Reggie29 Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 As someone suggested on another thread. Please keep your reasons short and to the point. IMHO no. We're talking about a new beginning so a new name with the only reference to Led Zeppelin being the music. Which of course they would play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cactus Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 No. So long as Plant is still alive, but is unwilling to take part, they should never call themselves Led Zeppelin. To do so would imply that Plant was a replaceable part of Led Zeppelin, which he is not. If anybody other than Jason Bonham was drumming, it would also be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mernie Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 No. So long as Plant is still alive, but is unwilling to take part, they should never call themselves Led Zeppelin. To do so would imply that Plant was a replaceable part of Led Zeppelin, which he is not. If anybody other than Jason Bonham was drumming, it would also be wrong. I feel exactly the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adi Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 they certainly shouldn't call themselves Led Zeppelin... no Robert + no John= half Zeppelin is gone half of the original band members aren't in so how could they actually call themselves Led Zeppelin??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lzfan715 Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 I posted this earlier, but no of course no. They aren't Zep, Robert is an important of the band. No Robert, and it isn't Led Zeppelin anymore. Let me put it this way: Oxygen and hydrogen make water, right? No oxygen, no water. No hydrogen, no water. No Robert, no Zep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reggie29 Posted November 1, 2008 Author Share Posted November 1, 2008 Thanks to the mods for fixing the poll. Now we can vote on it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercurious Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 As someone suggested on another thread. Please keep your reasons short and to the point. IMHO no. We're talking about a new beginning so a new name with the only reference to Led Zeppelin being the music. Which of course they would play. No of course they aren't, and they were not at 02 - though they flashed the Led Zeppelin logo at the end of the show. Bonzo and Peter Grant gone, there cannot be a Led Zeppelin, truly. However, most have accepted Jason and the mantle with Jimmy, Robert and JP -- so it is Led Zeppelin 2008. Jimmy's vision and plans will not be detered by Robert, who most on this forum I think would agree should rethink his position. Based on experience working in media for the past 20 years, i would be telling Jimmy that he should use the name in some way and use it in a way that does not disenfranchise Robert. That's easy enough to do "The Led Zeppelin Project" - "Led Zeppelin and Friends" - "Presence: 40 yrs of Led Zeppelin" etc. This will be a 40th anniversary tour as well as a tour behind a new album, and who cares about selling the album anyway?? - the kids will buy the songs they want online. Only the diehard fans will buy an album. The name will be used in some way. I think Jimmy has laid down the gauntlet on this and Robert has declined. He will (and should) use the name in some way if only to sell tickets on the tour. A lot of that money will be going to charity anyway, so it is not really a big affront to the legacy. There is no Bonzo or Peter Grant in any case. Jimmy won't get too hung up over Plant, IMO. Nor should he. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercurious Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 I posted this earlier, but no of course no. They aren't Zep, Robert is an important of the band. No Robert, and it isn't Led Zeppelin anymore. Let me put it this way: Oxygen and hydrogen make water, right? No oxygen, no water. No hydrogen, no water. No Robert, no Zep. Jimmy controls the name rights, the publishing rights, the master tapes, the legacy, everything. To this point they have done due diligence with Robert so Jimmy can do whatever he wants. Robert has NO recourse in an English court. Jimmy's an MBE, much money will likely be going to charity, no judge would balk at the tax income for England, and Jimmy's done more than due diligence and the door is still open for Robert. The name will likely be in play -- Led Zeppelin w/ (hopefully Chris Cornell!!!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross62 Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 No of course they aren't, and they were not at 02 - though they flashed the Led Zeppelin logo at the end of the show. Bonzo and Peter Grant gone, there cannot be a Led Zeppelin, truly. However, most have accepted Jason and the mantle with Jimmy, Robert and JP -- so it is Led Zeppelin 2008. Jimmy's vision and plans will not be detered by Robert, who most on this forum I think would agree should rethink his position. Based on experience working in media for the past 20 years, i would be telling Jimmy that he should use the name in some way and use it in a way that does not disenfranchise Robert. That's easy enough to do "The Led Zeppelin Project" - "Led Zeppelin and Friends" - "Presence: 40 yrs of Led Zeppelin" etc. This will be a 40th anniversary tour as well as a tour behind a new album, and who cares about selling the album anyway?? - the kids will buy the songs they want online. Only the diehard fans will buy an album. The name will be used in some way. I think Jimmy has laid down the gauntlet on this and Robert has declined. He will (and should) use the name in some way if only to sell tickets on the tour. A lot of that money will be going to charity anyway, so it is not really a big affront to the legacy. There is no Bonzo or Peter Grant in any case. Jimmy won't get too hung up over Plant, IMO. Nor should he.Mercurious,I don't see the