Ok I just read this over at Billboard and I must say I'm a little put off by this... my very core is a bit shaken actually. ( OK I'm a bit dramatic yes but I am bothered ) It's hard enough to think about Zeppelin playing without John Bonham but with no Plant as well... I don't know... just doesn't seem right. Actually replacing ANY of the surviving members of Zeppelin just seems very wrong to me. I'm a huge Zeppelin fan, and would probably even give up my first born to see them live, but without Plant singing, it just wouldn't be Led Zeppelin.

I am also a big fan of Zeppelin. They are my number 1 band of all times. I have seen plant/page 2 times in Croatia. This story about the new singer didn't make me happy at all. I am not going to see that Zeppelin live just because it's not the real thing even if the singer is great. The greatest thing about them is that they didn't change line up for 20 years. That made them unique unlike Deep Purple where Ritchie Blackmore was changing people like socks everyday. I wish that Plant agrees to tour and I can finally go and see my favorite band before they are too old to play. Btw, Jason Bonham is great on drums.

I can't say I'm a huge fan of Zeppelin... But without Robert Plant: It's not Zeppelin!!

Edit: spelling

This post has been edited by Canis: Nov 1 2008, 10:59 PM

Led Zeppelin is also one of my favorite bands.

Good side of the story: they may actually go on tourney then...

Bad side of the story: It will not be Led Zeppelin, even if they keep the name. Just as example, Velvet Revolver is not Guns n' Roses and also to me Guns n' roses (axl and others) is not the real Guns n' roses....

This post has been edited by Gus: Nov 1 2008, 10:59 PM

I agree with you 100% Emir... and yes Jason seems amazing from the video I've seen from the O2 show back in December. I too hope that Plant agrees to tour, not really likely but I hope he changes his mind I know bands change, members leave and new ones come in but some members are just essential and it's just not right without them. I know folks who haven't listened to ACDC since Scott died cause it just isn't ACDC to them. Myles Kennedy is great with Alter Bridge, but as the singer for Led Zeppelin.... I don't know. I'll give a little credit though, at least they aren't looking for a Plant sound-alike, that would just be horrible.

without Plant you'd just stretch it to that they get to mess your first born up a lil' bit.

Led Zeppelin without Plant is nothing short of sacrilege
I saw a rescent interview with Plant (a Swedish made) where he claimed some other present projects, guess he's too involved there. If that's what's driving him, that's fine. Was rather hopeing others would prioritize their solo acts instead of going live with an uncomplete band.

Sounds weird, Zeppelin without Plant?
I guess it will be good music, but just another story. I was once going to a concert of Lenny Kravitz only for to see Robert Plant as an opening act. To see a complete Zeppelin show would be awesome!!

I'm glad to read that here are some other Zeppelin fans, i was thinking i'm old school

No Plant no deal actually... but to see Jimmy Page play I may give up my boyfriends left hand Hey I still need to be able to play guitar, right????

gotta agree here on this one not the same without good ol' Robert Plant!

And since Led Zeppelin has changed a member only once and they had to if they wanted to keep zeppelin going, I for some reason can't even believe they're even considering it!

I also think that Led Zeppelin was the greatest rock band of all time. And I'm sorry that Plant is not touring with them. It won't be the same.

Even I have seen led zep live at o2 arena in london and i detest them.

Incomprehensible ... Replacing John with Jason?, ok, his dad isn't with us anymore, but Plant???? C'mon !!!

Well it would of sounded different either way. You think over the years plants voice has to have changed (Which it has). Plus you can't blame the other 3. Plant said he didn't want to rejoin led zeppelin. But still it isnt led zeppelin without him.

Plant's voice has changed but he can still rock. He proved in O2 arena in London that they can do an excellent show. He has the most unique voice of all legendary rock bands from 70's and a replacement would never sound like that. Brian May has done a clever move with Paul Rodgers. Great singer and very popular but his task wasn't to copy Freddy. They also play "Bad Company" and "Free" songs. Only that option was the right one and they sound great. I don't think this would work for Zeppelin though.

