Jump to content

New singer for Jimmy, JPJ and Jason?


Recommended Posts

i, too, consider that led zeppelin ended in 1980, and every version of the band since then has been an approximation. and although the bonham name has brought some credence to the designation, it was john that made the band stand taller than any other for me.

that said, what are the terms that makes this so?

did the rolling stones cease to exist the day that brian jones was kicked out of the band (or the day he died-july 3 1969-for that matter?) are we saying that 'let it bleed', 'sticky fingers', 'exile on mainstreet' were released by faux stones, because brian jones was a main musical contributor, founding member, and the man who named the band?

did 60,000 people in australia see the beatles when jimmy nichols played drums for ringo starr or was it just a 'tribute' version? and if because it was ringo instead of paul that made it a beatle concert, who makes those decisions?

did millions of record buyers and concert-goers see a 'semi'- version of the grateful dead beginning the day founding member ron 'pigpen' mckernan passed away (d. march 9 1973)?

someone has already mentioned ac/dc...surely one of the luckiest bands ever after surviving a tragedy. back in black-fake dc?

after half your band dies in a plane crash, who decides if the surviving members want to rise like a phoenix and play the same songs under the name lynyrd skynrd? the fans? the band manager? lordy.....the band?

what is the criteria.......releasing new work? no replacements? the replacements are related to the original members? not letting 39 years pass by? your new singer sounds the same as the first one? don't replace the singer, but the bassplayer or the drummer is fine? only the songwriters can be original members and therefore irreplaceable?

or-

even the lowest ranking member of a "chemically reactive" supergroup should be considered irreplaceable and all new configurations are phony?

we are being presumptous, i feel,thinking that we have anything to do with these decisions. in most bands, that decision would be based on the bottom line (which, if you think about it, is us. we vote with our money. but after the fact.)

but due to the integrity of the band we follow......these questions are upon us.

i hear a few different opinions on this thread. the core facts are: we will see what we will see and it is what it is.

but for close to forty years, i have enjoyed every song i have ever heard on the radio, played on a soundsystem, listened to in concert, every word i have ever read or said in discussion, both verbal and printed, about this band.

and in that we are all lucky. (not to mention, we have excellent taste)

r.i.p. john henry bonham. were you here today, we would not be discussing this.

edit to add: i can't believe i left out pink floyd. 'dark side of the moon' not floyd because no syd? 'momentary lapse of reason' not floyd without waters?

Edited by beatbo
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes!! (this thread is 18 pages long!)

Ok Sorry, it is MK III, which would mean it would be the third incarnation of the band if Robert wasn't the singer next year and they go out as Zep. The first being with Bonzo, the 2nd last year at the O2 and Atlantic reunion with Jason. :)

Edited by leddy
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok Sorry, it is MK III, which would mean it would be the third incarnation of the band if Robert wasn't the singer next year and they go out as Zep. The first being with Bonzo, the 2nd last year at the O2 and Atlantic reunion with Jason. :)

Thanks man- I'm pretty good with cryptos, but you got me there! ;)

ps- I'm still cool with the name PBJ and Special Guest...

Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, he's not depriving them, as well he shouldn't. I was just baffled by one line from your post: "It's ludicrous to suggest the others are only capable of playing with one singer." For the love of God I don't see where you heard such suggestion coming from me. That's misunderstanding. I meant the opposite, that they're more than capable playing with anyone of their choosing.

Good choice of the smiley - bring it on, we'll drink it up in one gulp!

OK, I see where the misunderstanding lies--since you said Robert was hindering the careers of the 3 J's, that made it sound as if they couldn't pursue their careers if Robert wasn't involved. Which, obviously, they can. So, more :beer: !

Anyway, what I dropped into the thread to say was--you know something is brewing in Zeppelin-land when all sorts of new members start joining the forum, as seems to be happening at present. (Many hoping for first dibs at tickets to any upcoming shows--sorry, guys! :thumbdown: )

But welcome anyway! Unless you're rude and illiterate. :D

Edited by Aquamarine
Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks man- I'm pretty good with cryptos, but you got me there! ;)

ps- I'm still cool with the name PBJ and Special Guest...

Your welcome :)

But welcome anyway! Unless you're rude and illiterate. :D

Well I am not new but I am rude and as you know illiterate :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I've never heard Jimmy make any comment conferring "full partnership" to Jason.

He knows to do so rewrites the history of the band (Led Zeppelin), and IMHO may well be among the factors which led Robert to decide he did not wish to take it any further.

John Bonham's surviving family was at the gig, and Jason did perform on drums, but

none were in the original Led Zeppelin, so they cannot confer full band member status upon Jason (or he upon himself) any more than you or I could (and we can't).