relevant correlation to Peter Grant,surely Ahmet did more for the band.Anyway,your points about the name being used in some way has yet to be proved. There's only one thing I look forward to,and that's the music,forget everyone's shit-canning of a thing that will be,and wait for the finished product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 A lot of that money will be going to charity anyway, so it is not really a big affront to the legacy. There is no Bonzo or Peter Grant in any case. Jimmy won't get too hung up over Plant, IMO. Nor should he. Who told you that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 Jimmy controls the name rights, the publishing rights, the master tapes, the legacy, everything. To this point they have done due diligence with Robert so Jimmy can do whatever he wants. Robert has NO recourse in an English court. Jimmy's an MBE, much money will likely be going to charity, no judge would balk at the tax income for England, and Jimmy's done more than due diligence and the door is still open for Robert. Please, back ANY of this (and preferably all of it) up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reggie29 Posted November 1, 2008 Author Share Posted November 1, 2008 Jimmy controls the name rights, the publishing rights, the master tapes, the legacy, everything. To this point they have done due diligence with Robert so Jimmy can do whatever he wants. Robert has NO recourse in an English court. Jimmy's an MBE, much money will likely be going to charity, no judge would balk at the tax income for England, and Jimmy's done more than due diligence and the door is still open for Robert. The name will likely be in play -- Led Zeppelin w/ (hopefully Chris Cornell!!!) Do you really know what this means? Due diligence was a term introduced as part of the US Securities Act of 1933. In business transactions, the due diligence process varies for different types of companies. The relevant areas of concern may include the financial, legal, labor, tax, IT, environment and the market/commercial situation of the company. Other areas include intellectual property, real and personal property, insurance and liability coverage, debt instrument review, employee benefits, labor matters, immigration, and international transactions. Wikipedia 2008. Whether Jimmy owns all the "rights" you mentioned is immaterial because I doubt that Robert would have given up his songwriting credits and nobody appreciates his contribution as much as Jimmy does. I also doubt that it would end up in litigation. Though the perception is that the only way the US deals with things is in the courtroom. Johnny Cash said it best, "My name is Sue, how do you do?" I exercise due diligence everyday ensuring that my field staff return home safely by providing equipment that is compliant, reliable and safe, as do millions of others around the planet. I am a "Plant" & Asset manager after all! Please explain how due diligence has any bearing on this poll? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tophat Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*I*LOVE*JIMMY!! Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 No. So long as Plant is still alive, but is unwilling to take part, they should never call themselves Led Zeppelin. To do so would imply that Plant was a replaceable part of Led Zeppelin, which he is not. If anybody other than Jason Bonham was drumming, it would also be wrong.I totally agree!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinky Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 I don't neccasarily beleive they SHOULD or SHOULD NOT tour as Led Zeppelin, it's really a matter of what ever they want to do. If Plant comes to his senses and joins yes it should be Led Zeppelin, if not leave it up to Jimmy and John. Personally I want them to tour as Led Zeppelin, one reason being I will get to say I saw Led Zeppelin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercurious Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 I also doubt that it would end up in litigation. Though the perception is that the only way the US deals with things is in the courtroom. Johnny Cash said it best, "My name is Sue, how do you do?" I exercise due diligence everyday ensuring that my field staff return home safely by providing equipment that is compliant, reliable and safe, as do millions of others around the planet. I am a "Plant" & Asset manager after all! Please explain how due diligence has any bearing on this poll? I doubt it would end up in court. I just think they are going to use the name in some way and Jimmy is justified in doing so. In terms of the poll, it's part of my reasoning that, yes, they should use the name. Knebby: Likely, yes, there would be charities involved with a tour, don't you think? Any perception that Jimmy and John Paul are doing this for the money would be bad. A 40th Anniversary celebration of Led Zeppelin makes the sense. I don't know the internal setup of the Led Zeppelin corp., whether there is a board or how decisions are made, but Jimmy has been controlling the reissues and has been the goto person on most of the other uses of the music, such as working with Cameron Crowe on Almost Famous (Jimmy was on the set of the film for a couple of days). When Puff Daddy wanted to use Kashmir, he didn't call Robert or Jonesy -- he called Jimmy. Same with the London Olympics people - they called Jimmy. He's still the mastermind behind Led Zep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercurious Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 Mercurious,I don't see the relevant correlation to Peter Grant,surely Ahmet did more for the band.Anyway,your points about the name being used in some way has yet to be proved. There's only one thing I look forward to,and that's the music,forget everyone's shit-canning of a thing that will be,and wait for the finished product. Yeah, this comes up nearly every time I make the note about Peter Grant. I thought it was fairly well known that the band felt that Peter Grant was the fifth member. Jimmy said that over the years, many times during the life of Led Zep, not me. Grant was allotted a fantasy sequence in The Song Remains the Same for this reason. I wouldn't say Grant was in any way like George Martin, the fifth Beatle, or Ian Stewart, the sixth Stone or what David Briggs was to Neil Young, but Grant did quite a bit to build and maintain a cacoon within which Led Zeppelin could grow and freely create. