mos6507 Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 The only way this could be done is if Robert personally passes the torch to a replacement. That's been done before with other bands. That's not really in tune with the spirit of Zeppelin, as it's more of a corporate-rock sort of thing, but if he did decide that, then I think fans would accept it. No, I'm not suggesting that either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercurious Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 If Robert wants to play hardball, and not let JP, JPJ and JB use the name Led Zeppelin without his participation in future projects, this could end up in court the same way Roger Waters took David Gilmour to court over using the band's name Pink Floyd after the 1983 split. My stomach's in knots just thinking about it. IMHO, Jimmy started the band so he should get the last say in what the band's name is without Robert's permission. (It's times like these when Peter Grant would come in very handy.) Ahh, Peter Grant. Can it ever be Led Zeppelin without Grant? They certainly viewed themselves as a five-man gang. I really don't think it's an issue. Plant-Page didn't use the name without Jones, and i think they're still so embarassed about the Live Aid debacle w/ Phil Collins and tony thompson that Page-Plant-Jones would likely not even use the name without Jason Bonham. One of the coolest things about Zep is the respect they have always had for the magic the four of them created (and avoiding the Kenny Jones syndrome) so I don't think there is anything Plant could possibly do to peeve Page off enough for him to go ahead with the name. All that said, the lead singer's pursuits of whatever sense of anti-rock star integrity he obviously feels he needs are comical. Is anybody fooled into forgetting that he was the king of cock rock? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evster2012 Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 "Cock rock"??? Yeah, what a shallow perspective 70s rock mags put on it. What a pity. And while George Martin may have been the 5th Beatle, seeing as he was a major contributor to the musical production, I'd hardly put Peter Grant in the same category. Agent and manager, yes. Pioneer on the forefront of artists' rights, yes. Agreed on that. But a 5th member? His sizeable arse never made a wimper in a studio or a stage (unless he was directing a roadie to pull a clawing groupie off of Jimmy). No disrespect to Peter Grant, but with or without him, it was still Led Zeppelin. IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmie ray Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 This sort of comment just amazes me. You must live your life in constant amazement, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercurious Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 "Cock rock"??? Yeah, what a shallow perspective 70s rock mags put on it. What a pity. And while George Martin may have been the 5th Beatle, seeing as he was a major contributor to the musical production, I'd hardly put Peter Grant in the same category. Agent and manager, yes. Pioneer on the forefront of artists' rights, yes. Agreed on that. But a 5th member? His sizeable arse never made a wimper in a studio or a stage (unless he was directing a roadie to pull a clawing groupie off of Jimmy). No disrespect to Peter Grant, but with or without him, it was still Led Zeppelin. IMO. Not necessarily disagreeing but you could say that it was Grant who muscled out a sort of safe zone within the music biz that made Zep possible. It starts as a partnership between Page and Grant, which was such a strong bond, a relationship along the lines of Dylan/Grossman, that one could say that there is no Led Zeppelin without Peter Grant. Of course now they have complete freedom to do whatever they want but I do wonder whether this Plant problem holdup would be happening if Grant were around. I can easily imagine Grant helping Page overcome whatever obstacle there is, as Page seems unable to at the moment. The present situation does seem to suggest that there really can be no Led Zeppelin (beyond one night) without Peter Grant. I do hope you're right, Evstar, and this isn't case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 You must live your life in constant amazement, then? Yeah.....because people are constantly saying that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ledded1 Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 THE Led Zeppelin ended in 1980. In 2007 I saw another Led Zeppelin as brilliant as it could be without Bonzo. But 3/4 of the best band ever were on stage that night and still able to eclipse everyone else around today. One magic night. If Robert doesn't want them to get back together then the other 3 should do what they are entitled to do and that is to make music and get out and play. I don't think they are waiting for Robert to decide and they shouldn't, prety much everyone here wants them out playing regardless. But, if they do something without Robert and I believe they will ( no proof either way) then I don't believe that Jimmy and Jonesy would call it Led Zeppelin. We can speculate til the cows come home over another singer, another name,kone thing is certain is that they will play Zep tunes, it goes without saying. We have to wait and see but we should get used to the very strong possibility and idea that the Zep tunes we now and love won't have Robert singing them. It just remains to be seen who will. And who ever does will be chosen because Jimmy and Jonesy believe that they will do the songs justice. It won't be Zep it can't be Zep and whoever they are lets