I was going to make a strong negative post here until I read that Myles Kennedy was going to be the reaplacement.. I 'm a big fan of him, his band Alter Bridge and this could mean him coming to sing in Argentina. But I preffer him coming with Alter Bridge and not making covers.
However Led Zeppelin is one of my favourite bands of all times and this shouldn't be named "Led Zeppelin". It's like a tribute... It's the same than the new "Queen". Queen doesn't exist without Freddy Mercury so I'm not interested in going to the show.

They changed their name to Queen with Paul Rodgers to be fair to Queen

And they did put on a great show - but yes, it was more like a cover band without Freddy

Well who knows what the guys are thinking, maybe they just don't wanna do that kind of work or just are tired, I can't blame them really. They will not sound as before that's for sure tho.

I've thought about this most of last night and this morning... like I said this has really bothered me. I had a rather heated debate about it as well with some friends (btw alcohol and some discussions should just be avoided ie: religion, politics and apparently fave rock bands can be added to the list based on my experience last night )

When I sat back and actually thought about some of my favourites I realized that a good many of them have had a line up changes in some way, shape or form. Black Sabbath, Guns N' Roses, Metallica, Queen, ACDC just to name a few. Whether it be due to a death, arguments, drugs, whatever; bands can be very finicky and well crap happens and people/bands break up. Now sometimes it works look at ACDC. Brian Johnson comes in after the death of Bon Scott and the band is arguable bigger then it ever was... remember I said bigger not better Now some feel that Brian Johnson is just a sound alike for Scott but no matter how you feel ACDC is still around with that line up and going strong. I'd go see them any night of the week. Then you look at say GNR. They kick Adler out due to his drug problem... kinda ironic if you think about it... replace him with Matt. Still a great band though. Izzy leaves and they have a couple people replace him most notably Gilby Clarke... still a great band. Then Axl has a melt down, the band breaks up but Axl goes on using the name with his new band of merry men while Slash, Duff and Matt go on to form Velvet Revolver. Really no one should have the GNR name, but Axl owns the brand so we have to deal but I'll never go see them... to me he's using the name just to sell tickets.

Bands change lineups, great bands change lineups, so why is this Led Zeppelin change bothering me so????

I think it's due to the fact that when John Bonham passed away the guys said it just wouldn't be right to go on without him. Things were different and it just wouldn't be right. So then in 1985 you have Live Aid where John Paul Jones, Robert Plant, and Jimmy Page agree to play as it's a good cause.... note they didn't call themselves Led Zeppelin or say it was a reunion, the media however did but I believe they were billed using their names not the band. Phil Collins played drums and well Jimmy Page still says it was a horrible idea. Page and Plant played a few times together, and even though they played Led Zeppelin material, they didn't call themselves Led Zeppelin. Then you have the O2 arena show in which they came together to pay respect to a man who basically launched their career. Using the name Led Zeppelin, with John Bonhams son on drums... still not the same but Jason channeled his father that night and I'm sure Bonzo was looking on with a huge smile. This is what people got excited for. This line up, this is who people want to see now. Page, Jones, Plant and Bonham.. albeit Jason but still this is now Zeppelin. Plant may not be able to wail like he once could but it's still Plant. Without him there is no Zeppelin, just like it wouldn't be Zeppelin if Page or Jones had decided to back out. Tour sure, sing Zeppelin material sure but after all this time give the people what they want... and that includes PLANT not a replacement.

sorry for my rant

rok

Edit: Just had another thought... do you think it has more of an effect on a band if the lead singer is replaced for whatever reason? Or is it based more on who people perceive is the heart and soul of the group. (like people think Slash and Co should use GNR not Axl for example) A lead singer switch is certainly a big deal I think just for the fact that your use to songs being sung a certain way, so to hear them sung by someone else is just weird sometimes. Like I can't think of anyone other then Jagger singing for The Stones (much like I can't see anyone but plant singing for LZ) Or is this just cause they are who I associate with being the essential part of the group? (I hope this makes sense)

This post has been edited by rokchik: Nov 2 2008, 06:21 PM

Led Zeppelin without plant is not Zeppelin.
Just like The Misfits without Danzig, or Van Halen without David Lee Roth, or RHCP when they didn't have Frusciante. I think you get my point.