Talk:Led Zeppelin/Archive 4

message: Can be seen in this youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GYR21kG9PE&mode=related&search=
I think it could be of some use, maybe? He talks about not releasing singles in Britain from 1:25 or so to 2:15 or so. 71.1.45.234 02:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plant's stance on albums and singles

message: Using archaic opinions about a particular act from long ago is not valid using today's privelege of hindsight.  In the `70's, it's true that some people "mislabeled" Zep as heavy metal rather than hard rock, mainly because the genres themselves were young, but that doesn't mean that their mistaken opinions should be referenced as fact 35 years later.  Case in point is the labeling of the soft white acts of the late `50's who stole black music from the musicians who created rock-n-roll and called it the same, which in hindsight was nothing more than pop or rockabilly at best --- Ricky Nelson was no rock-n-roller.  It would be better to use modern-day published opinions of so-called music experts as valid source citations for prying Zep from the heavy metal label and put them where they belong, in hard rock.  Couple that with the POV of anyone with ears and you have a strong claim.66.168.242.100 05:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be an incorrect POV delete based on a bad stereotype of the genre. Every pro publication labels them as heavy metal. On Wikipedia verifiability is key. And for this there are hundreds of references to support their inclusion in the genre. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 10:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Led Zeppelin is just not heavy metal. I agree with the first poster. The Chicken 01:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's a kind of discussion between hard rockers and headbangers about which bands are heavy metal or hard rock. Headbangers don't like hard rockers, but hard rockers doesn't have that feeling about the headbangers. And one thing that headbangers couldn't stand is the greatest band of the world being hard rock and not heavy metal. At least not only that. So they started to put it like that, Led Zeppelin is a heavy metal band. There are much more heavier and darkest bands than Led Zeppelin that are simply labelled as "Hard Rock". Of course Led Zeppelin has some musics that could be labelled heavy metal, such as "Achilles Last Stand", but in general, they're hard rock. Pete Vilel 13:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia isn't the proper forum for debate over who is heavy metal and who isn't. In my opinion...when I saw LZ in 1973 they were a heavy metal band. When I saw them in 1975...they were a heavy metal band. When I listen to them today...they are a hard rock band. But editor opinions have no place in Wikipedia. It's all about WP:CITE and WP:V. Right or wrong, just about every pro publication has labeled them a heavy metal band. In order to rm the heavy metal genre, by Wikipedia policy, would require at least 2 dozen valid and verifiable references in order to stick. In the end the only genre that really applies is rock. Heavy metal, hard rock, prog rock, pop rock, country rock...etc...are all just sub-genres of the parent "Rock" genre. Maybe that's the way to go for all artists? Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 17:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it not be better to go on how the band classed themselves? I remember listening to an interview with Jimmy Page, possibly Robert Plant, and they did not like the label "Heavy Metal", as they did not think it was an accurate label from the music the band produced. I'm sorry i can't be of any help by bringing up links, but it was a thought anyway.86.133.105.141 19:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep always have said their music is not Heavy metal. Candy 21:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Their music is the prototype of heavy metal, and should probably be labelled as proto-metal. Taka an analogy, Led to heavy metal is like Patti Smith to punk. Wooyi 22:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As an over 40 who has lived and loved hard rock since I was 10, I can promise you that Led Zepp, Deep Purple and all were never Heavy Metal to the original fans.  We used to call them Heavy Rock, nowadays Hard Rock, and were pissed at all the media trying to move product by using the much more scary "Metal" tag.  If Led are Heavy Metal, why are they in the Rock bins not the Metal bins in my local music store?  If Led are Metal, why don't they call themselves that?  If Led are Metal, why are there so many fans bitching about this label?  I just can't understand  the attitude of those who want to label the band Metal.  Yes they were influential to Metal bands, yes the media used the stereotype.  So what? That doesn't make them Metal.  Use your ears! Reszerve 06:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure thats not supposed to say as a 10 year old who'll still be listening to hard rock when I'm 40? You must've belonged to an awfully small group of friends who didn't know what heavy metal was. It's not about personal opinion(or puppetry opinion)... it's about reference and verifiability. The weight of evidence wins. Not the POV. 156.34.218.199 10:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Their link to the HM genre is referenced "in concrete". And there are many of them. Young people who aren't very "musically school'd" don't usually consider them as part of the genre. But they are very securely connected to it. It would take at least 2 dozen valid references saying they aren't heavy metal in order to pull the genre ref off of the article. I have never seen 1 valid reference for it, but that doesn;t meant they aren't out there. 156.34.217.119 22:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are for sure not a heavy metal band, especially considering that the first heavy metal band was Judas Priest, who wore metal and played LOUD. Zeppelin uses so much blues and rock that just because they played loud and with a ton of energy, it does not mean they were heavy metal. They hated that name, and journalists would only use that name to excite interest. 208.127.96.11 07:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Label it proto metal, which automatically redirects users to heavy metal. It admits their influence and likenesses to heavy metal, while agreeing they're not strictly metal.(The Elfoid 10:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The job is not to classify them ourselves, if there are some references that conform to the standard that say that by all means, add it in, a large part of the readership will not have the foggiest what proto metal is - the general classification they have been given is heavy metal, as has been cited in the article. I normally find their records in the Heavy Metal section of Virgin, HMV et al.--Alf melmac 10:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I now stand corrected as the Virgin store in town now have them in Rock/Pop :s --Alf melmac 22:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre Change 

