Did anyone attend the concert?  Was it one of our esteemed hobbyists who plunked down $168,000.00 for a pair of tix (that's gotta be a world record!)?  Just curious as to what face value actually was?  You knew the record was in jeopardy when this concert was announced.  I mean, a band of Zep's magnitude, no guarantee that this would be more than a 1-show engagement.  20 million people TRIED to get tickets.  18,000 lucky folks got to attend.  I hope they decide to make it a world tour.  Mainly because the world could use a good jolt of Led Zeppelin right now, but also because it'll be interesting to see how ticket sales go.  I love Led Zeppelin, but honestly I wouldn't pay more than a couple hundred bucks to see them.  Let's face it, they're old.  And this is not the original lineup.  No matter how good Jason Bonham is (and he's great) he can't really step into his father's shoes.  Besides, they weren't really the greatest "live band" back in their prime.  Having said that, I'd still like to see them!

I doubt that the four of us who went spent $168.00 collectively, including the drugs that have probably rotted my brain. Great concert, brings back memories.

Unfortuneately, I am a tad too young to have seen Zep in their hey day back in the early to mid 70's. But the live recordings I have listened to seem to be of great quality. They are the best; and a world tour would be ideal (if one could possibly get tickets)

If I didnt spend a penny on any provider over the past 10 years...I still would be painstakingly short of the $168,000 needed for the two tickets!

I agree with you about Jason Bonham.  John Bonham was there directly creating the music and having those experiences that led to the music - Jason was not.  I'm a purist and for my money, these guys are NOT Led Zeppelin[flame on!]

Those of us who missed them in their heyday should just accept it.  If not, you can also enjoy the Doors of the 21st Century, that is, without Jim Morrison.

I'm glad I grew up listening to them instead of, say, any of the bullshit kids have to listen to today.

-- Modified on 12/11/2007 2:08:06 PM

a Bonham-less Zeppelin = a Densmore-less Doors.

Jim Morrison was an icon like Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin. Morrison was much closer to the likes of Mick Jagger than Charlie Watts. No disrespect to Watts.

I'd go see Zeppelin in a second if given the opportunity. The only thing that could stop me is a prohibitive pricetag for tix. If they stay at 1,000.00 or less...I'm going for certain. I am pretty sure they will tour at least once here in the states. If enough people show interest, a new album could be in their future.

I saw them live a few times. They were the best band to see live!

The drummer is the easiet to replace. If Robert Plant was replaced them the whole reunion wouldn't work for me.

Ramble on!

Just look at Chris Partridge (Jeremy Gelbwaks).  He was replaced by Brian Forster, a fair haired less ethnic looking Chris, in just the second season.  But I still have the original Chris on my lunchbox.  That's make my pickle-loaf taste mighty good, not to mention multicultural.  I'm not holding my breath for a reunion, because I think Bonaduce is technically dead.  And losing a bass players kills a band worst than losing a drummer.  That a known and proven scientfic fact in music.

Their drummers just exploded.  That never happened to their guitarist, bassist or lead singer.  Might be something about the chemical make-up of drummers...

But still...

I can see how it would be easier to replace Charlie Watts than Mick or Keith, but a crucial part of Zep's sound was Bonham's drumming.  Was the Who really as good after Keith Moon's death?  

The only reason to consider Bonzo dispensible is because he was not out in front.  That's more of a celebrity-based assessment.  As a member of the band, his presence contributes to the overall dynamic.  It's not really a tangible thing I can point to but it's important to remember that they were all friends, and that does affect the sound.  If Larry Mullen left U2, the overall sound would change [perhaps subtly, but it would change], even though he's not necessarily an outstanding drummer, or crucially involved in any of the songs.

I'm sure Jason Bonham can imitate his dad just fine, but without John, I'd consider them more to be The Led Zeppelin Experience, than Led Zeppelin proper.

Did you guys know that Kwasi, the creator of Escortblogs www.escortblogs.net and Hobbyistblogs www.hobbyistblogs.com, used to photograph Led Zepplin back in the day? Go to his hobbyist blog (his handle is "Kwasi" on www.hobbyistblogs.net) and you can see photos he took way back in '73. He even has a good one of John Bonham on the drums! I was all of six years old back then...LOL

-- Modified on 12/11/2007 4:59:19 PM

Jeremy Gelbwaks had the flashy funk appeal and rufflly shirts behind the drum kit, but Brian Forster could rap those rhythm sticks like a slut wife slapping black cock on her out-stretched tongue.  I swear he musta dipped those sticks in Susan Dey smagma, but that's only speculation on my part.  Whose stick articulation on the cymbals was the best?  That'll keep the rock historians busy for the decades to come.

