What if Jimmy Page Had Kept Led Zeppelin Going?

[Zzzptm]

Hey, I *like* Tony Martin era stuff!

The more I think about this, the more I think that Page wouldn't have kept the name "Led Zeppelin" for anything without Plant on vocals. It would just be too confining, especially if the next singer wanted to do stuff from his non-Zep past. Page would be fine playing it, but not all fans would stay fans.

DP got away with it when they brought in Gillan because most of their Mk1 success had been in the USA and Gillan got them to major UK and Europe success. They got away with it again with Coverdale because Burn was just such an epic album, especially the title track. When they brought in Bolin to play for Blackmore, the band told Bolin to do things note-for-note like Blackmore on the classic material. Bolin wasn't happy with that, and the fans weren't happy when Bolin did his own thing.

Imagining Coverdale in Zeppelin... "Right, just after Stairway, we go into Love Hunter." 

[Jack the Stripper]

History has said that a band can replace an iconic or band defining singer and continue to be successful but you also have to have the rest of the original band intact to give it a chance to make it work.

Well this is utter bull now isn't it...?

The Mob Rules, Dehumanizer and The Devil You Know alone prove this to be utter bollocks...

Deep Purple made some of their best stuff with a single original member.

Iron Maiden proved the original lineup was nothing compared to things to come.

I think you're missing several points Charger. Heaven and Hell had 3/4 of the original band and it proved successful and accepted my most fans, even attracted new fans. Ward bailed mid tour and was replaced by Vinny who subsequently recorded the follow up with them. That lineup had already proved successful and accepted so it's not the same as the mid/late 80's when Tony Iommi was the sole remaining member which turned out unsuccessful and not  accepted by most fans. Also I'm not reffering to quality of music but popularity and what passes as legit and true to fans. As I said for bands to stay successful and accepted history has told us that the original members or majority songwriting team needs to stay together when the singer is replaced. AC/DC, Sabbath, Maiden and Van Halen are the perfect examples of this.

[Charger]

Yes I think was missing some points there then. Sorry.


As far as legit and true to fans go...I'll just pass on that.

Popularity yes...that's a different thing and ofcourse has nothing to do with quality of music or talent.  Ofcourse the time when Sabbath was going with just Tony as the sole member popularity of classic heavy metal was declining rapidly. Thrash had taken over the heavier side of things and the ugly beast that was grunge was starting to raise it's radio friendly targeted head.

In 89-90 every classic metal band was starting to struggle. Regadless of the line up. Priest, Maiden, Dio, Purple, Sabbath. It only got worse in the 90s when Grunge and other radio friendly crap killed everything classic metal. Only bands that changed their sounds dramatically as a result (like Metallica or Anthrax or Pantera) managed to maintain some popularity or even climb higher...but the bands that wanted to stay true to heavy metal were struggling. And Sabbath was a prime example ofcourse.

How much of that was due to the line up changes and how much of the times...that's impossible to say with 100% accuracy.

[Zzzptm]

If the lineup change goes with a change in style, that's where old fans are lost. If the new direction is popular, new fans jump on board. If not, then the band goes into obscurity.

AC/DC pretty much stuck to their guns with Brian Johnson and fans were able to accept him as Bon Scott's able replacement. Not as much when Axl Rose stepped in to do tour vocals.

Van Halen became "Van Hagar" after Sammy joined, and it never was *exactly* like it was with Diamond Dave. When Hagar left, so did pretty much ALL of the fans.

Fleetwood Mac went into near-total obscurity when Buckingham and Nicks parted company.