I am, they could have found a new drummer and carried on, lots of bands have done it. I think it was in good taste and left them as giants in rock. Any thoughts:)

I am, they could have found a new drummer and carried on, lots of bands have done it. I think it was in good taste and left them as giants in rock. Any thoughts:)
Yep..it was time. I only wish some other  bands would hang it up....like the rolling stones :P

Yep..it was time. I only wish some other  bands would hang it up....like the rolling stones :P



agreed ;)

I agree with you guys on this.  :)

If they had carried on, I would've expected a name change. Some bandds I really get mad at when losing a  key member...they keep the name! The guys left from the plane crash, for Lynyrd Skynyrd, were decent enough to continue as "Rossington/Collins for a time but now they're, IMHO, be greedy jerks by using the Skynyrd name...even though Ronnie's brother is on lead...I can't get with them at all. I also think AC/DC should've changed names along with Van Halen, Genisis...etc.

I also think AC/DC should've changed names along with Van Halen, Genisis...etc.



I don't know Mark, where do you draw the line, with Genesis, Peter Gabriel decided to leave the band and Phil was already there,  he just stepped up and fronted them, and by the early 80's it wasn't Genesis anymore, but I think their early post Gabriel stuff is good. Back to Zeppelin though, if they had of carried on recording and touring, should they have kept the name? I don't know :)

I don't know Mark, where do you draw the line, with Genesis, Peter Gabriel decided to leave the band and Phil was already there,  he just stepped up and fronted them, and by the early 80's it wasn't Genesis anymore, but I think their early post Gabriel stuff is good. Back to Zeppelin though, if they had of carried on recording and touring, should they have kept the name? I don't know :)

That's true...Genisis is a bad example to my point. AC/DC, Skynyrd and of course those greedy Doors are better examples of what I mean...also Journey :-\\

AC/DC, Skynyrd and of course those greedy Doors are better examples of what I mean...also Journey :-\\


Another example of this is the current CCR that's touring, CCR as in Creedance Clearwater Revisted, it is the bass player and the drummer that have this new band, so they changed the name just a little but when I hear CCR I think John Fogerty. I guess I'm kind of on the fence with this issue of bands touring with less than the original lineup :)

More on the topic of bands keeping their name due to a major lineup change then Zeppelin per-se, but to me it's not cut & dry.  Yes, there are a lot of bands that should say "well gee...we've got one original member, and it's a tamborine player who's not on stage half the time because she's too drunk to stand...I guess we're a new band now..." (and yes, this is a hypothetical example...), and yes such should be a new band.  But look at the Stones...ignoring that they should figure out that it's time to retire, should they have changed their name when Brian Jones died?  I wouldn't say so, even though he was at least a fairly major member.  Having said that, in some cases the death of one member should mean that yes, if the rest of the guys continue the band should at least kick around a new name...The Doors as sited before is a classic example, either right after Jim Morrison died or this so called "21st Century Doors" lineup.  Maybe...if there is anything somewhat clear cut, it would be if a band's frontman/leader is gone/dead, and if the band is signifigantly changed due to said loss, then said band should retire gracefully, and if they wish to keep playing at least adopt a new name.  Might seem weird to use a grunge band as an example, but it would have been absurd for Nirvana to continue after Kurt Cobain's death, even if he was just one person.  (Of course, they only had three  members, but even if they had a larger band this would probably be true).

But to play devil's advocate with myself, what if a band sincerely stays together, even after losing a front man, not due to greed or just a desire for a paycheck, but as a tribute to a lost friend and bandmate, knowing they risk being seen as a sell out?  Guess intent would come into it too...do they SEEM sincere in a desire to just keep playing, or are the milking a cash cow in hopes they keep a paycheck coming in?

After Bonham died I dont think Zeppelin could have found a drummer with the same style as Bonzo's. I mean, I can hear Bonham playing the drums without any other acompanyment and I can tell its him. He has that Lazy feel to his playing, even though it is anything but. So, yes, I am glad that Zeppelin called it a day. I would have loved it if they could have had more new studio albums with Bonham, but, apart from CODA, that was impossible.  If they had gotten another drummer who could fill Bonhams shoes artistically, the chemestry would not have been the same, so the recordings and their live performances would have been drastically altered. Besides, them calling it a day at the time that they did has kept their mystique and has kept them an icon of seventies rock music. They are and always will be a seventies band (even though they began in the late 60's). Now, this does not mean that I wouldnt go and see Led Zeppelin if they reformed, hell of course I would. I managed to see Robert Plant perform back in the early 90's and he did many Zeppelin songs, but it wasnt the same, and infact he even said that it could never be the same as a 1970's Led Zeppelin concert.

Other bands that have continued to this day dont seem to have a time into which they can be placed. The Beatles are definately 60's. Wings are definately 70's. The Who are 60's and 70's (yet even though they do tour today, they are one band that never seems to get to old to smash a guitar or spit out bad language during their songs). The Stones, their best stuff was in the 70's, but they are a 60's band, and their material after Tatoo You is shameful. Pink Floyd are another band who, after the departure of Rodger Walters definately still have relevance, although I prefer to see Rodger Waters solo performances that a David Gilmore Floyd concert.
The Doors, touring without Jim Morrison, should be known as the 'Door Knobs'.


