Re: Robert Plant as an unknown

["dkees2001" <dkees2001@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

given where bob was prior to zep starting, i don't think he would have
gotten very far without zep....perhaps something small would have come from
the alexis korner stuff but nothing major...as a result i think he would now
be an almost-ran...his solo records would have never happened...or maybe he
would've gotten one out, but nothing in the early 70;s musical soundscape
makes me think he would have been succesful on his own....probably be
singing for fun in birmingham and still married to maureen...!..now, what if
jim had not found bob and zep had started with say, terry reid or winwood or
some unknown....they might've been about as important as ..um...terry reid!
or savoy brown or jeff beck group?....or....???..? what do ya'll think?

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "JR Sroufe" <jrsrouf@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <zeppelin@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: Robert Plant as an unknown


> On 25 Jul 2002 at 17:19, Brock Heiney wrote:
>
> > Let's take this thing a bit further. Let's say he wasn't the lead
> > singer for LZ and we only had his solo stuff, minus "Dreamland",
> > where/how would he rank then?
>
> In my opinion, if Plant hadn't been the lead singer for LZ, he'd
> still be doing good in the business, but nowhere near his status now.
> As for having the solo albums as a yardstick to measure by, each one
> has at least two strong tracks each, but I could maybe see 'Shaken
> and Stirred' as being the one that would be the least-selling. From
> *my* particular demographic group, 'Pictures At Eleven' would be the
> big seller. His solo work (having been afforded the leverage to do
> so) has been tremendously diverse, so therefore each release is an
> amalgam of whatever mood he's been in at the time. I believe if you
> took the strong tracks from each of the solo albums and put together
> kind of an "RP's Greatest Hits" package, it'd be much more listenable
> from start to finish than any of the individual releases. My fast-
> forward button gets a real workout on Plant's solo material, not that
> it's bad or anything, it's just not contextually consistant enough
> for me.
>
> But back to Brock's hypothesis - I don't believe we'd even *have* the
> solo stuff in it's present form if Robert *wasn't* the former lead
> singer for Zeppelin. We would still have Robert Plant music, but I
> feel like it would be much, much more "focused" (for lack of a better
> word).
>
> > One can always get a small local indie label to make a recording, but I
> > doubt it would find its way over the seas.
>
> I think Robert would definitely be signed to a big label, or at least
> one of the off-shoot labels thereof. Reason being, is because indie-
> labels, while *so* much more prominent and viable in recent years,
> are more able to showcase artists with a truly *unique* sound and
> attraction. Most of the indie-artists that come to my immediate mind
> are people that have a "gimmick" or are cutting-edge
> punk/shlock/garage types.
> So if Robert was signed to an indie-label, I'm afraid he'd be really
> "regional" with his record sales.
>
> Of course, these are only *my* opinions, your mileage may vary.
>
> Later,
> JR