guitarmy Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 So I just typed up a million reasons why Led Zeppelin can move on without Robert Plant. Unfortunately, I lost them due to some copy/paste hijinks. The crux of my arguments was this: -Page and Jones always did the composing/producing, so that's covered already. -Plant pretty much just added words and had a pretty voice, working with what Page/Jones started. -Plant has matured and is now more musically inclined, so it's natural he wouldn't accept a lesser role today. I really do love Robert, but I think he is the easiest to replace given the natural creation of a Led Zeppelin song. ... I'll have to regurgitate my anecdotes to these comments as you guys flame me for them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquamarine Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 No flaming, but -Page and Jones always did the composing/producing, so that's covered already. -Plant pretty much just added words and had a pretty voice, working with what Page/Jones started. Writing the lyrics is half of composing. That's why so many of them are credited to Page/Plant. I agree with you that's there's no reason whatsoever that the guys can't move on and do some great work. But not as Led Zeppelin--it will be a different band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 Robert didn't just write the lyrics ,he also wrote the melodies. Try humming the songs without them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 So I just typed up a million reasons why Led Zeppelin can move on without Robert Plant. Unfortunately, I lost them due to some copy/paste hijinks. The crux of my arguments was this: -Page and Jones always did the composing/producing, so that's covered already. -Plant pretty much just added words and had a pretty voice, working with what Page/Jones started. -Plant has matured and is now more musically inclined, so it's natural he wouldn't accept a lesser role today. I really do love Robert, but I think he is the easiest to replace given the natural creation of a Led Zeppelin song. ... I'll have to regurgitate my anecdotes to these comments as you guys flame me for them! Well I think Robert's contributions to the success of Zep were more than just some words and I'd disagree that he or any of them are easy to replace. It was the chemistry of the four of them that made the band what they were. Had the singer not been Robert, for example, Zep would have sounded very different and the songs we know from them probably wouldn't have happened. I do absolutely support (and want) the guys to go out and make music. Been far too long from Jimmy indeed. I just don't want to see it as Zep unless Robert were on board which I'm assuming is not the case given what Jimmy said. Just my two pence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guitarmy Posted November 3, 2008 Author Share Posted November 3, 2008 Writing the lyrics is half of composing. That's why so many of them are credited to Page/Plant. I agree with you that's there's no reason whatsoever that the guys can't move on and do some great work. But not as Led Zeppelin--it will be a different band. I guess since it'd already be different even if Robert did want to include himself, then why not go one step further? The only exception I could make is, "No Jimmy Page, No Led Zeppelin". This is because Jimmy was the first New Yardbird, and he was the guy who put together this Led Zeppelin group. So I don't see why he can't put another one together. This would not be without precedent in rock band history. Couple things: 1. How can it be half of composing when there are 4 band members? It seems like at the most it would be one quarter of the composing. I'm sure it really depends on the song though. 2. How do you write or record a melody without an instrument? Did Plant just go, "hey Jimmy/John Paul/John, try to do something like this": mhmmm hmmmmm hmm hmm hmmm hm hmm hmm ahmm mhmm If you listen to a lot of the studio outtakes, you find that Plant is just adding words to a near finished product. If this is the case with most Led Zeppelin music, then I don't see why someone else can't fill this role. I seem to remember some Led Zeppelin quote coming from Page or Jones about how everyone wanted to interview Robert because he was the frontman, the guy everyone noticed first. But that the real initial creative driving force was mostly Page and Jones. Anyways, I know it sounds terrible, but if Plant doesn't want to go on with Led Zeppelin, then we as fans should let someone else try it under the usual brand name, if that's what Jimmy, John, and Jason want to do. If they called it Led Zeppelin, I would accept for the reasons mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Do you think that all Robert was about in Zep was penning the lyrics? Take him out of the equation and do you think Zep would have sounded at all like they did or those songs would have happened? I think the creative force of the band was all FOUR of them, not just Jimmy and John Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guitarmy Posted November 3, 2008 Author Share Posted November 3, 2008 Well I think Robert's contributions to the success of Zep were more than just some words and I'd disagree that he or any of them are easy to replace. It was the chemistry of the four of them that made the band what they were. Had the singer not been Robert, for example, Zep would have sounded very different and the songs we know from them probably wouldn't have happened. I do absolutely support (and want) the guys to go out and make music. Been far too long from Jimmy indeed. I just don't want to see it as Zep unless Robert were on board which I'm assuming is not the case given what Jimmy said. Just my two pence. Yeah you have a point about the band turning out different without him. I suppose what I'm talking about here is a new beginning for Led Zeppelin. The "Without Robert" years. I wouldn't say Robert is easy to replace. I'd say he'd be near impossible to replace. But that doesn't mean I don't think they shouldn't try. It looks like the 3J's have been doing that in at least some capacity. There's no way these guys aren't going to not