# Talk:Led Zeppelin II

This is clearly a heavy metal album. Hard rock describes more straightforward music, such as Heart...
This should be labeled as heavy metal. 

Do you have any sources to back up this claim ? or just your personal opinion ?  Mlpearc (open channel) 19:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment - The fact that they come from the Blues scene in London, one could say they played Blues Rock really. I'll not say what my personal opinion on Led Zeppelins 'genre' should be, but I think we need a bit more than Hard Rock in the info box, so research is required. Various English/UK bands of this era get the Heavy Metal label due to playing faster than the other Blues men of the day. Nuro msg me 23:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
PS - I've got the album liner notes at home, which is why I amended the recording and release infobox, as it had said 'at various locations' for years, though I refrained form adding the literally 11 studios they recorded parts of this album at. Nuro msg me 00:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

There are elements of heavy metal on this album, of course. There are also huge portions of softer material and the majorty of it is heavy blues-rock.  Led Zeppelin despised the term "heavy metal," by the way. 2603:6080:21F0:AB60:B0BB:5CDC:A2D0:70B3 (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Harfarhs, Curly Turkey Can either of you explain why we seem to be edit warring over a comma placement? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not aware that we are. The style guide is clear on what should happen, and given that I've never seen any other example of altering a published text in such a way as in the disputed article (though I'll keep my eyes open for it) the style guide seems to be considered valid. Harfarhs (talk) 10:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Ritchie333: Neither of us has made an edit in a couple of days.  I've brought the issue up at Talk:MOS, as the guideline Harfarhs quotes was introduced only this July, and without a rationale.  Most likely it'll be removed. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

[1] 197.86.195.103 (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

10X platinum = diamond Wolf O'Donnel (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Despite what the editor thinks he is reading in the source, Plant did not write the entirety of the songs listed as stated - the music was always written by Page (with some themes originating from the black bluesmen they borrowed from) with some help at times by Jones and Bonham.  Plant wrote lyrics and melodies (which he sang, but could not write down, as Plant is not musically trained). This should be corrected/clarified. The labels of the most up-to-date CDs and LP issues list the personnel who wrote each track. This information is listed in the article further down, and it contradicts the portions listed previously. This will be confusing for those not familiar with Zeppelin's material.2603:6080:21F0:AB60:B0BB:5CDC:A2D0:70B3 (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

"Dazed and Confused" is stated to be on Led Zeppelin II. In fact, it is not on II, but the first Zeppelin album.  Bquack (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I've removed it. Masato.harada (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
That's not what the text (and source) says, it meant while playing a live version of Dazed and Confused, known for lots of improvisation, the group spontaneously came up with riffs and ideas that were recycled for tracks on the second album. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
I agree that the original poster's reasoning is faulty. The bigger issue is that, so far as I can tell, Lewis does not actually write what it says in the body. The citation is for pages 15 and 46–47, but after consulting the book on the Internet Archive, I do not see any mention of "Dazed & Confused" influencing the songs on LZII. Tkbrett (✉) 16:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Oh right. Forgot to look at the Lewis citation as I (probably) added it in the first place, but missed the "Dazed And Confused" text that was added by Edelmand in 2009, long-known for disruptive editing on Zeppelin articles. Duh, duh and thrice duh. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
And here I thought this unsourced edit on LZIII was old – it took just over five years before it was removed. Meanwhile, Edelmand's disruptive edit is almost old enough to vote. Tkbrett (✉) 19:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, a month after it passed GA. One of the reasons for doing a whole bunch of GA reviews in this area was to check the factual accuracy of everything, but I always seem to miss random edits like that because I'm doing something else when it happens. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)