If you've got XM they have the LED channel(59).
It's all Zeppelin or stuff by the individuals, including interviews and such.

It's not all bullshit, although there is a lot of crap that floods the airwaves.

I like the old Zeppelin recordings- they're on my ipod, though I wasn't alive when they were still doing their thing. If they played in L.A. or Vegas or someplace close, I'd see them, but NOT for 168k. I wouldn't spend over $200 to be honest. Hmmm... maybe something to shoot for as a Coachella reunion? lol. Probably not.

Katie

Saw them in early 1970's and drummer is w/o any doubt the easiest to replace. Many good drummers can imitate Bonham's style. Plant and Page alone would be enough to still be the essence of the band, and with Jones that's even better,

I wouldn't pay $6.50 (the price of a front row seat in 1973) to see reconstituted Zep. Look back at the Cream reunion a few years back. Even with the three original members there was no fire. It was three old guys trying to recapture an attitude and a feel that they had 40 years ago. Good rock n' roll is about attitude as much as musical prowess. Zep had attitude back in the 70's that was lightning in a bottle. They can rehearse till the cows come home and use the sibling of their original drummer to try and maintain the bloodline but they will never recapture the attitude that they had back then. I'll just listen to the records, thanks...

-- Modified on 12/12/2007 5:42:01 AM

-- Modified on 12/12/2007 5:43:53 AM

Aussie and Dublin press reviews have been outstanding.

While I hear what you say about them not ever being able to be the same, the majority of folks who were beyond primed for this reunion are dudes in their 50's/60's trying to catch an awesome nostalgic replay of their past.  Yes, Jason is not John Henry (BTW: it is his son not his brother), Plant won't hit the high notes, Page has near pure white locks and Jones moves slowly; but they are fucking Led Zep and that is what the evening was all about.  I guarantee you that most of the 18K who fell into the demographic that I just described, got fucking chills when they hit the stage and maintained that vibe all night.  In this vein, while there were those who were critical of Cream there were many who viewed it as a show of a lifetime and enjoyed it as such.  Bruce, Baker and Clapton may not have felt that way after awhile but many fans did.

And perhaps Led Zep will walk a similar path.  Although non-committal about an expanded tour, if they do come to the States then undoubtedly there will be those who hold your viewpoint and there will be those who will be very excited about the chance to see them.  I for one will be part of the latter and although I know that they will be different, the song will remain the same and I'll enjoy some classic rock and roll...        

   

-- Modified on 12/12/2007 7:50:49 AM

Simply my opinion and personal preference. I'm sure Page, Plant, JPJ and the younger Bonham would not have gotten on stage if they did not feel that they could perform at the top of their game. Likewise with Bruce, Baker and Clapton. I just don't think you can re-live the past. I will watch the DVD when it comes out but I would not have paid to see it live. Again my personal preference.

I was too young to see Led Zeppelin in their prime.  But even now, I'll take what I can get because in my book they're better than most rock bands out there today.  

Plus, Jimmy Page is one of my greatest guitar idols.  

Lets face it you can put the catalog of Zep up against anything past or present and its the best music. Plant is a vocal god and Page makes even the acoustic guitar give you goosebumps. I dont think they would of done the concert unless a huge brinks truck was about to be dropped for a reunion tour. If they do a usa tour Im going to at least 5 shows maybe more like a grateful dead tour or something. The hobbying will have to take a break because I never thought Id be able to see them on stage and I hope it happens in 2008. Any band would sell thier soul to write no quarter, babe im gona leave you or in my time of dying just sick songs.

There are guitarists out there than can imitate and surpass Jimmy Page.  There are singers who can imitate Plant to a tee.  The main reason they are considered irreplaceable is due to their front stage presence.  This puts the drummer at a disadvantage, but he should be not be considered automatically replaceable for that reason.

If Zep were an actual working band, creating new material, you'd definitely feel the absence of John
Bonham.  Bonham wasn't just some session musician who was called in after they had already worked out the songs, he helped shape the songs.  Imagine "When the Levee Breaks" with some other drummer.  That song would NOT remain the same.