get them playing for them and us It has to be a win win situation with or without Robert. I know loads here will say that it has to have Robert in it to be a win situation but for me i also want to see Jimmy playing again and with Jonesy and Jason then I won't feel like a loser or cheated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE FIRST LEDZEP Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 THE Led Zeppelin ended in 1980. In 2007 I saw another Led Zeppelin as brilliant as it could be without Bonzo. But 3/4 of the best band ever were on stage that night and still able to eclipse everyone else around today. One magic night. If Robert doesn't want them to get back together then the other 3 should do what they are entitled to do and that is to make music and get out and play. I don't think they are waiting for Robert to decide and they shouldn't, prety much everyone here wants them out playing regardless. But, if they do something without Robert and I believe they will ( no proof either way) then I don't believe that Jimmy and Jonesy would call it Led Zeppelin. We can speculate til the cows come home over another singer, another name,kone thing is certain is that they will play Zep tunes, it goes without saying. We have to wait and see but we should get used to the very strong possibility and idea that the Zep tunes we now and love won't have Robert singing them. It just remains to be seen who will. And who ever does will be chosen because Jimmy and Jonesy believe that they will do the songs justice. It won't be Zep it can't be Zep and whoever they are lets get them playing for them and us It has to be a win win situation with or without Robert. I know loads here will say that it has to have Robert in it to be a win situation but for me i also want to see Jimmy playing again and with Jonesy and Jason then I won't feel like a loser or cheated. They'd be called The Who Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrZoSo Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 Does this really need to be discussed? IMO, No. But here is my answer anyway... If Jimmy and company were to do something new without Robert they can call it wtf ever they want. It would not matter one iota. Why you say? Because the fans would never except such a ridiculous notion. Led Zeppelin without Robert Plant? No band, no matter who is in the line up, can be named Led Zeppelin without Robert Plant. And I truly believe with all my heart, the ONLY guy who can change this, knows it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeptangerine Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 This quote is from Jimmy at the Mojo Awards, as published in the latest 'Tight But Loose': 'The thing is, to do a Led Zeppelin tour you have to have, with Jason - the four members as it was at the O2 Arena of Led Zeppelin together - and at this point in time Robert is continuing with his duet or solo career. So you can't really have an honourable Led Zeppelin tour without the four members.' Thanks- but Jimmy's a sly one so his definition of "honorable" may be a bit different than ours... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 Zeppelin is already gone. All that remains is a wisp of a fleeting memory haunting our dreams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrZoSo Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 Zeppelin is already gone. All that remains is a wisp of a fleeting memory haunting our dreams. Disagree. Led Zeppelin is stronger then ever. And will never leave us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 Disagree. Led Zeppelin is stronger then ever. And will never leave us. Sort of like the Gestapo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnnie Gestappo Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 Does this really need to be discussed? IMO, No. But here is my answer anyway... If Jimmy and company were to do something new without Robert they can call it wtf ever they want. It would not matter one iota. Why you say? Because the fans would never except such a ridiculous notion. Led Zeppelin without Robert Plant? No band, no matter who is in the line up, can be named Led Zeppelin without Robert Plant. And I truly believe with all my heart, the ONLY guy who can change this, knows it. I feel what you are saying! My 1st priority would be Plant w/ the band, and it would be LZ. W/anybody else it isn't LZ. But make no mistake, Jimmy Page is "Led Zeppelin". If it wasn't for Jimmy Page there would be no LZ. And "Post Zep", inc. Robert Plants solo career, if it wasn't for Jimmy continously "Re-releasing" and "Digitally Remastering" the catalog, and releasing other "tid-bits" and of course all of the live DVD footage we are enjoying now? Who would care except for the "core" Zep fans? There isn't any replacement for a lead singer "IMO". Not BlackSabbath, Not VanHalen, AC/DC, Motley Crue. LET'S ALL JUST CROSS OUR FINGERS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercurious Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 Sort of like the Gestapo? Allison, is that you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 Allison, is that you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reids Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 The Mothership (3 Js and guest(s)) R Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ledded1 Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 Zeppelin is already gone. All that remains is a wisp of a fleeting memory haunting our dreams. That was some wisp last December No fleeting memory or memories, still very strong, very real and damned fine ones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.