzo, no matter who is replacing anyone. So, which member is so essential that if that person had died you wouldn't consider a new lineup a real "version" of Led Zeppelin? I predict that most people will answer that Page, and probably Plant are too essential, and will not give much of a hoot about Jones and Bonzo...

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's really not a good answer to that question... Obviously, a bass player would normally be the easiest to replace since they aren't in the spotlight as much. But, I actually couldn't see any of them replaced....

edit: just realized that I didn't really answer your question. My answer would be Jimmy. Not just for his guitar playing, but because he was the one responsible for their studio sound. I don't see how that could be replaced.

Robert could have possibly been replaced, but I don't think they would have been successful with it.

JPJ could have been replaced, but it would have been a shitty thing to do. Also, I think his contribution to the band is highly underrated. He could have been replaced, but they wouldn't have sounded quite the same.

Obviously, Bonzo can be replaced.... depending on how you look at it. I mean, you can stick somebody back there on the drums and all, but it's definitely not the same. This is not meant to be a critical jab at Jason either... I was highly impressed with his playing at the o2 gig, judging from the youtube videos i've seen. And, if they decide to do a tour with him, I will be happy to plunk down the money to see it. It's not the same though.

So, there you go. How's that for a waffle? LOL

Edited by 4urlife
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Jimmy is really crucial… as is Jonesy, actually. I couldn't imagine Zep without them at all… I'm not too fond of Bonzo's past replacements, though I was VERY impressed with Jason at the O2… The main thing is, it's never gonna be like it was again…

Honestly… (nobody bite me for saying this) I think Robert could be replaced if need be… I don't feel like saying why… I've said enough saying that I think he could be replaced! But I'd like to at least hear Zep with someone else on vocals. Not for anything major, but just to experiment. Hey, it may suck if you stick someone else there, but we won't know if it's not tried.

But you really can't get the complete essence of any of them from someone else…

Edited by zoso13zeppelin
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard to say when a band replacement works and when it doesn't. Finding a new singer worked ok for AC/DC and Iron Maiden. Some people like Sabbath with DIO as well as Sabbath with Ozzy. Finding a new drummer worked for Rush (although most people don't even remember John Rutsey). Most Deep Purple fans prefer "Mark II" to the original lineup, and others like multiple lineups. So it's not so much the loss of the member that matters, it's who you get as a replacement. The replacement has to be more than just a "replacement". He has to bring something new and vital to the mix.

Edited by mos6507
Link to post
Share on other sites

Any member of the band it's hard to replace, but normally the easy ones are the bassists and drummer, cause they're not in the spotlight as much as the Guitarist and Vocalist.

And in this band, the members that would be the most hard to replace would Page and Plant, especially the voice of Plant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of us will have seen Page, Plant and Jones playing in bands away from the others and especially the Page & Plant tours go some way to answering this question. Great shows, really exciting and with different arrangements of the old songs. The one time I saw JPJ he was also great value, but with far less Zep content to compare at all.

But the thing is, Page & Plant were better than just Robert Plant on his own, and Page-Plant-Jones-and-Jason at the O2 were better than Page & Plant. I never saw the original Led Zep, but I can imagine that was yet another step up, and maybe two.

I'd go and see any combination of those musicians, but it's obvious that not even the O2 could replace the original four man combination. There are other musicians who can replicate the original parts, but Led Zep was famously far more than that.

I think the hardest shoes to fill in a hypothetical reunion if one of the others had died instead of Bonzo would be Robert Plant, simply because he's the huge focus and frontman and stage announcer and that. It's the same with Freddie Mercury or Jim Morrison. You can cover the music to some extent, but unique frontmen and voices like that can't be done really (I know, AC/DC just about got away with it).

And of course it would be incredibly hard to replace Jimmy Page in any kind of convincing way. In fact, I doubt they'd ever have tried to do it and call it Led Zeppelin. Led Zep is Jimmy Page. The other three could've played together, but they'd never have used the band name I don't think.