JMO



AN

The Stones, their best stuff was in the 70's, but they are a 60's band, and their material after Tatoo You is shameful.



10 or 15 years ago I wanted them to hang it up,  now they've come this far I say keep going till they drop. Prop Keith up with a smoke in his mouth, give Charlie a rockin chair behind his drums and start booking stadiums for the 2010 tour :)

10 or 15 years ago I wanted them to hang it up,  now they've come this far I say keep going till they drop. Prop Keith up with a smoke in his mouth, give Charlie a rockin chair behind his drums and start booking stadiums for the 2010 tour :)


Well...I do like the Stones...but to be honest, Poor Keith is starting to literally look like the undead.  I've actually referred to him as a "boozepyre" a few times...i.e. a Vampyre who lives off of booze instead of blood.  So...I guess as much as I like them, I really don't see the need for new material from them.

Not flaming here, just throwing in my opinion.  ;)

Well...I do like the Stones...but to be honest, Poor Keith is starting to literally look like the undead.  I've actually referred to him as a "boozepyre" a few times...i.e. a Vampyre who lives off of booze instead of blood.  So...I guess as much as I like them, I really don't see the need for new material from them.

Not flaming here, just throwing in my opinion.  ;)




I know what your saying, but they seemed to have gone beyond that point of being a bit of a joke ;) so let them keep touring, I agree though, we don't need any more new material from them :)

yes

While I think that Jimmy, Robert, Bonzo and John Paul were some of the most influential, innovation, highly talented musicans ever to play together, the 80S did bad stuff to music in general.  Even though I was never a fan of Steve Miller, listen to his stuff from the 70S then go and listen to "Abra Cadabra".  Theres a HUGE difference.  I think that its probably a good thing that they never actually recorded a new album in the 80S because they possibly could have ruined the sound that we all love.  You could already hear the beginnings of HEAVY synth on presence and especially In Though The Out Door.  Of course there isn't really a definite Zeppelin sound, but i know i expect to hear the actual band members when i listen to Zeppelin, who by the way are my favorite band, no one surpasses them for me.  But i think that the 80S would have only served to ruin what i love about zeppelin.  No one would be so infatuated with them if the last thing we remember from them sounded like Soft Cell, not that everyone doesnt love "Tainted Love".  No synthized sound could ever replace Jimmy and human error and emotion that make songs as good as they are.

I am, they could have found a new drummer and carried on, lots of bands have done it. I think it was in good taste and left them as giants in rock. Any thoughts:)

I agree it was the right thing to do, I however am not glad, but saddened they did the right thing

I love Led Zeppelin but they would NEVER be able to really replace John Bonham...He (as well as the also-deceased Keith Moon)had one H*LL of a talent for creating a HUGE drum sound....Bonham played the s*it outta those drums..

I'm glad that Zepplin called it.  For  a while I thought they might try and go out with Jason Bonham on drums.  Glad that they didn't.
Did anyone see the new Roger Water's interview in Rolling Stone?  He just can't seem to put the past behind Him even after Live 8.  It kind of pisses Me off.  I don't expect a Pink Floyd tour or anything but,  after what They just did fighting about petty ante crap or insecurities amongst band  members just seems silly.  Roger needs a boot to the head or something to make Him let go of things.  I've seen them all Pink Floyd and Roger and they are all fantastic.  Roger is a Genius but,  They should not give fans the idea that they have a new found amount of good will for each other if they really don't. :(

I saw Page and Plant a few years back and while it was good to see them together..Jimmy still rocks..BUT Robert Plants voice is really BAD now..he cant hit the notes at all anymore and it was really sad..

Yeah, I'm glad they called it quits. When you consider the fact that Coda sucked, if they had continued they might have ruined their legacy.

This is an old post, but figured I'd reply to this. ;)


While I think that Jimmy, Robert, Bonzo and John Paul were some of the most influential, innovation, highly talented musicans ever to play together, the 80S did bad stuff to music in general. Even though I was never a fan of Steve Miller, listen to his stuff from the 70S then go and listen to "Abra Cadabra". Theres a HUGE difference. I think that its probably a good thing that they never actually recorded a new album in the 80S because they possibly could have ruined the sound that we all love. You could already hear the beginnings of HEAVY synth on presence and especially In Though The Out Door. Of course there isn't really a definite Zeppelin sound, but i know i expect to hear the actual band members when i listen to Zeppelin, who by the way are my favorite band, no one surpasses them for me. But i think that the 80S would have only served to ruin what i love about zeppelin. No one would be so infatuated with them if the last thing we remember from them sounded like Soft Cell, not that everyone doesnt love "Tainted Love". No synthized sound could ever replace Jimmy and human error and emotion that make songs as good as they are.


I see this POV but I gotta disagree.

The 80's are my favorite time for music - and alot of 60s/70s bands were re-inventing themselves with new hits in the 80's. I personally loved that! Sometimes they completely changed and were total "80s" (i.e. Starship) but other times, they had shades of their old sound mixed with 80's styles (i.e. John Fogerty's solo work).

While I've never been much of a Zeppelin fan, I do think if they were around in the 80's, they'd have sounded more like Fogerty, Georgia Satellites or a heavier Huey Lewis than to new wave.

Maybe it would be a mix of the two, though (based on some of Plant's solo work -- I love "Tall Cool one!").

Point is, I think an 80's incarnation of their sound would've only broadened their audience.