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUCK'EYE' DOC Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 It is obvious to me after viewing "No Quarter, Unledded" that it is still Led Zeppelin with just Robert and Jimmy, but it can never be Led Zeppelin without Robert (or Jimmy for that matter). What makes Led Zeppelin unique is Robert's voice and lyrics and Jimmy's quitar riffs and creative producing. Without one or the other, it is just a band playing Led Zeppelin tunes. With that being said, I will rejoice at a tour with Jimmy, John, and Jason and any singer(s) that they deem worthy. We just need to be patient and quit speculating. I have posted similar views on other threads. This subject has been beaten to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roknroll 59 Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 No. So long as Plant is still alive, but is unwilling to take part, they should never call themselves Led Zeppelin. To do so would imply that Plant was a replaceable part of Led Zeppelin, which he is not. If anybody other than Jason Bonham was drumming, it would also be wrong. I totally agree without Robert Plant they can not be Led Zepplin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dzldoc Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 No Plant No Zep JMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ally Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 No Plant No Zep JMHO Agreed, no way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reggie29 Posted November 2, 2008 Author Share Posted November 2, 2008 It is obvious to me after viewing "No Quarter, Unledded" that it is still Led Zeppelin with just Robert and Jimmy, but it can never be Led Zeppelin without Robert (or Jimmy for that matter). What makes Led Zeppelin unique is Robert's voice and lyrics and Jimmy's quitar riffs and creative producing. Without one or the other, it is just a band playing Led Zeppelin tunes. With that being said, I will rejoice at a tour with Jimmy, John, and Jason and any singer(s) that they deem worthy. We just need to be patient and quit speculating. I have posted similar views on other threads. This subject has been beaten to death. First and foremost it was a simple yes or no question. If you read my initial post you would have realised the question was asked to gauge the overall consensus one way or the other, no more no less based on all the other threads. There is no speculation here. How can you say Led Zeppelin only consisted of P & P? JPJ is just as important as the others, who do you think arranged the music? So important that they needed an orchestra, acoustic guitarist, keyboard and bass player to fill the gap. I've seen Zep and P & P live and the difference WAS JPJ and of course Bonzo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercurious Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 First and foremost it was a simple yes or no question. If you read my initial post you would have realised the question was asked to gauge the overall consensus one way or the other, no more no less based on all the other threads. There is no speculation here. How can you say Led Zeppelin only consisted of P & P? JPJ is just as important as the others, who do you think arranged the music? So important that they needed an orchestra, acoustic guitarist, keyboard and bass player to fill the gap. I've seen Zep and P & P live and the difference WAS JPJ and of course Bonzo. Absolutely JPJ is just as important as the others. They weren't even sure about Robert early on and he was on the bubble to be canned for a while. No Quarter, In the Light, etc., etc. Jones and Jimmy wrote much of the music ... one of the reasons I'm so excited about them working together now on new material, and why I think they are justified in using the name in some way that does not disenfranchise Robert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 I doubt it would end up in court. I just think they are going to use the name in some way and Jimmy is justified in doing so. In terms of the poll, it's part of my reasoning that, yes, they should use the name. Knebby: Likely, yes, there would be charities involved with a tour, don't you think? Any perception that Jimmy and John Paul are doing this for the money would be bad. A 40th Anniversary celebration of Led Zeppelin makes the sense. I don't know the internal setup of the Led Zeppelin corp., whether there is a board or how decisions are made, but Jimmy has been controlling the reissues and has been the goto person on most of the other uses of the music, such as working with Cameron Crowe on Almost Famous (Jimmy was on the set of the film for a couple of days). When Puff Daddy wanted to use Kashmir, he didn't call Robert or Jonesy -- he called Jimmy. Same with the London Olympics people - they called Jimmy. He's still the mastermind behind Led Zep. Not true Mercurious. The band members or their representatives regularly have meetings regarding EVERYTHING to do with Zeppelin. Jimmy has no more say than any of the other members. None of your original post that I asked you to back up was true. And just because you think it would be a better idea if some of the money went to charity, you actually post as a FACT that it will do? Come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanie_72 Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 No, but the media will still refer to them as Led Zeppelin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.