Is this a band, or not?????

["O'Neal, Kevin W." <Kevin.ONeal@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

	>From: "Schrade, Scott" 
	>Subject: 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

But Pete and Roger *haven't* had a recent history of touring under the name of The Who.
Tour 2002 was billed as The Who because John was alive at the time.
So, I don't count this as a valid argument.

Yeah, I know...........HERE WE GO AGAIN!

>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.  

This is a good point.

>That's
>The Who nowadays.

That's what's still up for debate.

>> Or, why Jagger and Richards don't call themselves The Stones (CFNYC)?
>
> there are original members still currently playing in the band 

I see your point.
Look at all the trouble "The Doors" are in at the moment for touring without their drummer.

>> 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.

But this is different.
This is a recorded studio album of new music never played before by any other drummer or bassist.
You may be right, but I see a distinction.

>And I don't think you'll see Zak's name on any *writing* credits.  Just
>Pete's.  Or maybe a 'Townshend/Daltrey.'

Not even "'Townshend/Daltrey'" if it's all Pete's writing.

>Gone are the days when the Who Helpers (!) were given full band member
>status (a'la the glorious, under-appreciated Kenney Jones).  

See, this supports my take about new music.
Face Dances, and It's Hard were totally new albums with new music.
Thus, inclusion of Kenney into "the band".
Damn it!
If they're fucking going to produce a new album of new music, with new drum lines and bass lines, and call themselves........WHATEVER..... (really doesn't matter in this argument)........they need to give credit to *all* the musicians.  If it's a band, then it needs to include *all* the band members who created the final product.
Equal billing!
I'd be pissed if I were Zak.
He's no longer just regurgitating drums for old songs.

>I bet not.  It'll probably be just a picture of sorts, not including 
>Roger & Pete.  IMO.

Probably right.
Will have a young boy, flying through space or something.

>> Will they incorporate Zak and ? on bass into the band?
>
>Again, only as "supporting" musicians to "the Big Two."

*THAT'S* Bullshit.
(not you, but the act)

I mean, is this a band, or not???
Or, is it just Pete and Roger?
If the later, then wouldn't that support Mark's (and my) thinking of going out as DT with supporting musicians?
Ya can't have it both friggin' ways.

Kevin in VT