zeptangerine Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 It's been wayyyyyy too long since we've seen Jimmy out there doing what he does best and I think him and Jonesy working together with Jason and ____ should prove to be a really interesting and exciting project. Come on guys - now!!! And [fill in the blank] _____; that's funny- now let's all make the magic happen again with some positive mojo brew! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joelth Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 Jack Black is the only man to replace Robert Plant. Join the movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeptangerine Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 Just because those bands did it doesn't make it right. Who are you calling, and what is, a non-believer anyway? Led Zeppelin are no more, at least for the present. We've all just got to accept it. Non believers? Christ I don't remember; I probably meant people who don't believe in Jimmy and how he's about to revive Led Zeppelin without Robert Plant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquamarine Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 I'm a nonbeliever in Jack Black replacing Robert Plant, if that helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KEVIN Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 I don't think anyone "really wants this". However, since Robert Plant is not willing to be a functioning part of Led Zeppelin and the other 3 members want to function as Led Zeppelin, then what happens in the future to Led Zeppelin is in the hands of the 3 members that want to continue musically and financially. The member part of singing was offered to Robert Plant. He said no. Case closed. Move on. There is only one person the the world who dosen't want this......... He said no. Case closed. Move on. EOM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephyrus Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 obviously John Paul Jones, Jimmy Page, Jason Bonham, even Robert Plant, can do whatever the hell they want. doesn't matter to me, whatever they do I'm sure it will sound good. but just because they can tour as Led Zeppelin with only half the band, doesn't mean they should. they can do whatever they want, and nobody can or should stop them, but that doesn't make it any less of a blemish on the Led Zeppelin story. if I could dictate Zep's journey, I'd have said the last show should have been Bonzo's last show. because that's really, truly, the last Zep show. the difference with one off shows is that 1) the missing band member is dead, there's not much you can do 2) one off's are usually few and far between, sticking with a commitment to respect the deceased band member 3) in this case, the replacement for John is his son, the best man for the job 4) there's nothing wrong with reliving memories now and then, but wouldn't you rather not tarnish them? anyone remember the countless "Woodstock II's" that were a shameless slap in the face to the original Woodstock? touring as a partial band, especially given the 28 years they've spent respecting the Zeppelin legacy, seems kind of greedy on the face of it. if it's not for the money, then why'd it take 28 years to do it? I know that's not the reason they're touring, but that's sure what it looks like to the rest of the world. their willingness to just soldier on not only without their drummer (which is somewhat reasonably understandable given that he's dead) but without their singer, who is alive, just adds to the greedy image. they can do whatever they want, but a Led Zeppelin tour would tarnish their reputation in my eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroselambra~ Posted November 7, 2008 Author Share Posted November 7, 2008 .a Led Zeppelin tour would tarnish their reputation in my eyes. you have hit the nail on the head - why tinker with something as near perfect as the Zeppelin legacy to become *just another band who reformed* PART OF THAT LEGACY IS THEY NEVER SOLD OUT AND REFORMED - dont you people who are crying for a reunion realize this! Of course they can do what they want - BUT should they? It is the millions of fans who have put them where they are today so their feelings should be taken into account! The more I think about this reunion the more I am agains't it - purely from a non-selfish point of view. I would love to see another performance with the three of them - but ten years down the line the history of rock music will not look favourably on this, and they could be consigned to the likes of The Who, The Stones, etc who carried on long after their sell buy dates. And for those people who are telling me to *worry about life's real problems* - well I do, I just don't do it in here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 I would love to see another performance with the three of them - but ten years down the line the history of rock music will not look favourably on this, and they could be consigned to the likes of The Who, The Stones, etc who carried on long after their sell buy dates. You have got to be kidding me. The Who still sell out all their gigs and their performances are LOVED, The Stones are still one of the best shows for ANY rock fan to see and it is an absolute PRIVILEGE for us that they are still going today - to say you have seen The Stones live is a MUST for any music fan. I've never seen any evidence of these bands carrying on past their sell-by dates - just thousands of fans thrilled to get the chance to see them and absolutely willing to hand over their cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroselambra~ Posted November 7, 2008 Author Share Posted November 7, 2008 The Stones live is a MUST for any music fan. I wouldn't go to see them if they played for free - at the bottom of our street - BECAUSE I am a music lover. Keith Richards can no longer play live! thanks for pointing out the typo - but it was early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 I wouldn't go to see them if they played for free - at the bottom of our street - BECAUSE I am a music lover.Then you are no kind of music lover that I understand. Keith Richards can no longer play live! That's just bollocks. Watch "Shine A Light". If you haven't and wouldn't go to see them live, how would you know anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TortoiseGeek Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 In other news, the topic of this thread is : Do we really want this?, The proposed up and coming tour of Page, Jones and Bonham. Mi dos centavos: No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroselambra~ Posted November 7, 2008 Author Share Posted November 7, 2008 Then you are no kind of music lover that I understand. That's just bollocks. Watch "Shine A Light". If you haven't and wouldn't go to see them live, how would you know anyway? ...glad to be misunderstood by some! I never have and never will be a Stones fan - so sue me. Because they are big doesn't mean they are good especially this many years down the line. By his own admission Richards playing is now hesitant to say the least. Can't see the point of trying to judge a band's *live performance* on the t.v! ...sort of defeats the object doesnt it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot