Re: A few thoughts for the weekend

["snow bored" <snowbored@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 23 May 2003 23:47:24 +0000, "Jerry Czarnecki" <jerrymcza@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> --Exactly.

i almost responded to this the first time, but i didn't have 
time.

the tendency to juxtapose a solo career with a successful band
is a false dichotomy.  there might be facts that support such a
conclusion, i don't know.  but plant could have easily had a 
solo career while maintaining his commitment to zeppelin, had 
bonzo lived.  plant was writing material both with and without 
page, and it is natural that he would want to get that material
out there, just as it was natural not to expect zeppelin to 
perform it.  there are numerous examples of solo projects by 
members of successful bands, some very successful (hot tuna and
gov't mule spring to mind), others not (such as the stones' solo 
projects).  if plant was at all aware of the history of the 
industry, he would have known that solo projects are not always 
successful...

> Several things to add as well:
> 
> Like all rock stars, Zep has had a tendency to go easy on themselves 
> out of self-pity. 

this is really harsh.  now i understand why fans would want to see 
their favorite band perform in their city on a regular (annual?) 
basis, but that expectation is unrealistic.  especially when a band
has been around for twelve years.  how would you like to wake up 
in a different city every day for an extended period?  can you 
imagine being bored out of your mind for 20 hours a day, just so 
you can perform for four?  what kind of life is that?

doing world tours with extended off periods may not have been 
favored by ardent fans, but it was probably the only way to 
ground them in reality.  it's really not much of a surprise that
performing artists are drug addicts or alcoholics, no matter how
rich and successful; that lifestyle is not to be envied.  i'm 
glad they do it, but i'm also glad that it's not me!

> Going back to 1977, was the death of Plant's son Karak really a 
> sufficient reason to cancel the rest of that tour and to do nothing  
> for the next two years?

your assumption being, of course, that they "did nothing."  they 
had families, friends, themselves all to reconnect with.  that 
ain't nothing.  two years off for a band that established doesn't 
seem excessive, even without a death in the family.  

> In the real world, no one would get away with that.

in the real world, people get away with that all the time!  this 
is by no means that unusual.

> Ditto the death of Bonham. Was it "integrity" that drove Pagey 
> into drugs after 1980 when his pal died of, more or less, drug
> abuse?

jimmy page was drug-free before then?

> Was Bonham irreplaceable? It's hard to say, given that it wasn't
> tried. I think that Luis Rey is spot-on in focusing on the
> competition between Page and Plant and Page and Bonham as
> something that drove them on.

to that you could also add personal and professional chemistry;
sharing a common goal, even as that goal evolves; the ability to
tolerate the other people in close quarters over long stretches 
of time; yada yada yada.  professional competition sustained 
them for, at most, 4-5 hours a day.  there's another twenty in 
between that next stint.

many bands think of themselves as family, in both the positive 
and negative sense.  when you lose a member of your family, that
person *is* irreplaceable, even if their spot can be filled.
and that's what this analysis lacks, some connection with 
human emotions.

> Finally, if Zep was really revolutionary, then they ought to have
> continued  from a responsibility to music, which transcends
> individuals.

and this is just plain bullshit.  music evolves, driven by those 
self-selected artists who actually have the talent to move it 
forward.  the industry still made money off zeppelin without them
actually performing and recording anew.  their contributions to 
music were sufficient if they never played another note.  there 
was no guarantee that a reformed zeppelin would do anything to 
move music in a new or extended direction.  that doesn't make them 
any less revolutionary or selfish for not continuing as a band.

quite frankly, this is a weak analysis.

> Zep didn't finish the job, which is one reason why rock is stuck
> in this rut right now. 

and so, we come to the false conclusion.  as always, conclusions
based on false premises are necessarily false (even if they 
coincidentally remark on something true)!  the irony, of course,
is that, after criticizing the band for being selfish (above),
you've selfishly whined that they didn't finish it off!  

well, guess what?  they don't owe you a damn thing.  they made 
the music they could, the music they felt, not for your personal
enjoyment (although, no doubt, they are glad you liked it), but 
because they had to.  if the band had a burning need to continue,
even after bonham died, they would have.  the fact that they 
didn't tells us something, even if we don't agree what it means
(or like it)...

ac