message: I just noticed that an anonymous user has changed the chart position of the 'Fourth Album' from 2 US to 1 US. I recall reading in the Q magazine special addition on Zeppelin that The Fourth Album peaked at 2. This source is not infallable, but errors are few. Can anyone confirm this chart position elsewhere? Thanks - Rockthing 14:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albums' chart history 

message: The article states:
In 1974, Led Zeppelin launched their own record label, Swan Song, named after one of only five Led Zeppelin songs which the band never released commercially (Page later re-worked the song with his band, The Firm, and it appears as "Midnight Moonlight" on their first album). 
What are the 5 unreleased Led Zeppelin songs?
I know Nadine is 1, Now Swan Song, What's the 3 others and where can they be found?
24.47.151.238 19:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreleased songs 

message: I was wondering what was the name of the hurdy gurdy player in Led Zeppelin?
82.133.95.239 22:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurdy gurdy player 

message: I heard that zeppelin was getting back together. did anyone else hear this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.85.95.162 (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reunion? 

message: A quick question.  I know CODA was released after Bonham's death, but it was still a Led Zeppelin album.  Is there any reason it is not listed under their discography? Mister B. 02:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea. However, I'm guessing that like other compilations it is not mentioned here as only the albums released when the group were all alive. Coda was a mish mash and not really a well thought through album. There is a link to Zeps other albums on the page (so this one can be kept short) where they can be seen in full details. Candy 21:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just adding that I seem to remember it might have been a contractual obligation album. However, they had their own recording label so not sure how that worked there!! Candy 17:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Presence was a mish mash and not well though out album, so Coda should be in the discography as well. The material was made while all the members were made. Is Pink Floyd's The Final Cut not an official album cause they had already broken up? 208.127.96.11 07:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most published sources include Coda as part of the band's discography. I think it should be included. Edelmand 09:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Yes please, include the Coda album.  my rationale is that it an official Led Zepp release, it is not a compilation of previously released material, it is no more a mish-mash of old material than Physical Graffiti, and it is included in the Ten CD box set of Led Zepp's studio albums (which incidentally are the earliest CD's I know of to use, very mildly, volume maximizing software in mastering).  Reszerve 06:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coda 