play Zeppelin tunes at shows, so they need to find someone who can replace/fill Robert's singing/writing role. He's not replaceable, but you have to go with someone. John Bonham wasn't replaceable either, but they had to go with someone. So why not Plant as well? Robert Plant may still be among the living, but as far as Led Zeppelin goes, he is dead. So why not move on without him under the Led Zeppelin name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Yeah you have a point about the band turning out different without him. I suppose what I'm talking about here is a new beginning for Led Zeppelin. The "Without Robert" years. I wouldn't say Robert is easy to replace. I'd say he'd be near impossible to replace. But that doesn't mean I don't think they shouldn't try. It looks like the 3J's have been doing that in at least some capacity. There's no way these guys aren't going to not play Zeppelin tunes at shows, so they need to find someone who can replace/fill Robert's singing/writing role. He's not replaceable, but you have to go with someone. John Bonham wasn't replaceable either, but they had to go with someone. So why not Plant as well? Robert Plant may still be among the living, but as far as Led Zeppelin goes, he is dead. So why not move on without him under the Led Zeppelin name? I'm all for the three Js working with someone else and forging ahead as a new venture and therefore looking for a singer not as a replacement for Plant but as someone who will fit whatever it is they're doing. I just don't think the venture should be Zep but I don't think they do either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquamarine Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 But even better, why not move on without him NOT under the Zeppelin name, since this is essentially a new band? Nothing to stop them doing Zep songs, any more than there's anything to stop Robert doing them in his solo career (without calling himself "Robert Plant of Led Zeppelin" or whatever). Btw, regarding composing, I take the people who wrote the songs to be the composers, and all four of them didn't write every song. But I was unaware until Knebby posted it that Robert had such significant input on the melodies too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperDave Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Robert didn't just write the lyrics ,he also wrote the melodies. Try humming the songs without them. That doesn't surprise me, considering how good some of the melodies are on some of his solo albums. Especially on Fate of Nations for example, with that mid to late 60's San Francisco sound that is quite prevalent there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanelectroGod Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Let's face it, nothing new will be Led Zeppelin even with Robert. Without Bonzo, 1/4 of the band is gone. Now with Robert out of it, your down to1/2. I think it's time to support the 3, but also accept that Robert Plant felt that there's no point to this. Has anyone else wondered that behind the scenes, Robert viewed what being created, and or suggested being sh*t? Or on the other hand, maybe we all are being fooled and Robert is going to do it. I really could see that happen as well. Either way, it sucks to see people bash any of the guys. I'm just thankful that they're active and perhaps will shake things up with something new and fresh...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guitarmy Posted November 3, 2008 Author Share Posted November 3, 2008 I'm all for the three Js working with someone else and forging ahead as a new venture and therefore looking for a singer not as a replacement for Plant but as someone who will fit whatever it is they're doing. I just don't think the venture should be Zep but I don't think they do either. I don't think they will call it Led Zeppelin without Robert, but I would support them if they did. I suppose that's the overall point I'm trying to make. Since Robert doesn't want to have anything to do with it, then I think the remaining members should have complete control to call it whatever they want. Just because the band doesn't have all of it's original members doesn't mean you can't call it Led Zeppelin. That was proved at the O2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 They can't have complete control. If they call it Led Zeppelin Robert will have a say and a percentage. Simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mernie Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Robert didn't just write the lyrics ,he also wrote the melodies. Try humming the songs without them. I wonder if any of the Robert-bashers have ever tried to write lyrics and melody? I've heard that some songwriters compare it to childbirth (not that male songwriters would know what that's like!). I wouldn't call myself a musician but I do play piano and sing and have tried to write before, and I've never been able to. I really think it's a God-given gift. And I'm not talking about the ability to come up with some mediocre rhyme, which a lot of people could do, but crafting a song of the quality that Led Zeppelin would record and perform is a different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guitarmy Posted November 3, 2008 Author Share Posted November 3, 2008 They can't have complete control. If they call it Led Zeppelin Robert will have a say and a percentage. Simple as that. Yeah but I don't think Robert is that selfish. If Robert truly wants nothing to do with it, then he wouldn't accept any money from something he didn't take part in. He could sign the rights to any new works over to the new group. This of course assumes that the 3J's want to call it Led Zeppelin. I make this assumption because most of us assume the 3J's don't want to call it Led Zeppelin. But what if they do? I'm saying "that's ok with me". