ROBERT PLANT NIXES ZEPPELIN TOUR

According to England's Sunday Mirror, Robert Plant has decided against doing a Led Zeppelin tour, turning down a deal that could be worth serious money (100 million British pounds). He wanted the reunion concert from last year to be the band's final statement, and right now, he's committed to touring with Alison Krauss.

Whether or not you like his decision, you gotta respect the guy, for turning down the bucks to do what he wants to do.

Of course, there's nothing to say he can't change his mind after the tour with Alison, and he doesn't want a Zeppelin reunion to overshadow what he's doing now.

Personally, I'm excited to see him with Alison Krauss (I have tickets for the NYC show) and, yes, I'd pay to see Zeppelin, but I'm kind of more interested in seeing him doing the Krauss thing. Not out of any contrarianism, it just seems like he'd be better at age 59 doing the Raising Sand thing.

THE STOOGES TO PERFORM AT THE ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME INDUCTION CEREMONY?

I was shocked when I heard about this too. The Stooges are performing at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony? Is the Hall of Fame admitting the incredibly stupid error of their ways in not inducting this incredible band (who have been eligible for over a decade now)?

Yes and no. The Stooges are actually going to be performing for fellow Detroit native Madonna, which is so perverse and ridiculous it kind of makes sense. Last year, co-inductees R.E.M. and Patti Smith performed The Stooges' "I Wanna Be Your Dog" at the ceremony. Maybe someone will get the message.

Remember: without The Stooges, there'd be no Ramones, U2, Jane's Addiction, R.E.M., Nirvana or Red Hot Chili Peppers (just to name a few).

By the way, some might say, "Who cares about the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?" But I know that Iggy would like to be recognized for the impact that the band has had. I asked him once, and said that he really would like to get in. Of course, he also said that he never wanted to reunite with The Stooges.

VAN HALEN: "UNCHAINED"?

Lots of rumors out there about the Van Halen tour. I don't have to point to them, you can google it. In a nutshell, Ed Van Halen may be off the wagon, possibly prompted by his ex-wife's tell-all autobiography.

When I saw Van Halen last year, I thought the chemistry between Ed and his son, bassist Wolfgang Van Halen, was so sweet. But right now, I bet it's a been a bit uncomfortable.

The band's website says that "According to Eddie Van Halen's physician, he is undergoing a battery of comprehensive medical tests to determine a defined diagnosis and recommended medical procedures."

I hoped that this super-successful tour was a great way to put a final chapter to the Van Halen book. But here's hoping that the rumors aren't true, and whatever is wrong with Ed, get well soon, man.

NINE INCH NAILS' FIRST POST MAJOR LABEL ALBUM

Well, Trent Reznor is releasing the first Nine Inch Nails album since leaving the world of the major labels. It's called Ghosts I-IV and it's all instrumental.

He's following the Radiohead model of offering it in different incarnations for different prices. You can get the first nine tracks as a free download. You can download the whole 36 track album for $5, and it comes with a 40 page PDF booklet. You can get a double CD for $10. If you do this, you can get a free download of the album immeadiately. There's a special high end version for $75, and a super deluxe version for $300. but that version has already sold out. It was a limited edition of 2500 copies. That's $750,000 right there, minus recording and production costs. The future is here. For artists like Trent and Radiohead, who have built-in fan bases, who don't really need to be marketed to, the major labels are totally unecessary.

Still, it will be interesting to see if this appeals to anyone outside of a small fanbase. Trent tried something like this a few months back: he produced and released an album by the spoken-word artist Saul Williams, and allowed people to download it for free, or they could pay up to $5 for it. Apparently, most people didn't pay, which bummed Trent out. The thing is, (a) lots of his fans were probably curious enough to want to hear it. But even back in his commercial heyday, his endorsement didn't always lead to successful bands: although he did well with Marilyn Manson, some of his other Nothing Records artists, like Prick, didn't sell much.

I bought the double CD. I'm a huge fan of his. I don't need all of the deluxe stuff, but I still prefer CDs to mp3s when it comes to my favorite artists. I'm not sure I'll like it, but I trust him enough to pay $10 without hearing it. But it will be interesting to see what happens when he releases an album with some commercial potential on his own.

OZZFEST: ONE WEEKEND A SUMMER?

I've been hearing that the Ozzfest may change formats, and go from being a tour to a one-weekend long festival. This is kind of the way Lollapalooza was able to redefine itself, and it will be interesting to see if Sharon Osbourne will be able to pull this off with Ozzfest.

Clearly, Ozzy Osbourne can't keep up the pace for an entire summer tour. I'm not dissing the guy - between the his albums with Black Sabbath and his early solo albums, he's made some of my favorite music ever. But every summer, it seems that there are cancelled Ozzfest gigs because his vocal chords are damaged.

The festival has become such an event, though, that it's not really all about Ozzy. Lots of the most happening metal bands (who I don't tend to care much about) are always on the bill. I think the kids stay for Ozzy (sometimes) out of respect and curiousity, and the older crowd shows up later for Oz and any other older acts that may be on the bill. Ozzfest is notorious for not paying younger acts (or charging them to be on the tour), and now there are other summer metal tours that are better deals for young bands.