message: You have a good article here, but I am placing it on hold so you can address or justify the following concerns:
# The opening paragraph seems a little choppy to me.
# Some of the prose could use cleaning, ie. "While the album received generally positive reviews, some derided it, most famously John Mendelsohn of Rolling Stone magazine, who savaged the band for stealing music (notably Black Mountain Side from Black Water Side by Bert Jansch and the riff from Your Time Is Gonna Come from Traffic's Dear Mr. Fantasy), mimicking black artists, and showing off." Perhaps it could be split up to something like "... John Mendelsohn of Rolling Stone magazine. In his review, he savaged the band for stealing music, notably Black Mountain ...". I generally prefer to see articles without phrases in brackets and although in might be a pain, it would help with the flow.
# Some unsourced POV statements, ie. "By 1976, Led Zeppelin was a household name in both North America and Europe, perennially topping the charts on both continents."
# Post Led Zeppelin: Is such a long section really needed? It certainly wouldn't hurt to trim it down.I am open to leaving the section the way it is if it can be justified.
#Good use of images, although you're most likely going to have to lose a few if your pursuing higher status for the article. You should perhaps avoid using 2 concert images from the same year and is the picture of the Hindenburg necessary when there is a shot of the album cover? 
#The sourcing doesn't fit the style guide. The citations go directly after a period or word, but in some cases, there is a space.
When these issues are addressed, let me know and I'll re-review it. -- Scorpion 14:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA feedback

message: I'm putting this article on hold because of a few major items.
#The list of influences in the intro, (rockabilly,[3] reggae,[4] soul,[5] funk,[6] jazz,[7] classical, Celtic, Indian, Arabic, folk, pop, Latin and country.) is a bit choppy due to the references appearing after every other word. Also, it seems as though the last few genres are uncited-and that's the kind of assertion that needs cites.
#In this article's case, the audio samples ought to be inline-see the Pink Floyd article to see how to do this.
#The article is divided into history sections based on albums- this results in very short paragraphs. I would suggest that the history section be divided by major eras in the band's history instead. 
#The discography section needs to just list album name, release date, and chart positions. Covers ought to be on just album pages and discography pages. 
#Citations are not formatted according to cite web, but at least they're formatted consistently. However, if you're ever going to try for FA, they need to comply with cite web.
When you can fix these problems, let me know and I'll rereview it. Atlantik 22:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA on hold

message: I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so I don't know if I'm disobeying any rules but I went ahead and added Wearing and Tearing, please feel free to edit it. It was a red link so I added some info on it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Razoso (talk • contribs) 03:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wearing and Tearing 

message: When the reviewer put the GA nomination on hold, I tried to do some editing to meet the requirement, but then I confronted many "edit conflicts" like everyone else is editing it at the same time. So I might come later when there are less people around. But if anyone else can edit it to make it meet GA standards, please do so, thanks! Wooyi 16:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing 

message: The first Led Zeppelin date is listed as being in November 1968 at the Roundhouse, when actually it was in October 1968 at the University of Surrey in Guildford.
http://ledzeppelin.alexreisner.com/tourdates.html
Do I just edit to correct it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alanroy (talk • contribs) 17:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debut performance is wrong. 

message: This page is fairly long, I think we need to come up with some stratagy for cutting it down a bit, because to my mind its one of the only things stopping the page from making FA status. Maybe we could shorten down the biographys a good bit, and have two pages based on the Early & Latter Years that even the band themselves recognise as the division in there playing style. Anyone else have any ideas on shortening the page? --Ferdia O'Brien (The Archiver & Vandal Watchman) 23:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Case in point, this article is 60KBs, I advise the possibilty of splitting it occording to Early & Latter years. --Ferdia O'Brien (The Archiver And The  Vandal Watchman) 21:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The article is not too long in so much as there is quite a bit of redundancy.  Each of the band's albums has a pretty formidable page of its own.  While I do not necessarily disagree with there being some comment on each album in this article, there is currently far too much; should a reader be so inclined, there are links they can click on.  Other than that, I do think the article looks good as it is.--Zoso Jade 22:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Length 

message: I read over this article and i gotta say it is filled with plenty of great content, but the formatting is so-so. In order to get this up to GA or FA status, some changes need to be made. One thing is that article simply has too many images. If we cut back on a few (Namely the poster for The Song Remains the same and one of the many Physical Graffiti performance shots), and re-organized the images and worked in the sound samples into the actual text and not discography, this article may be GA worthy.  Scrumshus 'Talk to me 22:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  good article, bad formatting 

