Led Zeppelin Soon to Announce '07 Concert on DVD

[Kristy]

I know !!! You are one of those sadists who thinks it is a fashion statement and that all that gear makes you one.

Sadism is never a fashion statement to me.

[Diamondjimi]

Just downloaded this dvd. Gonna check it out tonight.....

[Diamondjimi]

Yeah, thuggery, "fish rape", backstage beatings. Such a lovely band Zep were.

Please arrange a suicide pact with yourself, Jack White and the cast of lunatics that live in that syphilis ridden cranium of yours...

[Kristy]

Please arrange a suicide pact with yourself, Jack White and the cast of lunatics that live in that syphilis ridden cranium of yours...

Speaking of failed musicians.

[Terry]

How can you even compare these two?? One is a hungry person, deprived of basic biological needs doing stuff for pure survival. And the other is chick doing stuff just to be able to hang out with rock stars.
Do you see the difference in what motivates the two?

I can see the difference in what motivates the two who are on the receiving end of the treatment, but not much difference (outside of the obvious physical situations) in the motivations between my hypothetical scenario and what Richard Cole, John Bonham and the rest of the Led Zeppelin participants did...and this was the point I was illustrating.

[Terry]

Eeeh, of course it does. Difference between willing and unwilling is what defines rape.

I don't get this sexual moral panic. Just cause it sounds strange to you guys doesn't mean he molested her. People like different things. Not everybody is a vicitm.

I wasn't even alluding toward the criminality of the Mud Shark (or Red Napper) Zeppelin episode. The girl may have been willing, and the inference THERE is by her consent there was no molestation involved.

It isn't, however, evidence of a 'sexual moral panic' on my part that I state the members of Zeppelin and their crew who took part in this were still contemptable human beings for doing so, regardless of assumptions involving permission and legality proving to be correct or not.

[envy_me]

I wasn't even alluding toward the criminality of the Mud Shark (or Red Napper) Zeppelin episode. The girl may have been willing, and the inference THERE is by her consent there was no molestation involved.

It isn't, however, evidence of a 'sexual moral panic' on my part that I state the members of Zeppelin and their crew who took part in this were still contemptable human beings for doing so, regardless of assumptions involving permission and legality proving to be correct or not.

But that is only your opinion. I don't find them contemptable humans because of abnormal sexual acts. What they do in bed is their business. I'd die if my sex life was all over the place for everybody to judge and frown upon.

[envy_me]

I can see the difference in what motivates the two who are on the receiving end of the treatment, but not much difference (outside of the obvious physical situations) in the motivations between my hypothetical scenario and what Richard Cole, John Bonham and the rest of the Led Zeppelin participants did...and this was the point I was illustrating.

It's a HUGE difference. If it's a matter of life and death, then there isn't much choice for the homeless guy. If it's between hanging out with rock stars or not hanging out with rock stars, then you can just say "fuck off!!" and walk away if it doesn't suit you.

[sadaist]

I'd die if my sex life was all over the place for everybody to judge and frown upon.

Me too. I don't want ANYONE knowing. That's why I just do it with myself. Used Kleenex tell no tales.

[Terry]

But that is only your opinion. I don't find them contemptable humans because of abnormal sexual acts. What they do in bed is their business. I'd die if my sex life was all over the place for everybody to judge and frown upon.

Of course it's only my opinion. Other people are free to feel what they like.
I would agree that what people do in bed should potentially be their own business, although the chances of it remaining their own business realistically decrease in inverse proportion to the number of people on the bed, the level of their celebrity...and the amount of seafood involved...

[Diamondjimi]

Speaking of failed musicians.

Details please...

[envy_me]

Me too. I don't want ANYONE knowing. That's why I just do it with myself. Used Kleenex tell no tales.

Yeah! And I'd get arrested

[sadaist]

Pussification has nothing whatsoever to do with expecting a quality performance as a paying consumer. Look, three of my most revered bands (namely The Faces, The Replacements and The Georgia Satellites) based their entire careers upon being functioning alcoholics. Their collected boozy performances wound up being the most cathartic, life-inspiring and generally uplifting shows ever offered a paying (or non-paying) audience.

The sticking point here is that Jimmy Page would show up so resolutely out of it that it got to the point of sheer embarrassment, rather than having a band united in the same sense of lubrication. Check out the stage posture of Robert Plant in just about any clip from 1975 onward. More often than not, he makes little if any eye contact with Page. This is highly evident during the 1977 Seattle show, as well as the Knebworth performances, wherein Plant seems to only be vaguely interested in what's going on. Hell, he even blows the "Whole Lotta Love" segment of the latter by being totally disengaged, barely disguising his utter contempt at Page and his heroin-filled theatrics.

I am completely down with throwing back a bunch of drinks or smoking something or other within the context of camaraderie towards getting everyone in the band on the same, comfortable wavelength. But the bloated state of rockstar indulgence that dictates being completely self-absorbed to the point of nihilism over being able to perform in the first place is nothing short of anathema to me.

If a so-called artist is allowed to show such contempt for his audience of patrons, he rightfully deserves whatever bad vibes or shame that might happen to come his way. And I happen to speak from personal experience, by the way. I fouled up more than one or two shows, letting down my band and the folks following us by being overindulgent with my use of substances and booze. So this ISN'T a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

It is to my eternal shame and regret that I cheated people in such a selfish manner. It's an albatross I will forever wear, and one that I wish some of these moronic yet alleged musical geniuses would have the grace to own up to.

Eddie Van Halen - Tour 2004

[Terry]

It's a HUGE difference. If it's a matter of life and death, then there isn't much choice for the homeless guy. If it's between hanging out with rock stars or not hanging out with rock stars, then you can just say "fuck off!!" and walk away if it doesn't suit you.

Yes, but the point I was making has little (or less) to do with the people receiving the treatment and has more to do with the motivations of the people providing the treatment...perhaps my outlandish example was ill-advised, as it has seemingly clouded this illustration...

Let's just say we agree to disagree, and toast our newfound understanding a la Zeppelin-style with large amounts of unscaled sushi and champagne.

[envy_me]

Yes, but the point I was making has little (or less) to do with the people receiving the treatment and has more to do with the motivations of the people providing the treatment...perhaps my outlandish example was ill-advised, as it has seemingly clouded this illustration...

Let's just say we agree to disagree, and toast our newfound understanding a la Zeppelin-style with large amounts of unscaled sushi and champagne.

No, you misunderstood. I meant motivation for those recieving the treatment. It's much easier to walk away when your life isn't at stake.

Like all those people who demanded girls to be topless to come in backstage. If they said to me to take my top off or I won't come in backstage, I'd say "fuck you, you loser". But that doesn't make them evil, it's offer and counter-offer. But if somebody would say "take your top off or you'll starve" then I might reconsider. But that would actually make them evil, cause they would know that I don't have much choice. All depends on what's at stake.

I can say to my friend "I'll give you a 20 if you do......".She won't do it, she doesn't need the 20. It's more or less no difference. But if somebody would depend on it for food, and I'd blackmail them, then I would be a piece of shit.