Jump to content

If Led Zeppelin re-forms I don't think they should be called Led Zeppelin


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Wanna place bets? B)

No, but that's because it's not something I do rather than any doubts I have that we haven't seen the end of Led Zep. I'm 95ish% certain that once Bob & Ali have finished doing theit thing he'll turn his attention to a full band reunion. These are just my thoughts - I don't claim any inside track to the band.

Link to post
Share on other sites
thats silly, then ACDC shouldnt be so, nor should the stones nor should metallica and Fleetwood mac should definetly not!

But Metallica and AC/DC both have proven themselves since their respective members died by both constant touring and good albums since. Not saying I do not agree but the argument could be made that Zeppelin has really not done anything except a single show since Bonham died.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To add to the whole band name debate, Bad Company have very recently 'reformed' as 'Bad Company 2008' trouble is there's only one very original member in the form of original guitarist Mick Ralphs, all the other memebrs came at a later point.

So if you check the 'official' Bad Company website it says:

Warning: There are cover bands attempting to pass off as Bad Company.

The name is only allowed to be used with the consent of the

four original members and consent has not been given.

Our lawyers will be taking action against all parties involved, musicians, promoters, agents & sponsors.

And if you check the 'Bad Company 2008' website it says:

WE ARE (legally, and contrary to rumoured belief, not in any way in need of 'anyone's permission') WHO AND WHAT WE ARE NOW! This is 2008, the 21st century. All before now is history, and a matter of public record
.

When interviewed in the latest issue Classic Rock Magazine as singer of Queen, original BC singer Paul Rodgers refused to comment.

For those interested: http://www.myspace.com/BCLIVESHOWS and WWW.BADCOMPANY2008.COM

Just thought I'd post a very recent example of when using a band name causes problems! Personally I have no problem with it.

Edited by Hand_Of_Omega_91
Link to post
Share on other sites
Who gives a damn what they call themself. They are what they are whatever name they decide to use.

Does it really matter what they call themselves outside of some marketing to make it easier as a sell? THE MUSIC SPEAKS FOR ITSELF!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Led Zeppelin is really the only band that didn't go through any changes in the last 40 years and quit when they lost a key member.

Stones-Brian Jones died, Mick Taylor, Billy Wyman, and Ian Stewart are all no longer with the band. They have kept the 3 members of Jagger, Watts, and Richards for about 40 years though. That's not bad.

Who only have Townshend and Daltrey as official members right now. Moon and Entwistle are dead, they've only had one other official member outside of those 2. Kenney Jones of the Small Faces replaced Moon. Of course Ringo's son Zak has played for them over the last decade or so. Pino Paulidino played bass for them after Entwistle died. And they've had a ton of other changes since then. But only 2 official members right now.

Aerosmith basically had Steve Tyler, Joey Kramer and 3 other guys for about 5 years after the band basically split in 1980. But they did come back in the mid 80s and have stayed together since.

AC/DC has had numerous band changes. They had about 10 different members before Bon joined the band in late 74. And they've had a million changes since then. Not just with Bon dying. They've had a number of different drummers because Ruud was fired in the 80s. Ruud and Williams and Scott for that matter weren't even the original members of the band. The only two constants with AC/DC are the Young brothers.

The Moody Blues are still touring with one original member. They've had several lineup changes.

Temptations are touring with no original members. And they had a million lineup changes over the years.

Metallica has had a ton of lineup changes. Mustaine was the original guitarist before Kirk Hammett replaced him. And they've had 4 or 5 different bassists.

Of the few bands that stayed the same and lasted more than 10 years

Beatles started out with Pete Best as the drummer. Now they didn't change their classic lineup that we all know and love of John, Paul, George, and Ringo. But they only lasted about 8 years with that lineup.

ZZ Top and they are going strong on almost 40 years with Billy, Dusty, and Frank

Rush has basically been the same since 1974 after John Rutsey quit and Neil Peart replaced him just before the bands first American Tour. They've been the same lineup with Alex, Geddy, and Neil since then. But Neil Peart isn't the original drummer for Rush.

Soundgarden had a few changes early on including having Cornell on drums but really the only change after that was Ben Sheppard replacing Yamamoto. But from about 1989-1997 they had the same lineup of Cornell, Cameron, Thayil, and Shepherd.

Pink Floyd's original leader Syd Barrett went insane. Dave Gilmour replaced him. Rick Wright was kicked out of the band in the 80s. Roger Waters was basically kicked out and Rick Wright was basically brought back in after that. But otherwise they've been pretty stable since the late 60s till the 90s

Now the point of all this is. Most bands lose a member and just replace him with someone else and go on. Zeppelin was not that way. There was no way they were doing something like the O2 a full show unless they knew it could even sound like Zeppelin would in the 70s. And guess what they did that perfectly. They were probably better than they were for much of the later 70s.

If Zeppelin regrouped and played as Led Zeppelin no one would complain. Most of those listed above would probably quit what they were doing and watch them also because they blow everyone else away. And complaining about one change isn't that big a deal. Most other bigger bands have more as shown above. It's really amazing for a band to last 10 years with no changes. It almost never happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In regards to your statement about Robert at the end of your post, you stated ....."Even while John Bonham was alive he would not play as Led Zep without the other three." But isn't that EXACTLY what Plant did at the O2 Arena? He sang WITHOUT all three of the other members. Not to be rude, but your statement totally contradicts itself. It's completely hippocritical. And he felt WONDERFUL about Jason filling in at the O2. Robert may not have grown up with Jason, but he knew him since he was born, (with he and Bonzo being best buddies). He was very close with his best friends son.

