Led Zeppelin to tour without Plant

[Willlow]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/7694327.stm

Lets be honest without Plant its not going to be the same :icon_cry:

 

[homer]

Utterly pointless, and a little bit silly/desperate

 

[lazzer]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/7694327.stm

Lets be honest without Plant its not going to be the same :icon_cry:

A bit like queen without freddie :icon_wink

 

[Willlow]

A bit like queen without freddie :icon_wink

True, but Queen dont really have an option of getting Freddie to sing do they :icon_wink

 

[spionfox]

True, but Queen dont really have an option of getting Freddie to sing do they :icon_wink

Which is why they should have packed it in or formed another band when he died. Paul Rogers indeed (spit).

 

[Willlow]

Which is why they should have packed it in or formed another band when he died. Paul Rogers indeed (spit).

I have to disagree, Paul Rogers is a good front man and although he isnt Freddie he still brings a lot to Queen.

Have you ever been to a Queen gig with Paul Rogers? They are respectful to Freddie throughout and Rogers sings the songs in his own way.

I know this argues against my point about Plant and Led Zeppelin, but IMO there is a difference in wanting to go and see Queen and wanting to go and see Led Zeppelin. Most of Queens songs the crowd sing a long and the singer isnt as important, but with led Zeppelin it is more about the performance and Plant is a big part of that.

Does that make sense? :icon_redf

 

[spionfox]

Most of Queens songs the crowd sing a long and the singer isnt as important, but with led Zeppelin it is more about the performance and Plant is a big part of that.

I would agree that Queens songs have more 'mass market' appeal and therefore the lyrics are likely to be better known (and thus sung along with) than Led Zeps.

However, for you to state that the singer isn't as important is frankly ridiculous. Freddie Mercury WAS Queen and he is irreplaceable to those of us who were brought up on Queens music from the early days until his demise. No matter how good Paul Rogers may be as a frontman he ain't no Freddie and the band isn't Queen just because he sings Queens songs.

You then mention it is all about performance. Have you never seen Freddie 'milking' a crowd? Held them in the palm of his hand he did - he was that good.

All IMHO of course :icon_wink

 

[homer]

Did Freddie ever milk you in the palm of his hand, Spion ?

 

[Willlow]

Did Freddie ever milk you in the palm of his hand, Spion ?

Thanks, you just made me laugh out loud in a full office when I am supposed to be working!

 

[highland fox]

I heard the Black Abbots were touring but it won't be the same without Russ

 

[Willlow]

I would agree that Queens songs have more 'mass market' appeal and therefore the lyrics are likely to be better known (and thus sung along with) than Led Zeps.

However, for you to state that the singer isn't as important is frankly ridiculous. Freddie Mercury WAS Queen and he is irreplaceable to those of us who were brought up on Queens music from the early days until his demise. No matter how good Paul Rogers may be as a frontman he ain't no Freddie and the band isn't Queen just because he sings Queens songs.

You then mention it is all about performance. Have you never seen Freddie 'milking' a crowd? Held them in the palm of his hand he did - he was that good.

All IMHO of course :icon_wink

I think you have mistaken what I was trying to say. I wasnt suggesting that Freddie Mercury wasnt important, I was suggesting the replacement singer wasnt important because the crowd are there for the songs.

As for the performance aspect i was refering to Led Zep and whether a replacement singer would be able to great the same buzz as if it was Plant.

 

[spionfox]

As for the performance aspect i was refering to Led Zep and whether a replacement singer would be able to great the same buzz as if it was Plant.

Most probably not! But I still maintain that swapping Rogers for Mercury makes Queen become a different band altogether to the one they were under Mercury.

 

[spionfox]

Did Freddie ever milk you in the palm of his hand, Spion ?

No, but I've partaken of Billy Braggs milk of human kindness.

 

[lazzer]

Most probably not! But I still maintain that swapping Rogers for Mercury makes Queen become a different band altogether to the one they were under Mercury.

I dont think anyone was disputing that ?

 

[spionfox]

I dont think anyone was disputing that ?

OK, but in that case I don't see why they continue to call themselves Queen - even if they do add 'with Paul Rogers'. Freddie Mercury WAS Queen. (That works on more than one level!)

 

[East Anglia Fox]

I think it's a bit silly the way they have the late John Bonham's son. I mean, it's just silly. It's not really Led Zeppelin at all, it only has two out of the four original members.