To infer by playing with them he's more than "in" is to say anyone who ever did so is also more than just "in". That would include Phil Collins, among others! I believe this

is what Robert meant when he commented from the stage about them having brought Jason "in". If he (and they) were "Led Zeppelin" there would be no need to refer to having been brought in. It was a polite way of saying, as he also said offstage, "this is how it could be, is this what you really want?"

So what was the band that performed that night? An approximation. It was 3/4 of

Led Zeppelin - billed as Led Zeppelin - made possible by four brave souls, and

established strictly for the purpose of paying tribute.

Not really looking to change anyone's mind here, just offering my own viewpoint.

You are hung up on this partnership thing so lets take it a step further with a few questions in regard to this matter. Maybe someone with some knowledge of this subject can chime in and we can solve this debate once and for all.

Is John Bonham now an equal partner in the band or did his sudden death change that arrangement?

If so, Who holds John bonhams interest? Anyone from his family? Or just the remaining 3 members? How does the Bonham estate collect on 1/4? Do you think John Bonhams family collects monies from the band, or do the 3 remaining do that also? Does John Bonham's family have a say in any Led Zeppelin related project that has taken place after his death?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I've never heard Jimmy make any comment conferring "full partnership" to Jason.

He knows to do so rewrites the history of the band (Led Zeppelin), and IMHO may well be among the factors which led Robert to decide he did not wish to take it any further.

Could you elaborate a bit on this please? How so in your opinion would this effect Roberts decision?

Edited by ledwallett
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, who's Rex King? And does he know his name is a redundancy, like Peter O'Toole or Rip Torn. Oh, never mind - I get distracted too easily ...

Rex King was a former road manager for Led Zeppelin. He was the driver who chauffeured the band around rehearsals at Bray Studios the day before JB passed away.

Meg

Link to post
Share on other sites
i, too, consider that led zeppelin ended in 1980, and every version of the band since then has been an approximation. and although the bonham name has brought some credence to the designation, it was john that made the band stand taller than any other for me.

that said, what are the terms that makes this so?

did the rolling stones cease to exist the day that brian jones was kicked out of the band (or the day he died-july 3 1969-for that matter?) are we saying that 'let it bleed', 'sticky fingers', 'exile on mainstreet' were released by faux stones, because brian jones was a main musical contributor, founding member, and the man who named the band?

did 60,000 people in australia see the beatles when jimmy nichols played drums for ringo starr or was it just a 'tribute' version? and if because it was ringo instead of paul that made it a beatle concert, who makes those decisions?

did millions of record buyers and concert-goers see a 'semi'- version of the grateful dead beginning the day founding member ron 'pigpen' mckernan passed away (d. march 9 1973)?

someone has already mentioned ac/dc...surely one of the luckiest bands ever after surviving a tragedy. back in black-fake dc?

after half your band dies in a plane crash, who decides if the surviving members want to rise like a phoenix and play the same songs under the name lynyrd skynrd? the fans? the band manager? lordy.....the band?

what is the criteria.......releasing new work? no replacements? the replacements are related to the original members? not letting 39 years pass by? your new singer sounds the same as the first one? don't replace the singer, but the bassplayer or the drummer is fine? only the songwriters can be original members and therefore irreplaceable?

or-

even the lowest ranking member of a "chemically reactive" supergroup should be considered irreplaceable and all new configurations are phony?

we are being presumptous, i feel,thinking that we have anything to do with these decisions. in most bands, that decision would be based on the bottom line (which, if you think about it, is us. we vote with our money. but after the fact.)

but due to the integrity of the band we follow......these questions are upon us.

i hear a few different opinions on this thread. the core facts are: we will see what we will see and it is what it is.

but for close to forty years, i have enjoyed every song i have ever heard on the radio, played on a soundsystem, listened to in concert, every word i have ever read or said in discussion, both verbal and printed, about this band.

and in that we are all lucky. (not to mention, we have excellent taste)

r.i.p. john henry bonham. were you here today, we would not be discussing this.

edit to add: i can't believe i left out pink floyd. 'dark side of the moon' not floyd because no syd? 'momentary lapse of reason' not floyd without waters?

I'm jabe,and I approve of this^message.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've posted here several times about this subject -- its about time! I've read over and over how Led Zeppelin can't go on without Plant. Why does Robert Plant get to decide the current state of the band. I agree, let Plant do what he wants to do. If he doesn't want to be a part of Led Zeppelin, so be it. The other three should move on and replace him. One member is not bigger than the band, nor should decide the fate of the band. I am all for the other three, with or without Plant, touring with the Led Zeppelin name. This is long overdue -- I hope it is not just a rumor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rex King was a former road manager for Led Zeppelin. He was the driver who chauffeured the band around rehearsals at Bray Studios the day before JB passed away.