message: For those who want to see what this article looked like when it was a featured article candidate  (i.e., before my edits were erased), here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&diff=prev&oldid=83871252
Needless to say, I thinks its infinitely better than the sterile little pile of information shavings that it is now.  Does it need more sourcing and some condensing?  Absolutely, its sort of a mess, but I was never allowed to finish.  The fact is that this older version is far more informative and interesting than the one we have now, and ever since I left things have gone downhill.  Look for instanced at the Pink Floyd page, which is a featured article and look at how many POV statements are used--hundreds.  Yet that article is featured and this one which is far better written and organized is complete "teen blog" garbage written by a "12 year old with a learning disability". See hypocrisy  Dume7 17:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument for POV is ridiculous and wrong. Just because the Pink Floyd article isn't perfect, does not mean we should aim for imperfection as well. And I dispute that hundreds of POV statements are used. Show hundreds of them please? --FrasierC 18:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither the current article nor the one you give a diff for mentions the theme tune to :Top of the Pops, both are short of current Featured Article status.--Alf melmac 22:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: My paragraphing adheres to all the rules of English. If you can't understand it, it really isn't my fault. I do not scorn anything - I am saying that your argument for POV statements is going against what Wikipedia is about - ie there should be a lack of POV statements. You saying other articles have POV statements does not make them any more wanted on Wikipedia. As for whether you think it is better or not - it is hardly surprising that you think that. It does not make your version any better, and you have not really shown why your additions would improve the article. Let's just see what the consesus of people is here.FrasierC 20:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It's hilarious that you have such large delusions of grandeur. This isn't Hamlet nor is this Copernicus' writing. It's a Wikipedia article. The two are completely different. What makes you right and everyone else wrong? --FrasierC 21:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What do you mean "be more specific"? I am being very specific. You say your article is good, but everyone else says it isn't. So what makes you, the author, right?
What I don't understand is why you want to edit Wikipedia at all. You don't seem to want to adhere to the rules, and in fact admit wanting to include POV in the article - which is against Wikipedia policy. Why do you want to edit on Wikipedia when you clearly dislike the rules and foundations it is built upon? --FrasierC 01:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevant bit of the Manual of Style states that 'articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country' so there's no argument about BE vs AmE.--Alf melmac 21:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Article That Once Was 

message: "Led Zeppelin were an English rock band formed in 1968 and composed of guitarist Jimmy Page, vocalist Robert Plant, drummer John Bonham, and bass guitarist and keyboardist John Paul Jones."
Not only is it awkward to read, it is incomplete.  I suggest something like :
"Led Zeppelin were an English rock band who formed in 1968.  Led Zeppelin were composed of Jimmy Page, Robert Plant, John Bonham, and John Paul Jones."
As each of the members have extensive pages, it is unnecessary to have incomplete listings of what instruments they played cluttering the FIRST sentence of this article! --Mister B. 03:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad sentence. 

message: * Travel Led Zeppelin's stairway to theme-park heaven
* --Ling.Nut 12:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  roller coaster 

message: Why is Led Zeppelin not on iTunes? 68.55.183.136 21:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  iTunes 

message: Why does this link point to there? I -am- assuming good faith on the part of the person who created the link, but honestly, what does the concept of an "indulgence" (which was a way for Catholics to pay money to earn favor with the Church and with God) have to do with musicians' debauchery in the context of Led Zep's members' legendary rock n' roll lifestyles? I thought about changing it, but I'm not skilled with HTML, so, anyone else want to point this link to a more appropriate article: like say "pick-up artists (PUAs)" Jdholsinger 12:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another way of talking about debauchery is to say one is indulging themselves in what could be perceived as unsavory activities. I'm sure the original editor making that link didn't know about the Catholic term Indulgence (I know I didn't).  Debauchery has its own article, so I linked it there. — Zaui (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under the heading "Biggest band in the world", the "Debauchery" link leads to an article on Catholic Church indulgences??? 

message: Goldbug covered A Whole Lotta Love and combined it with the annoyingly catchy Pearl & Dean (an advertising company) cinema music. LewisR 02:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goldbug 

message: The images need fair use rationales that specifically state they are being used for this article or the nomination will be quick-failed. Look to similar GA/FAs for examples. --Nehrams2020 22:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA comment

message: (Npjnpj 09:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it is a mistake. I have corrected it to 1966. Well spotted! 8) Candy 07:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistake in the Timeline?

