BuffettNews.com

Even if Plant were to agree I just can't see it, nor would I want to. I want to hang on to my memories of them when they were at the top. I am afraid that this would just be sad to see because there is no way they will be as good, or even close to as good, as they once were. Plant is the only smart one to realize that. I think Plant that is why he has been performing songs with Krause because he knows what his voice can handle.

momsrule27 wrote:Even if Plant were to agree I just can't see it, nor would I want to. I want to hang on to my memories of them when they were at the top. I am afraid that this would just be sad to see because there is no way they will be as good, or even close to as good, as they once were. Plant is the only smart one to realize that. I think Plant that is why he has been performing songs with Krause because he knows what his voice can handle.

To the contrary, the 02 concert showed they still have it beyond a shadow of a doubt but the only way forward is by creating new music rather than banking on nostalgia as far too many bands are already doing. As far as Plant working with Krauss, it has nothing whatsoever to do with his voice. They first met at a Leadbelly tribute and expressed an interest in working with each other afterwards which led to Raising Sand. He can still rock with the best of them, the 02 concert and his most recent album, The Mighty Rearranger are prime evidence of that. Can he still hit the notes he once did in his 20s with Zeppelin? Of course not but he's still one of the best rock vocalists out there.

Tiki Torches wrote:

MonumentBeach wrote:Sounds like Jimmy Page has decided against doing a reunion without Robert Plant...

http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/i ... -declares/

There's not a single quote in that article from Jimmy Page saying that, the only quotes are from Jimmy Page's manager. Not to mention, there was never going to be a Led Zeppelin tour without Plant anyway. As I mentioned in my previous post Page said they had no plans to use the Led Zeppelin name. The plan was to record new material with a new singer and then tour behind it but it would not be called Led Zeppelin.

Sorry...just linking the article. None of my personal thoughts on the issue. Figured some people would find it interesting.

MonumentBeach wrote:

Tiki Torches wrote:

MonumentBeach wrote:Sounds like Jimmy Page has decided against doing a reunion without Robert Plant...

http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/i ... -declares/

There's not a single quote in that article from Jimmy Page saying that, the only quotes are from Jimmy Page's manager. Not to mention, there was never going to be a Led Zeppelin tour without Plant anyway. As I mentioned in my previous post Page said they had no plans to use the Led Zeppelin name. The plan was to record new material with a new singer and then tour behind it but it would not be called Led Zeppelin.

Sorry...just linking the article. None of my personal thoughts on the issue. Figured some people would find it interesting.

Fair enough but it's right there in the headline that accompanies the article:

“Led Zeppelin Are Over,” Jimmy Page’s Manager Declares

Tiki Torches wrote:

MonumentBeach wrote:

Tiki Torches wrote:

MonumentBeach wrote:Sounds like Jimmy Page has decided against doing a reunion without Robert Plant...

http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/i ... -declares/

There's not a single quote in that article from Jimmy Page saying that, the only quotes are from Jimmy Page's manager. Not to mention, there was never going to be a Led Zeppelin tour without Plant anyway. As I mentioned in my previous post Page said they had no plans to use the Led Zeppelin name. The plan was to record new material with a new singer and then tour behind it but it would not be called Led Zeppelin.

Sorry...just linking the article. None of my personal thoughts on the issue. Figured some people would find it interesting.

Fair enough but it's right there in the headline that accompanies the article:

“Led Zeppelin Are Over,” Jimmy Page’s Manager Declares

Regardless of whether its direct from Page or his manager, its still noteworthy.

The more interesting question is, if Page decides to do a project with Jones and Bonham with another singer, what would the response be? Would people shell out big bucks for tickets? Small venues, large venues?

MonumentBeach wrote:

Tiki Torches wrote:

MonumentBeach wrote:

Tiki Torches wrote:

MonumentBeach wrote:Sounds like Jimmy Page has decided against doing a reunion without Robert Plant...

http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/i ... -declares/

There's not a single quote in that article from Jimmy Page saying that, the only quotes are from Jimmy Page's manager. Not to mention, there was never going to be a Led Zeppelin tour without Plant anyway. As I mentioned in my previous post Page said they had no plans to use the Led Zeppelin name. The plan was to record new material with a new singer and then tour behind it but it would not be called Led Zeppelin.

Sorry...just linking the article. None of my personal thoughts on the issue. Figured some people would find it interesting.

Fair enough but it's right there in the headline that accompanies the article:

“Led Zeppelin Are Over,” Jimmy Page’s Manager Declares

Regardless of whether its direct from Page or his manager, its still noteworthy.

The more interesting question is, if Page decides to do a project with Jones and Bonham with another singer, what would the response be? Would people shell out big bucks for tickets? Small venues, large venues?

Yes, it is noteworthy but my point is, Page never said anything about Led Zeppelin being over, the quote came from his manager. There's a huge difference. Not to mention, this project was never going to be called "Led Zeppelin" anyway.

