[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Standing tall and what to call.
> The obvious question then is why Plant and Page don't call themselves
> Led Zep?
A. Unlike Pete & Roger touring under The Who, Page & Plant don't have a
recent history of touring under the name Led Zeppelin
B. John Paul Jones (an original member) is still alive. Page & Plant
*could* trade up, if you will, & tour as Led Zeppelin *with* John Paul
Jones included. The Who don't have any "unincluded" original members
to bring back into the fold. It's Pete & Rog - and that's it. That's
The Who nowadays.
> Or, why Jagger and Richards don't call themselves The Stones (CFNYC)?
Again, because those two haven't toured under that name in the past &
there are original members still currently playing in the band (I speak
of Charlie Watts, of course, & also Ron Wood, who, by this point, should
be looked upon as true member of the Stones, if not an "original" member.)
> This will also be different in that there will be a studio album,
> forcing the issue of crediting the other members of "the band".
Not really because all recent era Who crediting (RAH DVD & CD, concert
programs, etc.) kind of clump Pete, Roger, & John (when he was alive)
at the top, in large fonts, while Zak & Rabbit get smaller, almost
supporting-like, credits below "the main dudes." I suspect the new
album will do the same.
And I don't think you'll see Zak's name on any *writing* credits. Just
Pete's. Or maybe a 'Townshend/Daltrey.'
Gone are the days when the Who Helpers (!) were given full band member
status (a'la the glorious, under-appreciated Kenney Jones).
> Will the cover just have Roger and Pete?
I bet not. It'll probably be just a picture of sorts, not including
Roger & Pete. IMO.
> Will they incorporate Zak and ? on bass into the band?
Again, only as "supporting" musicians to "the Big Two."
- SCHRADE in Akron
Nature does not deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762)