message: All these screen shots from concert DVDs in the article are copyright images presumably used with fair use in mind, but no rationale provided.  I'm not even sure that there is a rationale, as free images or public domain images should not be that hard to find.  The images should be either given a rationale for use, or taken down.  —Gaff ταλκ 22:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-free images used without fair use rationale 

message: Many people I have met these days tell me that Led Zeppelin is a Rock band and not a Metal band. I want to discuss with people about this. I'd say this is true. Your opinions?
::* Please see the header for this page: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Led Zeppelin article.  This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.  So here's my thoughts:  ask your question in some other internet forum/  If you want to help bring this article up to good or featured status then have at it.  —Gaff ταλκ 06:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On top of that, the topic is already beat to death here. Wikipedia is not about personal opinion. It's about citation, reference and verifiability. The only people who don't consider Led Zeppelin as a heavy metal band are musically impaired teenagers. As recommended, the topic of Led Zeppelin 'not' being heavy metal can probably be found on some teen chat room. It need not be discussed here any further. 156.34.209.39 08:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a metal band? 

message: There is a simple but rather whopping error in re Bonham's death:  the article says "he downed four quadruple vodkas (roughly sixteen shots (2/3 pint(~8dl) of vodka)".  A quick check with the Unix "units" program says that 2/3 pint is closer to 3 dl.  On the other hand, 16 shots converts to 7 dl or 1.6 pint.  This is assuming that 1 shot = 1.5 US fluid oz.
The "units" program's data file documents an "EU shot" which is 25 ml (compared to the US shot, which is 44 ml).  The UK was in the EU at the time.  After checking Shot_glass#Sizes, I see that the UK shot is 25 or 30 ml.
Being more careful with units, I get:
four quadruple UK shots = 16 shots = 400/480 ml
400/480 ml = 0.7/0.84 imperial pint = 4/4.8 dl
So a better statement would be: "he downed four quadruple vodkas (roughly sixteen shots (3/4 pint (~4.5 dl) of vodka)".
Do people think this is a reasonable amendment?
DWorley 01:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantity of drink 

message: I have been following this page for about a year, and over that time numerous images of Led Zeppelin have been added (some by myself), only to be taken down later as a violation of fair use. The page currently only has one image of the band, which is in the infobox.  No pictures of any of the individual band members, or of the group performing live on stage. My question is: where can fair use images of the band actually be found?  Edelmand 11:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Easiest way would be by contacting people who have photographed concerts, and getting their permission to license them for free use. Unfortunately most concert images on the internet are without author information, let alone a contact. I guess we just have to hope that there's a wikipedian among us that has attended a show and has photos. IrisKawling 15:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images needed 

message: i think more information on Led Zeppelin's use of musicality should be brought to attention this includes guitar scales and methods, innovations , and commonly used chords , bass lines, methods , plucking techniques ,drum beats and percussiive innovation and vocal ranges.
::It will likely be removed as WP:ATT if it isn't properly referenced and verifiable. The article already has too much unref'd original research as it is and requires cleanup more than new content. 156.34.209.136 02:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musical Methods 

message: many bands have this, if any it should be Zeppelin
Zephead999 23:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added the Legacy and cultural impact section 

message: I would like to request the following link for inclusion under the external links:
* 
All information in this database is cross referenced and inaccuracies, if any, can be updated by anyone that wishes. 
Thank you. 
171.159.64.10 17:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link Request 

message: either remove this negligible, useless section over one of the stupidest "controversies" about a band ever to be invented by Rolling Stone, or I will post a sourced, reasonable plagiarism section of equal value about another a band many of you anti-Zeppelin idiots may not take so kind to. give you a hint: Their name starts with a "B", ends with an "S", and has a big "over rated" in the middle.
:This has already been argued to death. See above ("accusations of copying music").  I personally agree with you that this 'controversy' is overstated, but it seems that enough people are interested in the topic to warrant a heading.  Edelmand 09:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarism section