Talk:Led Zeppelin/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Blue-rock

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)

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)

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)

Blues-Rock, the truth

I just had to say, that to say there are probably no blues songs on the fourth album is just wrong. If you were to listen to the whole album, you will hear the song "When The Levee Breaks", which is blues to the core. It was originally recorded by Memphis Minnie, a blues artist of the 1930s, singing about the tragedy of the last time New Orleans was flooded, way back in the thirties. Also to say that everything after four is crap is an opinion, and you cannot state it as though everybody believes this to be so. "Physical Grafitti" is widely viewed as being as good as the first four albums. It is also noteworthy that even on their last album, "In Through The Outdoor", there is a straight blues song, "I'm Gonna Crawl". I think that these things show that Led Zeppelin were indeed first and foremost a Blues-rock band.

"D'yer Maker"

It seems obvious to me that the band playing on this track is Led Zeppelin. The book "Hammer of the Gods" specifically mentions the recording of this song, and refers to the song's heavy, un-reggae-like drumbeat as a symptom of Bonham's frustration at not being able to play a proper reggae beat. I have never seen any evidence backing up the assertation that a band other than Led Zeppelin recorded the instrumental tracks of "D'yer Maker," so I doubt the credibility of this posting. If anyone has any information that can be used to verify this claim as posted in the article, please list it in the source section.

Some minor grammar issues

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) ```` i love the song d'yer mak'er

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)

Just thought i'd say this, it was in fact Keith Moon, the drummer of the Who that said that

Led Zeppelin..not neccesarily Heavy Metal

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)

Is Led Zeppelin Progressive Rock?

It's certainly progressive, and certainly rock, but can it be considered progressive rock?

I would think 30 minute drum solos would have to be classified as progressie rock, maybe not the later 80s style prog rock, but still progressive rock

--No, it is not; the 30 min drum solo was so that Page/Plant/Jones could go take a break and smoke, and to help vent Bonham's emotions. Plus, they only did that liveQballony 23:37, 19 March 2006 (U

Jimmy Page was the first guitarist to have the use of a bow to play the guitar RECORDED on an album track, (He was NOT the first to play it with a bow), using it on the recorded version of Dazed and Confused, and How Many More Times. Surely this could be classed as progressive rock music. Thats just my opinion

• The notion that Led Zeppelin was progressive rock is absurd. Using a violin bow as a gimmick does not qualify a band as "progressive rock". There is a huge difference between being "progressive" in the sense of innovation and originality (this is a role Zeppelin fills well) and "progressive rock". Bands like Pink Floyd, Queen, and Rush were progressive rock bands. Led Zeppelin was hard rock and heavy metal. TheImpossibleMan 06:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Zeppelin were more poprock that progrock, using violing sticks to make guitar noises. They don't really count as either because none of their singles ever got into the charts and they never performed on Top of the Pops either. AlfredG 27.05.06 2255

POP ROCK WTF ARE U TALKING ABOUT (Bill102)

Willie Dixon

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)

Favourite Song

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)

Crappy article + Citations

• 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)
• Someone deleted a lot of the "Citation needed" tags, saying that the histories were explained in the External Links section. But that's not good enough - you have to supply the link right next to the claim. In addition, all embedded external links should be converted to Wikipedia:Footnotes. TheImpossibleMan 04:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Early Days and Latter Days

I am looking to get people's opinion on a matter regarding Led Zeppelin's albums. I'd be grateful if you'd just add your opinion below, thanks

• Is everything that comes after the fourth album bad?

I hardly think so. Physical Graffiti is often rated equal(or better) to the second and fourth albums. Presence(my personal favorite) is an inconsistent album but still contains two of the best songs in LZ's entire career... Achilles Last Stand and Nobody's Fault But Mine. In Through The Outdoor is another lost gem. It's an album from a maturing band just entering a transition period that unfortunately got cut short by John Bonham's untimely death. I can still remember when it first came into record stores, longtime Zeppelin fans were waiting at the door before the store even opened just to jump at the chance to get a new release from the band. I never heard a negative remark about it from anyone. Coda is an enigma as it's really just a 'vault cleaning' But each song is decent and the album, again, was welcomed and cherished by Led Zeppelin fans...of which I have been one since 1970. In my own opinion(stress MY opinion) they don't have a 'bad' album in their catalog. And if they do....a bad Led Zeppelin album is still 10 times better than everyone else's good albums. Anger22 17:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Define "bad". Isn't it a matter of preference? Likes/dislikes? Well, in my opinon, there is no such thing as a bad LZ album. It doesn't matter if it is new or old, it has to be good. Phish's newest album Undermind wasn't there best but it was not bad as it had good songs still. And some people like the older Beatles albums, and some find them overrated and go with their Sgt. Peppers and Abbey Roads and what have you. But I tend to go for LZ's Houses of the Holy, III and IV. It gives balance bewteen hard rock and acoustic, different genres, and just great songs as they are. TommyBoy76 03:12, 28 March 2006

By "bad", i was pretty much asking did you like the albums, or not. Were they enjoyable to listen to, or not? —This unsigned comment was added by 83.71.46.144 (talk • contribs) .

Although talk pages should normally only be used to talk about the article itself, I don't want to cheat you out of an answer, since this is an easy one for me. It has to be yes, definitely. Some of my favorite LZ songs are off the later albums, "Achilles Last Stand" and "Nobody's Fault But Mine" off Presence, the classic "Kashmir" off Physical Graffiti, "D'yer Mak'er", "No Quarter", "The Ocean" off Houses of the Holy, "In the Evening" off In Through the Out Door and last but not least the awesome Willie Dixon blues classic "I Can't Quit You Baby" off Coda. So give one of these albums a try, it will hardly be a miss, although the earlier ones will probably a better listen for LZ first timers. --Johnnyw 17:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is this listed under the Bulgarian language featured article?

Images Needed

• 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)

Hey wait a minute someone erased my question instead of answering!I want to say that "some people find Plants voice grating" or something like that kbut Im not sure how to make it neutral but at least we can say something about this. ?67.188.110.197

Find a reviewer that calls his voice grating or otherwise criticizes it and then quote him/her. Bcarlson33 10:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats a good idea thanks. now Im gonna try to find something thanks.67.188.110.197

Article decimation

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)

• The assertation that the History section is too long is fucking absurd. If anything, it's far too short; a paragraph covering the reaction to LZI and LZII? Please. I'm not an officiando on Led Zeppelin, so I can't do it myself, but this article needs to be pumped up; it's History section is seriously lacking. TheImpossibleMan 20:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that the split-up of the article by User:RichardHarrold was not a good idea, and support the reversion. Richard, take a look at the FA-status articles mentioned above to see where the bar is here. Split-ups like this just make things harder on the reader and create more work for editors. Jgm 22:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

Vandals?

There seems to be some vandalism going around the introduction to this page. Compare latest non-registered edits.

Error?

I'm sure the information about the saying leading to the name is wrong, the phrase 'went down like a lead balloon' is positive, and not negative. e.g. the phrase 'that went down well'. I have also heard (Although i couldn't give a source) that the reason either it was suggested or accepted (unsure of which) was because on their tour as the new yardbirds, their gigs 'went down like a lead balloon' despite all the uncertainties about reasons, i know the phrase is a positive one, and so im going to correct it. if you feel im wrong change it back. and learn english idioms better.

• You're wrong. A lead zeppelin is a bad gig. As in, "That went over like a lead zeppelin." Think of how well a zeppelin made out of lead would fly. I've changed it back.