Would Led Zeppelin have benefitted from a fifth touring musician?

No. A second guitarist would have been too much. With what Page was doing with his guitar already. Better to not clutter it up. There's something to be said for allowing "space" on a song on stage. Knowing when not to play. Not everything has to sound exactly like the record. I enjoy when the feel/arrangement is a little different on live performances.

 

I think the Page/Crowes shows demonstrate a little of what could be done with the bigger band.
It would of been great, and might have somewhat closed the gap between the touring and recording band.
Honestly it could of stood to be closed a little IMO.
There is a guy out there that claimed he was considered to be the 2nd guitar in Zeppelin. I'll let someone else dig up that info..

 

I said this in another Zep thread and I’ll mention it again here.

There’s no comparison to actually having seen Zep live and sitting in your living room studying and analyzing a dvd or boot.

I saw Zep in 77 in Birmingham and it was a magical night. The wall of sound in that arena didn’t allow one to be concerned whether jimmy missed a note or Roberts vocals needed a backup.

My answer to the question is no. An extra player on stage would not have benefitted the concert experience at all. Would it have benefitted for those sitting in their living rooms watching a dvd or listening to a boot?

Maybe. But that kinda misses the point. Seeing Zep live was something special that you just had to be there to feel the magic.

 

Hey, you saw the show where Robert Plant addressed this topic personally: when introducing "Ten Years Gone" as usual he explained about the need for Jonesy's three neck guitar (used for the first time on stage that night) and how they preferred giving Jones more instruments to play as opposed to bringing in extra people. "So, we didn't hire Billy Preston..." was how Robert put it. I think we know which band he was referring to with that remark...

 

No. Revisionism sucks.

 

The Who?

 

*bump*