It would be like
Ernie touring without Eric under the name of Morecambe and Wise with some bloke who just happened to wear glasses.
or
Watching those three most recent films that went out under the banner of star wars. It watered down the achievements of the original.
or ?????
Martin

The middle way is "It'll be great to hear these guys playing old or new material, as long as they don't use the Led Zeppelin moniker".

and force people to have an opinion one way or another. (I believe it's called a 'forced ranking.')

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand I tend to believe that you should have at least 51% of the personnel present to keep an old name so it wouldn't really be Zep. On the other hand, Messrs Page and Jones have every right to go out and play the songs that they wrote / arranged / played originally and none of us have got the right to deny them that. (Nor are we obliged to go watch, if we feel that way about it.)

So, good luck to Messrs Page, Jones and whoever they tour with. And anyway, have they confirmed they'll call themselves Led Zeppelin or are we jumping to conclusions?

I can't see any good reason. For one thing, surely none of Led Zeppelin's original members are skint (and if they are, they could just go licence Physical Graffiti to Guitar Hero or summat). The idea of tha band without Bonzo's bad enough, but Plant as well? No. If Page and Jones are missing the thrill of being in a band they should just form a new one, write some new songs and get on the road - like Planty has: there'll still be the interest amongst their hardcore fans.

The other consideration is how this move has gone down before. Replacing a bassist, keys, guitarist or drummer is one thing, and possibly managebable, but even that only works if the b(r)and (I know, I hate myself too) isn't particularly reliant upon said member's specific talent or aesthetic: didn't The Smiths attempt to struggle on for a few weeks after Johnny Marr left?

But losing the singer's another thing altogether. Off the top of my head I can think of The Doors, Echo and The Bunnymen and Genesis that have tried, and I don't think it went too well for any of them.

I'm sure there'll have been more...

Bonzo will spinning (at a rock solid tempo) in his grave.

I mean the fact that bands carry on and produce mediocre work (for example) doesn't mean we no longer want to play or can't enjoy their classic stuff. This might not be mediocre anyway. I really can't see what the fuss is about. It'd probably be a good night out as it goes. We know it's not the real Led Zeppelin and will distinguish it from the original in our heads so no one's being fooled.

then just go ahead and release it and tour under a different name.

It's like Daniel Craig as James Bond, if you're going to take out Q, the gadgets, the bad jokes, have Bond fall in love etc etc then surely it is no longer a Bond movie - just do something new like they did with the Bourne films.

The very fact they broke up after the death of one member rather than (then) plod on should alert and remind them as to the then thought process. If they had been on permachange as were Deep Purple or BlackSabbath, nobody would notice. It is their single line-up vision, give or take Band Aid and Ahmet Ertegun that defines their b(r)and.

there does come a time when you just have to say, this is just not the "band" anymore - some band members are just not replaceable and it should be ended gracefully.
The most ridiculous example being Queen without Freddie Mercury.

Are The Who still the Who with only Pete and Rog or should they have finished after Keith Moon, or then again after The Ox..?
The Undertones without Feargal? Stranglers without Hugh Cornwell? More importantly, should Oasis have ended when Bonehead left?

he had arguably more to do with creating these songs than the rest (with being producer n all) but w\o Robert he's stuck. He can't perform that great material otherwise so you can see why he wants to get in a new singer. Brian May was in a similar position and got in Paul Rodgers - it doesn't work for some of their material but for the rock shouters its ok just not hwat it was. How could it be.

People would flock to see it thou and can't say I wouldn't possibly be one of them. Whether thay call themselves Led Zep on the tickets or not is a moot point as the media will call them that every step of the way. They even referred to the Plant n Page tours as such.

if the Black Crowes weren't together again I would lay money on Chris Robinson being in with a shout as he did a damn good job on the tours with Page. My guess is they will go for a relative unknown.

Personally, i wish they'd leave it alone but i'm not the one sitting round at home with itchy guitar fingers.

I didn't think I cared much about this thread until the media in the U.S. started rumbling a little while ago about Steven Tyler as a possibility. The talent shortfall would be way steeper than the Mercury/Rogers one. Let's hope that among the lawyers cashing in on this there are some with a modicum of taste who will abort this travesty before it becomes a reality.

there should be a middle button. If they play some new stuff I for one wouldn't have any objection regardless of whether it is any good or not. The dissent would come if it was a nostalgia tour where the hits were sung by a replacement vocalist. Its a little akin to a live 'Music for pleasure' tour.
Robert Plant comes out of this debacle with immense respect from me - he has always professed a love for music beyond the rock of Led Zeppelin and this clearly demonstrates his integrity.I am told from my brother in law that he still sits with the commoners at Wolves games - truly he has no airs and graces.

Just one final thought - if Steven Tyler deputises would the reworking of the classic be 'Elevator to heaven'?

I saw Page & Plant live (complete with Egyptian orchestra) and it was stunning. They were not Led Zeppelin, and they didn't pretend to be. I'm guessing that a Page/Jones/Bonham Jnr. lineup won't go out as Led Zeppelin either.

Anyway if Page really wants Plant to get involved surely all he has to do is threaten to call David Coverdale (again).

Would genuinely prefer if they gave up. Mr Plants recent work with Alison Krauss is better than anything the very pompous Zep ever had to offer. And thats before we look at the awful bands they inspired.

If Jimmy Page, John Paul Jones and Jason Bonham want to continue making music together, I don't think anyone else really has any right to say they shouldn't.

However, I don't think they should be called Led Zeppelin: when Page and Plant made post Zepplin records they called themselves "Jimmy Page And Robert Plant".

I don't much care. Why shouldn't they do it if they want to? No-one has to watch it.

If the other 3 want to go ahead and do it then good for them, screw Robert Plant! He can continue to bore the living bejesus out of us all with another crappy solo album or God forbid another album of dull songs with Alison Krauss!!!!!!!!!!!

What bout Rolf Harris surely the only man for the job. Or if he's to busy Joe Pasquale.... Just a thought

The simple answer to the question is 'No' and why bother anyway?
He doesn't want to so let's just enjoy the legacy and what there is.