Re: Standing tall and what to call.

["Schrade, Scott" <sschrade@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 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)