Re: No Bonzo != Zeppelin

[Phil Humpherys <phil@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I disagree that Plant could be replaced and still called it "Zeppelin".
When Page tourned Outrider in '88 with Paul Rogers, they did a slew of
Zeppelin numbers, and in no way would I call it Zeppelin.

On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 03:31:12PM -0700 
BB Page(traders55@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
+--------------------

> >>Imagine those tours with JPJ and a legit replacement
> >>on drums?
> >How bout Zeppelin without Robert Plant?  Or Zeppelin
> >without Jimmy Page?  Still Zeppelin?  
> 
> A replacement singer, yes, it still could be Zeppelin.
>  Replace Page?  No, his guitar playing is too
> signature to the band.  A drummer, however, is not
> unique enough to be irreplaceable.  I stand by my
> assertion again; consider what band we are talking
> about, there would be no shortable of talented
> drummers to choose from who would be willing to play
> for them.
> 
> >it's nice to see a little bit of integrity coming
> >from the Zep camp.  
> 
> I doubt you can call it integrity that they chose to
> disband all those years ago.  From what I can tell, it
> seemed like it was inevitable that Plant would want a
> solo career of his own, and that the band was going to
> at least close shop for an extended period.  Page's
> desire to reform the band, and Plant playing Zep tunes
> on his solo tours - and with Page in '95 and '98 -
> just point out that the band wasn't meant to end
> permanently in '80.  Performing is their livelyhood,
> and as the tradition says, the show must go on.
> 
> And as for your point that they were more than the sum
> of their parts, why are you arguing so vehemently that
> they can't exist without one of the "parts."  If the
> sum exceeds the parts, that would mean they value of
> each part isn't as valuable to the whole.
> 
> On the other hand, you are free to argue that the sum
> doesn't exceed the four parts, and that if one is
> missing, the sum is reduced correspondingly.