NUFF SAID.

No I don't think your comment rude at all, but I do find it dumb - not to be rude.

1. Robert Plant sang WITHOUT all three of the other members at the O2 as he is the lead singer. No it's not what you mean? OK then. He HAD TO do the O2 with the two LIVING members of the ORIGINAL band. If that still contradicts it for you then go find John Bonham's grave.

(Rest his soul)

2. No doubt the closeness between Robert Plant and his best friend's son Jason, they have also jammed in private occasions haven't they? But if Robert Plant has personally told you that the original musical dynamics he was referring to since the inception of Led Zep when they were kids is not lost with John Bonham's passing then correct me. All the more correct me if Mr. Plant told you that because he knew Jason since he was born the band will REFORM. I never implied that Robert felt other than good (did he tell you it was WONDERFUL?) about Jason Bonham filling in ABLY for his late father at the O2, because ABLY he did. No one would want another drummer in that seat. But in case you missed it the point of the thread, let me repeat that to you: REFORM. Not O2.

3. Hippo is for hippopotamus. Hypo is for hypocritical.

Now I'm way too pretty to be a hippo, but if I sounded hypocritical to you who cares I'm bright.

Nuff? Huvunuduh 2u.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1) Led Zeppelin died with John Bonham (they can be called Led Zeppelin during reunions, like the 2007 one, but for a band doing new material I think it's dead)

2) It's been 30 years since they've recorded new material. Anything they recorded today wouldn't have the same quality as before and the expectations would be way too high. They're all so much older and they've done so much in the time between.

So, ideas for a new name?

my mind's a blank... anything i'll say will be lame. i'll say it anyways:

New Led Zeppelin

Swan Song

Old Zep

It will be Led Zeppelin as long as Jimmy Page is alive and well and in command.

I don't think any of the other surviving members would dare challenge that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But Metallica and AC/DC both have proven themselves since their respective members died by both constant touring and good albums since. Not saying I do not agree but the argument could be made that Zeppelin has really not done anything except a single show since Bonham died.

Do you honestly think that if they put out new material, that it would not be up to LZ standards?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you honestly think that if they put out new material, that it would not be up to LZ standards?

I'm afraid it wouldn't be up to par with their 70's catalog. People will have expectations out of this world and whether you like it or not everyone will compare the new stuff with the old stuff.. But of course, extraordinary comeback's has happend before, like Johnny Cash with the American recordings for example.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Who gives a damn what they call themself. They are what they are whatever name they decide to use.

I think it would relieve a lot of the pressure to change the name. I'm all for it. I have absolutely no emotional attachment to the name. In fact, let's face it, it's a very dated Austin Powers sort of name that they had already outgrown by the mid 70s. It's all about the music and the real fans would feel the same way. Those who might boycott them over this wouldn't be the real fans, and are better off not tying up concert tickets.

I think from a legal perspective it might be too much of a pain in the ass for them to change the name. Their whole business engine revolves around the Led Zeppelin "brand" so to speak. The music publishing and the royalties and all that. So it would just be easier to leave it as is.

Edited by mos6507
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what Roger Taylor from Queen thinks about band names and I agree. (Taken from current issue of Classic Rock Magazine)

Q: Queen find themselves in the same position as Led Zeppelin. Some will cry blasphemy but that won't stop you.

Taylor: That purist attitude is so stupid. Led Zeppelin were correct to do their show at the O2. I was there, it was great. Okay, one of our beloved band members isnt here any more, buy what do we do about that? Do we all die? No, life goes on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm afraid it wouldn't be up to par with their 70's catalog. People will have expectations out of this world and whether you like it or not everyone will compare the new stuff with the old stuff.. But of course, extraordinary comeback's has happend before, like Johnny Cash with the American recordings for example.

We all need to realize also that when the band ended their own direction was evolving. And in the 30 years since they stopped creating together they've each grown in their own ways so of course the influences upon what they might create together will certainly have an effect. So to expect music that is on the same 'par' as what was created in the late 60's and 70's would really be unrealistic....natural evolution is/would have/ did affect everything they/we do.....

For the record, I think they should go by Led Zeppelin, even if they went forward with a different singer...to me, personally, Led Zeppelin was the creation of Jimmy Page and the band and it's direction 'belong' to him.....He is the 'Conductor' :D

Edited by Medhb
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I might have an idea that'll please everyone. (fingers-crossed) :unsure:

How about that go back to what the original name would have been had they not been concered with it's pronounciation. Everybody knows now how it's supposed to be pronounced (thus it shouldn't be a problem), soooooo.......Here it goes:

Lead Zeppelin!!! B)

Edited by ~Sang Q~
Link to post
Share on other sites

So many bands have lost significant members and kept the name. Hell, look at Skynyrd and Marshall Tucker and the Who. And even throw the Stones in if you want to consider Brian Jones, then Tayor and then Wood. That is just crazy. They are Led Zeppelin if they take the stage. I hope they do a tour then this board will light up like a fucking Xmas tree. Right now it looks like a graveyard.

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...