It's probably only because they have Jason that they even did that with this reunion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the fact that John Paul Jones is often underrated and was far more vital to Led Zeppelin than many people realise, I'd still have to say that, compared to the others, he would have been the most "dispensable." This, of course, leads to the further question of who would have replaced him. My vote would be for John Entwistle of the Who, who were also reeling from the death of their drummer at roughly the same time. In many ways, Entwistle occupied a similar niche in the Who that Jones did in Zep, but was a much better bass player, IMO. So it would have been Page, Plant, Bonzo and the Ox carrying on as Led Zeppelin for the eighties. Opinions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to say which member would be the most "replaceable" but rather which one is most crucial to the element of the band's sound. I think that if you are play an instrument yourself, then that person/instrument stands out and is what you hear the most. I don't play guitar or drums so what I hear first and foremost of any rock band is the lead vocalist. So for me, there is definitely no "Led Zeppelin" without Robert Plant's very unique vocals. I'd say that holds pretty true for other bands as well.....when I think of the Who, my mind hears Roger......with Jefferson Airplane I first hear Grace....with the Beatles, I think of John & Paul and don't analyze the instruments.

Plus, speaking as a woman, I can't deny the overpowering visual attraction of an incredibly sexy lead vocalist! Robert Plant = Led Zeppelin ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically it is Led Zeppelin when any one of the four is missing, but you always realize that something has changed. You can't replace the originals; you can add to them, but once one goes missing it leaves a permanent void. It's like trying to replace Elvis Presley; even with all the impersonators, you are always aware he has left the building.

Edited by eternal light
Link to post
Share on other sites

of course i don't see it as being the same band now...

but with bonzo's son, who has been described as playing with a similar style to his dad, the o2 lineup is as close as you can get to the original, and IMO still worthy of doing a tour with the Led Zeppelin name.

You can't really blame them for changing their minds and trying to resurrect the band, if only for short stints at a time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In many ways, Entwistle occupied a similar niche in the Who that Jones did in Zep, but was a much better bass player, IMO.

His busy style fit the Who, but would have stepped all over zep...assuming zep were gonna still be a riff based band. I would have went with Chris Squire, like Jimmy almost did. Squire was busy too, but more versatile.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
If it had been Page, Plant or Jones that had died back in 1980, not Bonham, would it still be "Led Zeppelin" today if they'd replaced that person? I guess what I'm saying is that is seems to me like Bonham can be replaced, since they've done that on 4 occasions now with 3 different drummers. Personally, I don't think it's Led Zeppelin unless it's got Page, Plant, Jones and Bonzo, no matter who is replacing anyone. So, which member is so essential that if that person had died you wouldn't consider a new lineup a real "version" of Led Zeppelin? I predict that most people will answer that Page, and probably Plant are too essential, and will not give much of a hoot about Jones and Bonzo...

i totally, f***king agree, ONLY page,plant,bonzo and jones make Led Zep, NOBODY else

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I agree that none of them were/are disposable and without any one of them it's not Led Zeppelin. We are just lucky that Jason took up the drums...

Jimmy can't be replaced. He is the musical driving force.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of bands replace members and still use the same name.

Lynard Skynard and AC/DC for example.

Considering JP is the captain of the ship, what he says goes.

The DNA's the same with Jason.

Did you watch any of the YouTube clips of the 02 concert?

Jason did an outstanding job.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Despite the fact that John Paul Jones is often underrated and was far more vital to Led Zeppelin than many people realise, I'd still have to say that, compared to the others, he would have been the most "dispensable." This, of course, leads to the further question of who would have replaced him. My vote would be for John Entwistle of the Who, who were also reeling from the death of their drummer at roughly the same time. In many ways, Entwistle occupied a similar niche in the Who that Jones did in Zep, but was a much better bass player, IMO. So it would have been Page, Plant, Bonzo and the Ox carrying on as Led Zeppelin for the eighties. Opinions?

i'm kind of glad that they stopped after bonzo died. i feel that then they would have started getting old and wearing the heinous getups of the 80's and then fading away...this, although sad and sudden, seems better in some odd way. like they became legend instead "oh, that band."

Link to post
Share on other sites
i'm kind of glad that they stopped after bonzo died. i feel that then they would have started getting old and wearing the heinous getups of the 80's and then fading away...this, although sad and sudden, seems better in some odd way. like they became legend instead "oh, that band."

And to continue without him would have been lame. Imagine if they got a new drummer, then in the 80s Plant decided to leave so David Coverdale was brought in to sing for Led Zeppelin, then JPJ got bored and left, so they brought in a new bass player and a separate keyboard player. Then Jimmy left and they got a new guitarist and you have Led Zeppelin without any of the original members, playing crap songs.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...