Having an Ozzy-less Ozzfest would seem weird, and this seems like a perfect solution. Making Ozzfest a weekend long event, with Ozzy playing one night and Black Sabbath the other would seem to be a cool way to go.

DO REVIEWS MATTER?

This week, one of the big stories in music and the media was that Maxim apparently reviewed new albums by The Black Crowes and Nas without actually heard said albums. (You can google this and find out all about it.) Maxim was caught red-handed, and admitted that they were more of "previews" than "reviews," but they gave each album

a numerical rating anyway.

Lost in the media's excitement to report this story was that Rolling Stone did review the album in thier latest issue. Rolling Stone is often dissed as being old-school while Maxim is seen as a bit more hip (if overly macho... or way overly macho). Rolling Stone has always had a bit more cozy of a rapport with artists/management, while Maxim takes the "regular guy" approach of happily dissing anyone (a tactic Rolling Stone has mimicked a bit in recent years).

Still, it makes me wonder (a) does anyone who reads Maxim really care if the review is real or fake and (b) do reviews even matter anymore? (b) has been debated a lot, both in terms of music and movies. Personally, I'm pretty influenced by magazines that have some cred with me - there aren't many left, but Mojo is certainly one. In fact, Mojo influences me more than any other media outlet when it comes to buying music, both new and old.

I don't want to hate on Maxim, but it is a bit troubling that they couldn't just write album "previews" instead of reviews with "grades." No, it isn't the New York Times covering world issues, but still, it says something about the media when a huge magazine thinks that they need to "fudge" a review (would it have been so bad to not have reviews of the Crowes and Nas' albums?) and that they thought it was OK to do that.

Maxim strikes me as one of those "we're a magazine that 'keeps it real' for 'real guys'" magazines. Couldn't they make a feature out of albums that they didn't get at press time and then speculate as to why (in their usual snarky fashion)?

BRUCE - BACK ON THE ROAD, PREPARING NEW MUSIC?

I recently asked a friend of mine, who goes to tons of Bruce Springsteen shows, if he was going to go to opening night of the second leg of the Magic tour. He said "Nah, I've learned my lesson about opening night."

For those who aren't Springsteen fanatics, lore has it that opening nights don't tend to be the best shows. I've been to a few, and it's true, they usually aren't great compared to what is to come. But apparently, that rule didn't hold this week when Bruce and The E Street Band played Hartford, Conn. (That's where this picture was taken - and I got it from Backstreets). Sadly, keyboardist Danny Federici wasn't back with the band. He is being treated for melanoma, and missed the European leg of the tour, but supposedly he will try to make it to some of the U.S. dates on this leg. Charlie Giordano, who played in Bruce's Seeger Sessions Band is still filling in.

In happier news, Bruce was recently interviewed by USA Today, and he revealed that he has been in the studio lately, both with The E Street Band, and also working on a solo acoustic record. Supposedly, Bruce has full albums that he recorded but never released though, so who knows when we'll hear anything new from him. But it's cool that he's been working on new stuff.

It's kind of a bummer that it seems as if he is "only" doing three nights at Giants Stadium this summer. Last time Bruce and The E Street Band did a summer tour, they did ten nights, followed by three more at Shea. (Of course, very few artists these days could even play Giants Stadium once).

I attribute this to a few things:

(1) In 2003, Bruce was touring for The Rising, an album that really resonated with people post-9/11. Magic is a great album, and is as relevant to this moment in time as The Rising was to 2002-2203, but there was just something about that album that make Bruce seem as big as he was during the Born In The U.S.A. era.
(2) Since The Rising era, Bruce has alienated a lot of fans, due to his politics.
(3) He has also toured a lot: for a while, Bruce would take long breaks between projects, he's been fairly prolific and has toured often since that tour ended, on The Vote For Change Tour, plus the tours for Devils & Dust and The Seeger Sessions album, We Shall Overcome.
(4) His management usually strategizes his career so perfectly, you'd wish they could run the music industry (or the country). But putting tickets that cost $65 - $100 dollars each on sale during the Christmas season for concerts that are a half year away probably wasn't the best idea. Yes, Bruce tickets make a great Christmas gift, but they went on sale only days after the shows were announced, and these days, most Americans don't have an extra couple of hundred bucks lying around, especially during Christmas.
(5) People expect that he'll be doing more shows there, so once the "good seats" sold out, people are waiting for more shows to go on sale, so they can get better seats.

Whatever ,I have tickets for one show, and if he only does these three, I'll try to get for one of the others, if not both of the others. Right now, it looks like his tour is ending right after Giants Stadium, when he plays a Harley Davidson festival. But I bet they'll tour again in the fall, around election time. I bet Bruce is still bummed that the biggest rock stars in the world weren't able to push John Kerry to victory in the last election, but that doesn't mean that they (or he) shouldn't try again this year, hopefully with Obama.