dog Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 I wouldn't go to see them if they played for free - at the bottom of our street - BECAUSE I am a music lover. Eh? I've seen The Who numerous times over the years and IMHO they are still an amazing live act - far more powerful than many bands 30-40 years their junior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroselambra~ Posted November 7, 2008 Author Share Posted November 7, 2008 Eh? I've seen The Who numerous times over the years and IMHO they are still an amazing live act - far more powerful than many bands 30-40 years their junior. ...by The Who I take it you mean "Roger, Pete and whoever" for the record I do think they are still great live - possibly the best they have been in a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dancin'Days Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 ...by The Who I take it you mean "Roger, Pete and whoever" for the record I do think they are still great live - possibly the best they have been in a long time. I saw the Who in 79 at an open air concert with AC/DC.......Fuckin' great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrios Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 has anyone considered that plant's omission from future zep plans could be a big smokescreen, and the opposite of the statement he made a few weeks ago could be true ? he's had 28 yrs of rabid fans and journalists saying "when are zep getting back together ?" recently, these reunion rumours, have reached fever pitch, how else to quieten these by throwing in a red herring ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroselambra~ Posted November 7, 2008 Author Share Posted November 7, 2008 I saw the Who in 79 at an open air concert with AC/DC.......Fuckin' great! Great live bands - streets ahead of the Stones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeptangerine Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 PART OF THAT LEGACY IS THEY NEVER SOLD OUT AND REFORMED - dont you people who are crying for a reunion realize this! Are you saying you didn't approve of the 2007 reformation/reunion because of their "legacy?" Or perhaps you would be embarrased by another reformation with new material? Please xplain. thx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroselambra~ Posted November 7, 2008 Author Share Posted November 7, 2008 Are you saying you didn't approve of the 2007 reformation/reunion because of their "legacy?" Or perhaps you would be embarrased by another reformation with new material? Please xplain. thx. 2007 was a one off performance - I dont know anyone (personally) who objected to it. It also righted a lot of wrongs caused by Live Aid. Perfect high to leave things on - end of story... OR should've been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 ...by The Who I take it you mean "Roger, Pete and whoever" for the record I do think they are still great live - possibly the best they have been in a long time. And yet you said they had outstayed their welcome. My disagreement with you was not about personal taste - you don't like The Stones, whatever floats your boat - the fact is that you said they and The Who had stayed past their sell-by dates, when their continuing popularity and ticket sales clearly show they HAVE NOT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 Great live bands - streets ahead of the Stones How would you KNOW when you haven't SEEN the Stones live??? I love an informed argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 has anyone considered that plant's omission from future zep plans could be a big smokescreen, and the opposite of the statement he made a few weeks ago could be true ? he's had 28 yrs of rabid fans and journalists saying "when are zep getting back together ?" recently, these reunion rumours, have reached fever pitch, how else to quieten these by throwing in a red herring ? Nice idea, but no - he absolutely meant it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroselambra~ Posted November 7, 2008 Author Share Posted November 7, 2008 How would you KNOW when you haven't SEEN the Stones live??? I love an informed argument. ...didn't realise we were arguing - thought we were just bitchin! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yucko Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 you have hit the nail on the head - why tinker with something as near perfect as the Zeppelin legacy to become *just another band who reformed* PART OF THAT LEGACY IS THEY NEVER SOLD OUT AND REFORMED - dont you people who are crying for a reunion realize this! Of course they can do what they want - BUT should they? It is the millions of fans who have put them where they are today so their feelings should be taken into account! The more I think about this reunion the more I am agains't it - purely from a non-selfish point of view. I would love to see another performance with the three of them - but ten years down the line the history of rock music will not look favourably on this, and they could be consigned to the likes of The Who, The Stones, etc who carried on long after their sell buy dates. And for those people who are telling me to *worry about life's real problems* - well I do, I just don't do it in here. As long as the Led Zeppelin name is not used, which i don't think it will be, whats the harm in a new band with Jimmy Page, John Paul Jones, Jason Bonham and a yet to be decided singer? IF Page would use the Zeppelin name, i would personally be offended. Money is not a factor here for either P,B or J. The desire to rock is the only motivating factor. Granted, any use of the Led Zeppelin name would DESTROY the legacy, and the powers that be know it. The thing is, regardless of the name, singer, cd sales, if there is gonna be a new one, everyone will refer to it as Led Zeppelin without Robert Plant. Jesus Christ himself could front this band, and it would still be called Led Zeppelin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddot Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 What if Robert himself were to hold a press confrence and say that he wants the new line up to be called Led Zeppelin, that he is blown away by the new singer. With all the material Jimmy has saved up they could probably put out 3 or 4 new Zeppelin albums. Robert could say that he just wants to take a break from the whole scene for awhile but that he fully signs off on his replacement. This would fully protect the legacy and let the band continue the journey started 40 years ago. They could do the really heavy material Jimmy and Bonzo wanted to do before Bonzo's death. This whole legacy thing is way overblown, we should just let the guys jam and calll it whatever they want. Life is full of changes and its not up to us to pressure Jimmy one way or another. Jimmy is looking so healthy these days he could live to be a hundred and put out a Zeppelin album every year until then. Nothing can ever change the achievemnts of the OG four members. What if Jimmy quit guitar and put out only digital house music trax. It is up to him or them. All this walking around on eggshells being afraid to tarnish the legacy is stupid because life changes and moves on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.