So is 1968 or 1969 the first year of Led Zeppelin?

[AlexKx]

So is 1968 or 1969 the first year for Led Zeppelin? Wouldn't you all say it was 1968 even though they were just The New Yardbirds?

[swandown]

Since the band was calling itself "Led Zeppelin" by late October 1968, I would say that, yes, 1968 was indeed the first year for Led Zeppelin.

[Evster2012]

Agreed. While there still was a possible incident of New Yardbirds being printed on a poster, it was already Led Zep in 68.

[Mattmc1973]

A lot of people think of 1969 as the first year, because that's when their first album came out. But since they toured and recorded in 1968, that's truly their first year. Let's put it this way, both answers are right, depending on how you look at it.

Edited April 23, 2008 by Mattmc1973

[Pb Derigable]

1948. The year bonzo was born. They just decided to take a rest until 1968.

[TheZeppyWanderer]

I suppose we could point to several dates in history and attribute them to the point where Led Zeppelin was originally conceived.

In which case, it could be said that when the Hindenburg went down in a ball of flames in May 1937, then it was that the seeds were planted and the die cast.

[*I*LOVE*JIMMY!!]

Officially They did their first Northamerican tour starting, at Denver Colorado as Led Zeppelin on December 28th, 1968. A press release was given in November 1968 to announce the new English group Led Zeppelin. I couldn't find an exact date for November though. This information was made available through Atlantic Records.

Edited April 24, 2008 by jimmy&mekissinginatree

[Fresh Garbage]

I always say 69 is thier first year....the Fall of 68 is when things started to form. and there are no live recordings from 68 to listen to so

and yes I know about the Gonzaga show which is practicaly New Years Eve! and the American tour started on the 28th of Dec. so if you round it it off it's hard to consider the last 3 1/2 months of 68 to be a whole year. especially when they played almost a couple houndred shows in 69...JMO

Edited April 24, 2008 by Fresh Garbage

[Evster2012]

^^So a show in 1968 by a band consisting of Plant, Page, Bonham and Jones, calling themselves Led Zeppelin wasn't Led Zeppelin?

[The Rover]

When they inked the deal with Atlantic Records, was "Led Zeppelin" in the Contract ? ?

If it was, then that, is the beginning of Led Zeppelin's recording carrer....

[SteveAJones]

Led Zeppelin formed/began in 1968. This is a no-brainer question.

[Reggie29]

I always say 69 is thier first year....the Fall of 68 is when things started to form. and there are no live recordings from 68 to listen to so

and yes I know about the Gonzaga show which is practicaly New Years Eve! and the American tour started on the 28th of Dec. so if you round it it off it's hard to consider the last 3 1/2 months of 68 to be a whole year. especially when they played almost a couple houndred shows in 69...JMO

Agreed.

While launched in 68 Led Zeppelin took off in 69.

[*I*LOVE*JIMMY!!]

The question was asked if 68 or 69 of the first year of LZ. You can argue that 69 was because it was a full year, but officially, contract and all it was 1968 even if it was just by a month and a few days.

Thanks Evster and Steve.

Edited April 26, 2008 by jimmy&mekissinginatree

[Humbucker]

The band first played live under the name Led Zeppelin on 25th October 1968, at Surrey University, England. Research suggests they played their last date as the New Yardbirds on 19th October, at Liverpool University, England.

RB

[Fresh Garbage]

Like I said I have nothing to compare them by in 68. it wasn't until 69 when they hit the states and thier #1st LP was released. I know all about he history of the band in 68 because I have read a ton of books about them...

this was more of a IYO type of post. so I was just giving mine. a couple of month does not equal a year IMO.

Edited April 26, 2008 by Fresh Garbage

[Humbucker]

this was more of a IYO type of post. so I was just giving mine. a couple of month does not equal a year IMO.

1968, then. It was still the same band, no matter what they were called. As for a couple of months does not equal a year, you have to look at it as you would the year of your birth. If you were born at 11:59 PM on 31st December 1968, you were born in that year, not the next.

RB

Edited April 27, 2008 by Humbucker

[jsj]

for those who claim '68 doesn't count as it wasn't a full year. would you also claim that the career of zeppelin only lasted between '69 & '79 instead of the factual '68 to '80?

applying your logic means you can't count 1980, as that wasnt a full year either

what a strange post

Edited April 26, 2008 by jsj

[Fresh Garbage]

for those who claim '68 doesn't count as it wasn't a full year. would you also claim that the career of zeppelin only lasted between '69 & '79 instead of the factual '68 to '80?

applying your logic means you can't count 1980, as that wasnt a full year either

what a strange post

why wouldn't you count 80 as a full year? they were playing live in July for Christ sake! with an American tour set for October. thats 10 months not 2.

Edited April 26, 2008 by Fresh Garbage

[Fresh Garbage]

1968, then. It was still the same band, no matter what they were called. As for a couple of months does not equal a year, you have to look at it as you would the year of your birth. If you were born at 11:59 PM on 31st December 1968, your were born in that year, not the next.

RB

I was born on August 19th 1970. so on January 1st I am a year old?

[Fresh Garbage]

You know, I just realised how stupid this topic is. there is now way to find a real answer to a "so is" type of question. yes I know the facts (but that wasn't my concern).... Zeppelin did get together in late 68. so I am done!

Edited April 26, 2008 by Fresh Garbage

[AlexKx]

Um...wow...now that I think about it...this WAS kind of a stupid question BUT I wanted to clarify it so as to address THIS year being the FORTIETH anniversary of Led Zeppelin. So is there anything going on to celebrate or acknowledge this year 2008 as the fortieth anniversary of Led Zeppelin?

[Fresh Garbage]

sorry I didn't mean it was stupid, I just guess I said it that way. it's a good question. I ment it was stupid because I just got worked up over it

they will be able to celebrate 40 full years. come october in 2008. (or whenever the band considers it thier 40th birthday). then we will hear about it?.. but not now because it hasn't been 40 years yet.

Edited April 27, 2008 by Fresh Garbage

[AlexKx]

Ah yes so there is some time for a just a few months of touring later in the year into next before they record a new studio l.p. to be released next year and to do more touring behind that, yes?! That will work out fine just fine my dearies!

[NickZepp]

Led Zeppelin played as Led Zeppelin for about 17 shows in 1980? Someone can get me the right number on that. That's just off the top of my head.

They probably played from August or September depending on when rehearsals began till December of 1968 playing about 25-30 shows. Also the initial meetings of Page and Plant can probably be traced back to the summer of 1968 which was where the band really began.

If you count 1980 then you count 1968 also. And if you just count album release years then Led Zeppelin didn't exist in 1972, 1974, 1977, or 1978 and 1980, despite touring and/or recording almost all of those years. btw they also recording their first album in 1968.

The band was active from 1968-1980.

There's no question about it. The only real break the band took was in early 1974 and 1975(after finishing up in the studio Munich), 1976 when Plant couldn't walk and in 1978-1979 when they weren't recording an album. Really they were working on the band one way or another most of the dozen years.

Edited April 27, 2008 by NickZepp

[gollum6668]

Ok I see both points. But since Zeppelin I was recorded in late '68 (including Baby Come on Home) I will officially say the band started in '68 since they recorded music in that year..although the album was released earlier the following year..