I hope this isn't true.


Yet more Led Zeppelin rumours regarding the band's full reunion, as a new report claims the rest of the group are looking for a replacement for frontman Robert Plant.

It has already claimed the veteran rockers have been rehearsing without the singer, but now a source tells The Sun newspaper: "They've been rehearsing frequently in London and the band is really gelling."

"There's an American guy who has been standing in for Robert regularly and doing a great job. Obviously they want the original frontman to join them on the road but he still won't commit."

The insider also hinted a tour is on the cards afterall: "They will be finalising plans for shows over the next couple of months and will tell Robert that if he doesn't want to be involved they will go ahead without him."

Led Zeppelin without Plant and Bonham is not Led Zeppelin.

The Doors without Jim Morrison is not The Doors.

And so on.

I have no problem with Jason filling in for his father, but I have no interest in seeing someone else singing.


Ray Manzarek and Robby Krieger Have been performing Doors' material lately under the name "Riders on the Storm". I think there was a lawsuit involved to keep them from referring to the "Doors".

Planty says it is on the backburner just now cos he is touring with country warbler Alison Krauss. My bet is that when that tour is done he will turn his eye to Led Zep and the mega millions to be made there!

Yeah, this is kind of like the lame-ass tours the Who do with just Pete and Roger.

You know, sometimes it's not bad, if there is a different drummer or back-up singer, BUT the lead singer? Plant's voice is so "necessary" IMHO. It's distinctive and I simply can't imagine anyone else taking the lead in the group.

Btw, I'm not up on their personal life, but why isn't Robert Plant touring with the group? He's not ill is he? I love that man's voice.



TIS

Plant is is having a very successful tour/career right now with Alison Krauss. He seems to be more interested in her than Zeppelin.

http://www.robertplantalisonkrauss.com/site.php

I don't know, I have to disagree, I think. I mean, if a band-member leaves, and a new member is brought in during the band's "active" state, that's understandable. But when a band breaks up and then offers a reunion of sorts, under the bands name... I kind of feel like all parties have to participate to use that name. I mean, John Bonham is arguably one of the most influential drummers of all time, and he was maybe one of the most important members of the band. Now he's dead, and they used the name without him. OK, I'll let it slide, but it still bothers me. A band is like a collaborative effort, and the sound the achieved can be accredited to each member. Again, this is my quarrel with the Who reunions... It's just two dudes who happened to be in the band, playing together again.

Let's put it this way... Ringo Starr; extremely minimalistic on the drums (not that that's necessarily a bad thing), something of a poor song-writer, and obviously the weakest link in the band. Would it really be the Beatles without him? I say nay. His personality influenced the band quite a bit, I think.

It's like if Roger Waters tried to tour under the name Pink Floyd. Yeah, he wrote mostly all of the songs, he's the most talented member of the band, so on and so forth, but come the fuck on. I saw Roger Waters live two years back, and it was amazing. But it was quite obviously established that it was not to be perceived as a Floyd show. I mean, he played mostly Floyd songs, he even played all of Dark Side... But it still had his spin on it, and quite noticeably. That, I can live with.

They should just call it a Page and Jones tour. But classic rock is way too cocky for that.

I wonder who actually has the rights to tour and perform as "Led Zeppelin"?

Jimmy Page is pretty sharp when it comes to looking out for his own interests. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that he had those rights.

I agree that it's best if all the key members who created a band or group are there when it reforms but sometimes greed and bitterness get in the way.

When the Jackson Five left Motown, Berry Gordy told them they couldn't use that name any more. I've lost count of how many "Temptations" groups are out there now. I don't know if John Fogerty ever put an end to all the lawsuits and name disputes over Credence Clearwater Revival...

LLC,

Yea, I see your point. Yet it is the lead singer for the most part that "stands out" in the group. The Doors, for instance....without Jim Morrison where could they go? Same with LZ. You hear Plant's voice and you KNOW what group it is. Know what I mean?

Then again, like you say, Ringo's personaliy (not only drumming talents) IS a part of the group. True. Of course our preference would always be to keep the original group in tact.

TIS

Old Planty's album with Krauss is quite good actually,i bought it for my mother and did myself a copy.

I would still rather hear him warbling for Led Zep though...

Oh, no, I totally agree with you. I just don't agree with how lead singers are instantly regarded as the center of the band, when in actuality, many of them are the least talented member of the group. In Zeppelin's case, Bonham was clearly the most talented (but all four of them are extremely good at what they do), but they just parade around without him anyways. I mean, this past reunion show was actually a good idea and a nice surprise, and John's son played drums, so it wasn't too big of a deal. But two out of four members is not enough to constitute a reunion tour.

But again, I think this all goes back to how cocky classic rock is. With most bands of the era, I love their music but I absolutely hate the personalities of the band members. I recall seeing a video from Woodstock 1994 in which Pete Townshend basically announced he was better than Hendrix for not over-dosing on drugs, in a very sardonic and round-about way.

Well considering the way she looks I'd be more interested in her than Zeppelin too.


I've never liked Led Zeppelin and Robert Plants voice has always irritated me, but I'll admit Led Zeppelin touring without Plant is just not normal.

A Milan brokerage, which wasn’t named, encouraged about 100 investors to buy the shares based on insider information or false news, police said. Unidentified shareholders would then sell when the stock rose, officials said.


*spammer sig removed - GFY*

I remember some years ago when Page and Plant toured and John Paul Jones wondered if they had "lost his number."

I really don't see the point of touring as Led Zeppelin. The closest they could get is the remaining three members plus Bonham's kid.

Not even this guy could get Plant tour as Robert Plant of Led Zeppelin, because Plant's doin' his own thing now.

Amen to that brother.

No way he could call any band Led Zeppelin without Plant. Page has got to be 70 years old now or close to it. There is a real good chance that the next time him and Plant perform Stairway to Heaven together they will actually be in heaven. Plant has said for years he's not interested in reviving Zeppelin. Reality to Jimmy, it's not going to happen.

If they're still alive maybe Page could hook up with Ginger Baker and Jack Bruce. That would be pretty interesting. Or if he wants to keep JPJ on bass then maybe the next time Steven Tyler and Joe Perry go to war he could grab Tyler as his lead singer. They're pretty friendly and have jammed before. That would be pretty cool too. Page on guitar, JPJ on bass, Ginger Baker on drums and Steven Tyler on vocals.

But all those guys are old and i have a feeling they might have a couple year window but after that it's over. Finito.

And Lynyrd Skynyrd without Ronnie Van Zant is not Lynyrd Skynyrd. I don't care that his little brother took his place. Ronnie was the heart and soul of Skynyrd.

RIP Ronnie