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guitarmy Posted November 3, 2008 Author Share Posted November 3, 2008 I wonder if any of the Robert-bashers have ever tried to write lyrics and melody? I've heard that some songwriters compare it to childbirth (not that male songwriters would know what that's like!). I wouldn't call myself a musician but I do play piano and sing and have tried to write before, and I've never been able to. I really think it's a God-given gift. And I'm not talking about the ability to come up with some mediocre rhyme, which a lot of people could do, but crafting a song of the quality that Led Zeppelin would record and perform is a different story. I want to make it clear that I don't think that considering a Led Zeppelin without Robert Plant is bashing. I'm trying to look at alternatives and the rationalization of making it happen. It sounds like you have at least some idea with what music is about, so I'd call you a musician. Maybe you aren't producing anything or rely on it as a profession. But I think you are a musician in some degree. Childbirth? I wonder how many women who've had children compare it like this. ... When it comes to writing a melody, I was wondering how one goes about writing a melody if they aren't playing an instrument? Also, in Robert's case, which songs did Robert write the melody? And which album was the first album he wrote all the lyrics for a song? I'm not trying to minimize what Robert has done, but I think it's provable that Led Zeppelin can move on without him. It's clear that he wants to do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mernie Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 I want to make it clear that I don't think that considering a Led Zeppelin without Robert Plant is bashing. I'm trying to look at alternatives and the rationalization of making it happen. I'd like to make clear that I definitely did not intend to imply that you're a Robert basher. So sorry if it came across that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guitarmy Posted November 3, 2008 Author Share Posted November 3, 2008 I'd like to make clear that I definitely did not intend to imply that you're a Robert basher. So sorry if it came across that way. It's all good. I didn't think you were, but since you brought it up about Robert bashing, I just wanted to take the time to make sure the air is clear of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstork Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Walking Into Clarksdale was fantastic, although it lacked that special something that Jones brings, and perhaps represented Page playing Plant music a tad more than the other way around in my opinion. Page and Jones will miss that special something that Plant brings, no matter who winds up singing. But that doesn't mean it can't be great. By the way, has anyone here ever heard the song Crackback from Jonesy's Scream for Help soundtrack? It featured Jimmy and was just a kickass riff. If this sounds anything like that I'll be very pleased! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeppeina_ZoSo Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 So I just typed up a million reasons why Led Zeppelin can move on without Robert Plant. Unfortunately, I lost them due to some copy/paste hijinks. The crux of my arguments was this: -Page and Jones always did the composing/producing, so that's covered already. -Plant pretty much just added words and had a pretty voice, working with what Page/Jones started. -Plant has matured and is now more musically inclined, so it's natural he wouldn't accept a lesser role today. I really do love Robert, but I think he is the easiest to replace given the natural creation of a Led Zeppelin song. ... I'll have to regurgitate my anecdotes to these comments as you guys flame me for them! well...actually not, well... no one of led zeppelin can be reply well.... WAAAAAAA no one!! and..i so sad that plant don't wanna doa tour ¬¬ but...ble... i gonna see them anyway!!! bwoahahaaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquamarine Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 well...actually not, well... no one of led zeppelin can be reply well.... WAAAAAAA no one!! and..i so sad that plant don't wanna doa tour ¬¬ but...ble... i gonna see them anyway!!! bwoahahaaha Come again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynn Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Come again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guitarmy Posted November 4, 2008 Author Share Posted November 4, 2008 But even better, why not move on without him NOT under the Zeppelin name, since this is essentially a new band? I don't think it will be much of a new band, at least not the first album. The reason is because I think that the 3Js were initially planning for Robert to come aboard at some point. This means they were writing material, perhaps, with Robert in mind. Think about the first two albums. Creatively speaking, it was mostly Page because the band was still coming to equilibrium. I have a feeling this album will be much of the same without Robert on board, because even with him on board for I&II, it was still so Page influenced. I think that all things Led Zeppelin begin with Page, because that was the way it happened in the first start of Led Zeppelin. What we have here is a new beginning. I think that the 3Js were waiting for Plant to come on board, and that their original preparation was a new Led Zeppelin album. Since that was where this started (supposedly), that's why I think we can also accept this band as Led Zeppelin, if they so choose. I think we're smart enough to know which is which. ... Do you think Robert would be opposed to calling the new band Led Zeppelin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justfred Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Jimmy Page And John Paul Jones new album will be so much better then that completely terrible sounding and boring songs that was walking into clarksdale album. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guitarmy Posted November 4, 2008 Author Share Posted November 4, 2008 Jimmy Page And John Paul Jones new album will be so much better then that completely terrible sounding and boring songs that was walking into clarksdale album. Careful now... I see I'm not the only one who walks a fine line between bashing and constructive criticism. It's hard to tell which side the both of us are 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.