Talk:Led Zeppelin/Archive 2

message: Just edited the beginning a bit. Led Zeppelin cannot be introduced simply as a "blues-rock band" since many of their famous songs are definetely not blues-rock (Stairway to Heaven, for example). Probably there are no blues-rock songs in fourth album at all since even two first songs are a bit too "heavy" to fall in that genre. Later they got even further away from blues-rock. --80.221.30.182 19:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is accurate. Led Zeppelin did start out as a blues-rock band, although it was mainly their first album and some songs in their second that were blues rock. Their second album was when they started delving into hard rock, although their third album was folk tunes. Their fourth album was really when they started playing only hard rock. Of course, we all know that the majority of the later stuff was crap (at least, it didn't live up to their previous standards) because of Page's heroin addiction. firenexx 01:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zeppelin not being a blues-rock band? No blues songs on the untitled album? Try Black Dog and even more blatant "When the Levee Breaks" is a direct cover of a blues song.  I would say blues-rock would be defined as any rock (no matter how "hard") developed from the blues.  For instance, the White Stripes is a blues-rock band.--Zoso Jade 15:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blue-rock

message: Is "Led Zeppelin" plural or singular?  I ask because "Zeppelin" and "the band" seem to take on both plural and singular identities in the article...is there a general Wikipedia consensus when referring to musical groups? InTheFlesh? 17:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it's singular, since the name of the band came from a critic who quipped that the band would sink faster than a lead (the metal) zeppelin. Streamless 17:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some minor grammar issues

message: It is to be noted that Led Zeppelin didn't like being categorized as Heavy Metal
:Neither does Motorhead, who prefer to be called simply "rock 'n roll".  Nevertheless, Led Zeppelin are commonly considered the first proper heavy metal band.  WesleyDodds 13:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Led Zeppelin..not neccesarily Heavy Metal 

message: Jimmy Page and Robert Plant were blues fanatics; two of Led Zeppelin's early hits, "Whole Lotta Love" and "You Shook Me", were very similar to earlier songs by Willie Dixon. (The band were subsequently accused of using his lyrics without crediting Dixon, and it was not until Chess Records brought suit 15 years later, that proper credit—and a monetary settlement—was given.)
The lawsuit concerned only "Whole Lotta Love"; "You Shook Me" always had been properly credited. Richard K. Carson 19:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Willie Dixon 

message: I'm just curious of what other people's favourite three Led Zeppelin songs are. I'll start off, please right you're favourite Led Zeppelin songs below
*When The Levee Breaks
*The Lemon Song
*In My Time of Dying
*Hats Off To (Roy) Harper
*Going to California
*Stairway
*Heartbreaker
Very tough.  I love all of them, but here goes:
*Ramble On
*Whole Lotta Love
*Hey, Hey, What Can I Do 71.76.212.61 22:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Favourite Song

message: *I've set out to see that the articles concerning my favorite bands get cleaned up, and cleaned up well. Led Zeppelin's article needs some serious work done on it. It's extremely POV in its writing, and opinions abound. Even worse, practically nothing is cited - there isn't a single external link, reference, or footnote contained within the first third of the article. I went through only the first third and found over half a dozen instances where citations need to be provided, ESPECIALLY concerning the band's formation. I mean, all this stuff about the "New Yardbirds" and forming a group with Beck, Entwistle, and Moon is news to me - people need to cite this stuff or not post it at all. With work and time, this can be a very good article - but it's a looooong way from that now. TheImpossibleMan 04:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see some of your point regarding the article. Having just recently browsed through it myself I was quite shocked the first time I read it. I have no time for article re-builds. In this article, like many others, it's simply a matter of taking it 1 paragraph at a time. It's always useful having another set of eyes read over it. I have been an LZ fan since 1970. So when I read through it quickly...everything seems so 'matter of fact' since most of it is just rehashing everything I've been reading about thee band for over 35 years. In contrast when you(or anyone else with absolutely no knowledge of the band's history) reads it, obviously some statements might leap out at you as unfamiliar. Citations are easy. Citations, footnotes and overall cleanup take time. Time I certainly don't have. For the "early days' section though it only took about 2 minutes to link the areas you felt citations were needed. If you have more free time for Wiki then perhaps you can finish off the task of footnoting and clean-up. As for the rest of the article, grammar in particular. This is the Wikipedia...90% of the articles here read like junior high school book reports. Especially the music articles. This article may seem poorly written at first. But then you go and read articles on Cream, Moody Blues, David Bowie or Queen and you see they're all pretty much in the same boat. Even articles that have reached FA status like Iron Maiden, Sex Pistols or the soon to be FA'd Rush article still could use some tweaking. But, like I said before....it's all just a work in progress. Cheers! Anger22 12:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crappy article + Citations

message: * The history section is an absolute BRICK, if anyone has some images that can be added legally, that would greatly improve the article. TheImpossibleMan 22:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Find a reviewer that calls his voice grating or otherwise criticizes it and then quote him/her. Bcarlson33 10:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images Needed 

message: Okay, this edit resulted in the vast majority of the article's content being removed, and moved to other articles.  The result of this isn't good (a barren, unencyclopedic article), and I've reverted it back to its prior status.  Break-out articles are only good practice in situation where one specific aspect of a subject is significant enough that it warrants a full article to itself.  Given that 75% of the article is the "History" of Led Zeppelin, it's not a good candidate, since it pretty much is the Led Zeppelin article.  Have a look at Pink Floyd (which has FA status), The Rolling Stones, or any other historically significant band, really, and that's how things play out in other similar articles.  Warrens 19:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever about the length of the History section, whats going on with a full track listing of the 2003 DVD and only a link to the discography?  --KaptKos 10:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article decimation