I'm not sure if you've been paying attention or not (I'm guessing the latter considering your response) but this whole project was (or possibly could still be) Page, Jones and Jason Bonham with a new singer. It was never going to be called "Led Zeppelin". Their intentions were to find a lead vocalist (who wasn't a Plant soundalike), record a new record and then tour behind it. This could still happen. Judging by the response over the last several months from Led Zeppelin's online community it was a project that was welcomed with open arms. Would it draw as huge as something under the Led Zeppelin banner with Plant included? Probably not but since it's the next closest thing I'm thinking it would still bring in pretty big crowds.

Tiki Torches wrote:

MonumentBeach wrote:

Tiki Torches wrote:

MonumentBeach wrote:

Tiki Torches wrote:

MonumentBeach wrote:Sounds like Jimmy Page has decided against doing a reunion without Robert Plant...

http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/i ... -declares/

There's not a single quote in that article from Jimmy Page saying that, the only quotes are from Jimmy Page's manager. Not to mention, there was never going to be a Led Zeppelin tour without Plant anyway. As I mentioned in my previous post Page said they had no plans to use the Led Zeppelin name. The plan was to record new material with a new singer and then tour behind it but it would not be called Led Zeppelin.

Sorry...just linking the article. None of my personal thoughts on the issue. Figured some people would find it interesting.

Fair enough but it's right there in the headline that accompanies the article:

“Led Zeppelin Are Over,” Jimmy Page’s Manager Declares

Regardless of whether its direct from Page or his manager, its still noteworthy.

The more interesting question is, if Page decides to do a project with Jones and Bonham with another singer, what would the response be? Would people shell out big bucks for tickets? Small venues, large venues?

Yes, it is noteworthy but my point is, Page never said anything about Led Zeppelin being over, the quote came from his manager. There's a huge difference. Not to mention, this project was never going to be called "Led Zeppelin" anyway.

I'm not sure if you've been paying attention or not (I'm guessing the latter considering your response) but this whole project was (or possibly could still be) Page, Jones and Jason Bonham with a new singer. It was never going to be called "Led Zeppelin". Their intentions were to find a lead vocalist (who wasn't a Plant soundalike), record a new record and then tour behind it. This could still happen. Judging by the response over the last several months from Led Zeppelin's online community it was a project that was welcomed with open arms. Would it draw as huge as something under the Led Zeppelin banner with Plant included? Probably not but since it's the next closest thing I'm thinking it would still bring in pretty big crowds.

I have been paying attention. Maybe the way I worded something wasn't clear. In any event, I didn't mean to upset you and I apologize if I did. Truth be told, I like Zeppelin but I'm not a huge fan. I was simply linking an article relating to the Zeppelin camp that I thought some here might like to read. Lets get back to the music.

MonumentBeach wrote:I have been paying attention. Maybe the way I worded something wasn't clear. In any event, I didn't mean to upset you and I apologize if I did. Truth be told, I like Zeppelin but I'm not a huge fan. I was simply linking an article relating to the Zeppelin camp that I thought some here might like to read. Lets get back to the music.

I'm not sure what the "music" has to do with anything, I was just saying I found the post misleading since Jimmy Page didn't say Led Zeppelin was over, that was a direct quote from his manager. There's a huge difference there, one well worth noting. Regardless, the future of the project with John Paul Jones and Jason Bonham remains up in the air.

Jason Can Pound Em.......Just like papa... not that far off... BONZO would be proud.

No Plant = No Zeppelin= Why would you even want to see that reunion tour?

count me out

They could call themselves the Heavy Hindenburg.
Or the Silver Balloon.
nah, I ain't got a whole lotta love for those choices.

PIA wrote:No Plant = No Zeppelin= Why would you even want to see that reunion tour?

count me out

They were never planning on touring using the Zeppelin name or finding a singer that sounded like Plant. It's the press that has drilled that notion into people's heads, same thing with referring to the upcoming tour by "The Dead" as "the Grateful Dead" and by calling it a "reunion" tour even though they've toured before under that very same name. Page, Jones and Jason Bonham had planned to record a new album of new original material (something which was apparently already underway) and then tour to support it. It was never going to be called "Led Zeppelin".

Tiki Torches wrote:

PIA wrote:No Plant = No Zeppelin= Why would you even want to see that reunion tour?

count me out

They were never planning on touring using the Zeppelin name or finding a singer that sounded like Plant....
... It was never going to be called "Led Zeppelin".

So what makes you so certain that they wouldn't be using the Zep name if there was a Page, Plant , Jones & Bonham together.
I don't see how you can be so insistent that a re-constituted outfit could not be Led Zeppelin.
I've certainly seen other bands do it with far less than the original line-up...
Are you an insider?

Lightning Bolt wrote:

Tiki Torches wrote:

PIA wrote:No Plant = No Zeppelin= Why would you even want to see that reunion tour?

count me out

They were never planning on touring using the Zeppelin name or finding a singer that sounded like Plant....
... It was never going to be called "Led Zeppelin".

So what makes you so certain that they wouldn't be using the Zep name if there was a Page, Plant , Jones & Bonham together.

I wasn't referring to a lineup of Page, Plant, Jones and Jason Bonham. I was referring to plans Page, Jones and Jason Bonham had of recording new material and touring behind it. Both Page and Jones have been quoted as saying they wouldn't be using the Zeppelin name and they wouldn't be using a singer that was merely a Plant "soundalike".