Meg

Rex King was a lot more than this, especially in Plant's life.

Also--nobody has been claiming that Plant gets to decide the state of the band or that he's bigger than the band or whatever--on the other hand, everybody has been encouraging them to get out there and play! It gets tiresome seeing all these false debates being stirred up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are hung up on this partnership thing so lets take it a step further with a few questions in regard to this matter. Maybe someone with some knowledge of this subject can chime in and we can solve this debate once and for all.

Is John Bonham now an equal partner in the band or did his sudden death change that arrangement?

If so, Who holds John bonhams interest? Anyone from his family? Or just the remaining 3 members? How does the Bonham estate collect on 1/4? Do you think John Bonhams family collects monies from the band, or do the 3 remaining do that also? Does John Bonham's family have a say in any Led Zeppelin related project that has taken place after his death?

I'm not hung up about it at all. I'm simply mindful of the fact Led Zeppelin's success -

what really made it work - was the alchemy of the four.

When they joined, John Bonham and Robert Plant were paid a salary. As time went on this was renegotiated and they enjoyed equal shares. Today, the Bonham estate and the other three are paid their fair share thru legally binding agreements. They have a 1/4 "say" in new Led Zeppelin releases and so forth, achieved thru representation.

Robert sold his rights to the Led Zeppelin back catalog at the onset of his solo career.

Edited by SteveAJones
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not hung up about it at all. I'm simply mindful of the fact Led Zeppelin's success -

what really made it work - was the alchemy of the four.

When they joined, John Bonham and Robert Plant were paid a salary. As time went on this was renegotiated and they enjoyed equal shares. Today, the Bonham estate and the other three are paid their fair share thru legally binding agreements. They have a 1/4 "say" in new Led Zeppelin releases and so forth, achieved thru representation.

Robert sold his rights to the Led Zeppelin back catalog at the onset of his solo career.

Who did he sell them to? Atlantic Records, or the other two and Bonham's estate?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Who did he sell them to? Atlantic Records, or the other two and Bonham's estate?

Sold them to their label, Atlantic Records, as I understand it, but I could be mistaken.

Hard to believe he'd do so, until one realizes it was done during the New Wave era, a

time when the Human League, Toni Basil and Joe Jackson, among others, dominated

the charts. No one knew advent of compact disc would refuel back catalog sales.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sold them to their label, Atlantic Records, as I understand it, but I could be mistaken.

Hard to believe he'd do so, until one realizes it was done during the New Wave era, a

time when the Human League, Toni Basil and Joe Jackson, among others, dominated

the charts. No one knew advent of compact disc would refuel back catalog sales.

Correct Steve, he did sell them to Atlantic Records. It was more than the money though. I remember feeling at the time this was also a symbolic gesture from him, cutting away his burgeoning solo career from his past.

Meg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand this 'selling his rights' malarky. Once he's sold them, what does it actually mean for him? He no longer gets the royalties from his songs? That anyone can use his songs from his time in Zeppelin?

Since at least one other member wrote with him, usually Jimmy, and someone wants to cover or play, commercially a 'Robert song', if Jimmy or the other's don't consent to it, doesn't it mean that it's void anyway?

Does that make any sense?

Eurgh, I'm getting confused now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Correct Steve, he did sell them to Atlantic Records. It was more than the money though. I remember feeling at the time this was also a symbolic gesture from him, cutting away his burgeoning solo career from his past.

Meg

Wow. What a terrible, terrible move, with or without the benefit of hindsight. Hard to believe Robert had professional representation and legal counsel who would let him do such a thing!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not hung up about it at all. I'm simply mindful of the fact Led Zeppelin's success -

what really made it work - was the alchemy of the four.

When they joined, John Bonham and Robert Plant were paid a salary. As time went on this was renegotiated and they enjoyed equal shares. Today, the Bonham estate and the other three are paid their fair share thru legally binding agreements. They have a 1/4 "say" in new Led Zeppelin releases and so forth, achieved thru representation.

Robert sold his rights to the Led Zeppelin back catalog at the onset of his solo career.

Indeed,what really made it work,was the alchemy of the four.

Whose formulation of words became ethereal when put to the composition one of Jimmy Page?

Whose music became transcendent when combined to the poetry of Robert Plant?

That the paths of these four crossed in time is truly remarkable.

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...