I hear what you're saying and I was exaggerating a bit.  Let's face it, I grew up in the 70s, and we had tons of shitty music, but we also had Zep, Bob Marley, Springsteen, the birth of punk; the Stones, the Who, John Lennon, Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, Marvin Gaye and Stevie Wonder were doing incredible work then and I'm sure I'm missing even more people.  That music is still listened to and influential today.

Who out now will still be talked about in 30 years, other than Radiohead and Bjork?  What musical act today is on the level of any of the artists I mentioned above?

Maybe not everything out there is bullshit, but you have to wade through so much of it to find anything decent  that I don't find it worth the effort.  Besides the best stuff out now isn't on the radio.

-- Modified on 12/12/2007 1:01:04 PM

Those are all good bands...

I'm thinking of bands from my generation (I hate to say it that way) like all of the Seattle sound type stuff from the 90's- Nirvana, Pearl Jam, etc... that is STILL influential. It's still playing on Kroq (and other stations) and will most likely stand the test of time.

Hell, my ipod looks like a mish mash of all of the old 90's bands, the new rock this decade, 60's, 70's, 80's stuff remixed into a trance beat and all sorts of crazy crap. It's hard not to find something to like on my ipod. hehe.

Katie

Try replacing Jimi Hendrix back in the late 60's and then see if "anyone in a band can be replaced"

But we're not just talking about artists in their heyday.  If we were, then my point about Bonham is even stronger since he was known for his hard-hitting, funky style which no other rock drummer had.

If the JHE were re-formed today, there are many guitarists who can play as well as, or even better, than Hendrix.  I don't think that technical skill is the full measure of a musician's talent and that Jimi still stands head and shoulders above his antecedents due to his musical sensibility which cannot be learned from any lessons or imitation.  Which is why Bonham is crucial.

You original point is that the drummer is the most easily replaced.  The implication is that drumming is just a technical skill and not fundamental to the music.  For many bands, the drummer might just be a timekeeper, but for Zep, Bonham was part of the sound.

My point isn't to defend Bonham or to imply that the new Zep sounds like crap [I wouldn't know, I haven't heard them].  I just don't think that we should underestimate how much the sound of a band relies just as much on band dynamics as on technical skill.

You ARE EXACTLY RIGHT!  Want proof?  When Bonzo died, the 3 remaining members KNEW THAT HE WAS IRREPLACEABLE!  Plant, Page & Jones didn't retire from music, but they retired THE Led Zeppelin!  They'd be the first to tell you that a reunion concert or even a reunion tour is merely a means to reconnect and play together.  I suspect they're a bit uncomfortable taking the stage under the name "Led Zeppelin".  But if they had chosen another name or simply gone out using their individual names, then it would've left many people unhappy.  And let's not forget, there's a buck to be made.  I have every Led Zeppelin album, the box set, even some rarities, etc. so there's no need for me to buy their new "Mothership" compilation.  However, it should be given to every 5th grade child in this country as mandatory listening aka "music appreciation", and as such I'm likely to buy a few copies for Christmas gifts.  This thread should never have been allowed to deviate off onto "the drummer is the easiest to replace" slant that it took.  I salute you for your voice of reason.  And for the record, I have a lot of friends who are drummers.  Their consensus is that while lots of drummers have attempted to "imitate" Bonzo (and many more wish they could), NO ONE has come close to doing it.  I appreciate those who offered insightful comments.

"No Quarter", "Babe, I'm Gonna Leave You" and "In My Time of Dying"-- 3 songs that never charted that highly and are rarely heard on the classic rock stations in this country are excellent evidence on why there is NO DEBATE as to who the greatest band ever WAS!  You're right that any band would sell their souls to have written these songs.  I'm not even sure that Zeppelin is my favorite band (The Rolling Stones, AC/DC, Zeppelin, Judas Priest, Lynyrd Skynyrd, and a few others are at the top of my list, and I've seen no need to rank them in order), but I'd look like a fool to suggest that Zeppelin in their day wasn't the Greatest Band in the world, because clearly they were.  The Beatles and the Eagles might have had more success, but come on.  The Stones get credit for their longevity, not to mention their overall greatness.  But none of those bands ever penned anything as sick as the 3 aforementioned songs.

Excellent post, TC.

would they be the Band of Gypsies?