Jump to content

Talk:Led Zeppelin/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Plagiarism

Why isn't there a large section here on plagiarism accusations? There are so many songs from the first four albums that take material, without proper attribution, from other artists. This seems quite significant, especially given the initial description of Zeppelin as an "innovative" band. I suggest a plagiarism section is added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.121.44 (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It has been discussed extensively in the past. The consensus was that the current level of reference reflected the balance in the wider literature.--SabreBD (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The article contained a section on this subject from 2007 to 2011 (see previous version). It was deleted here after a brief discussion between two editors here. Piriczki (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Led Zeppelin's plagiarism of black blues artists is absolutely relevant, not only in their history, but from a social context. Omitting it is whitewashing history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.186.255 (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The following sentence from the actual article deserves more scrutiny: "Atlantic were a label with a catalogue of mainly blues, soul, and jazz artists, but in the late 1960s they began to take an interest in British progressive rock acts." This leads me to believe that the very existence of LZ was based on the idea that Atlantic would write LZ's songs and use the entire Atlantic catalog if necessary. More research is necessary on this claim for sure.

It's totally unacceptable for the copyright and plagiarism court trials not be included in this article. It's revisionist history, writ large. Maybe the people editing this page are too protective of Led Zeppelin as a band and can't handle anything negative being written about them. It is also deeply insulting to the memory, hard work and actual struggles of the artists who originated the material. I require an explanation for this. A real one, not the lame one that is listed above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.96.211 (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Consensus can change, but frankly, since it is the same text being stuck back in and because this is already mentioned in the article, the problem of WP:DUE still applies and at this time I come to the same conclusion, that it is not needed or helpful to have a section on this.--SabreBD (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Martinevans123 and SabreBD for your kind regards. I'm almost neutral as to where the best fit for this content lies, but I've an inkling that a section will ultimately prevail. In any regard, I feel strongly that the topic is not adequately covered in this article's present form, nor had the pending edit itself been fully developed as this section perhaps ought be (consider [1], [2], [3], [4]). I am open to reason, and anxious to know what others think of this. Thank you both again.--John Cline (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC on plagiarism issue

The RFC has expired and it is clear that there is no consensus to implement any of the changes that underpinned the request.--John Cline (talk) 09:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The question asked above is valid and deserving of a valid answer. The talk page did not generate enough discussion to achieve that answer so this RfC is the next logical step. It is requested that participants read the level 2 discussion above for the entire background of this dispute. The request essentially asks: Should the WP:RS examples of plagiarism against Led Zeppelin be included in this article? If so, should that information be presented in its own section of the article? and is the article's current form which mentions plagiarism without specific details adequate? Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes, there should be a separate discussion of the plagiarism allegations, because it would be a bit disingenuous to suggest that the allegations are not a substantive part of the "story" of the band. And there are plenty of facts that can be cited -- court filings, settlements, public comments from Plant and Page, and the very fact that later printings of their albums add new names to the songwriting credits. As for the possibility of seeing that section devolve into unsourced original research, it seems that you folks here are doing a good job of keeping the article relatively free of that kind of nonsense. Keep up the good work -- don't tolerate original research and insist on high-quality sources. And be sure to present both sides of each allegation. But this can be done and, indeed, it should be done if the article is to address all of the substantive aspects of the band's history. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait Wouldn't it make sense to wait until the dust has settled from the ongoing "Stairway" court case?--SabreBD (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No. There already is List of Led Zeppelin songs written or inspired by others that lists these issues song by song. Karst (talk) 08:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comments. I don't intend to badger anyone who takes a different position, but the previous discussants raise what are likely the two strongest reasons for not addressing the topic, so I'll briefly comment on them. As for "waiting", the Stairway case is merely the latest in a series of such cases, and the others (e.g., Breadon, Dixon, Wolf, and Holmes) have already been resolved. And on a more general note, it would be difficult to identify any other substantive topic (in any field) which Wikipedia will avoid simply because some aspect of the topic is still on-going. As for the List article on songs "written or inspired", that article should be TNT'd. It's inclusion criterion is rather loose ("inspired by" could mean anything), it often states BLP-relevant opinions as fact without giving in-article attribution and, given the controversial nature of the topic, does not restrict itself to top-quality sources. That article is a good example of how not to address this topic. In my first posting here, I noted that the editors of the instant article have done a good job of keeping out such nonsense. It is here, and not some low-quality list article, that this sensitive subject should be addressed. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes The band owes their success to the artists that they stole and continue to steal royalties from imo. No we shouldn't post editor opinions in article, but there are plenty of reliable sources that make the connections. The theft should be mentioned in any and every article about the band since without the uncredited and unpaid artists, they would have no notability.The fact that they continue to fight the matter, shows how greedy they continue to be.TeeVeeed (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No It is well enough dealt with in the article and through other pages such as List of Led Zeppelin songs written or inspired by others.--SabreBD (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No There are dozens of well-known musicians who have been successfully sued for plagiarism - Johnny Cash, John Lennon, Rod Stewart, Radiohead to name a few. Not one of their WP articles mentions that they were successfully sued for plagiarism. I agree that List of Led Zeppelin songs written or inspired by others is not a well-crafted article, but I would also argue that having it as the sole entry in this article's See Also appears to be a blatant POV push. Unless we have solid reliable sources attesting that the band is particularly notable for infringing content I see no reason to add it now. Especially in the context of the current legal situation, this would be an arguably tendentious addition. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I had presumed that the other article would either be replaced by the new section here, or at most appear as a "Main Article" hat note to that new section. Perhaps the person who called this RfC could clarify how the "inspired by others" article would be treated under the proposal. NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I did call for this RFC but have no special editing privileges for it. In my opinion, if a section was to be included with this information, a hat note linking the main article would be more appropriate than a "see also" entry. In saying that, I reserve my opinion regarding the article; said to be "main". Regards.--John Cline (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No At least not yet, the allegations are unfounded until a Judge or Jury indicates that the allegations are. In this respects one might consider WP:BLP aspects to be worth considering since the individuals involved are still living albeit the page here is not a biography, one still wants to be careful about undue commentary on both unfounded and upon actionable claims. Until the claims are found to be true, I don't believe any mention should be made at this time. To be sure anyone researching the band will already be aware of the allegation and the civil case. Damotclese (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No - Creating a separate section covering Led Zeppelin's plagiarism would give WP:UNDUE weight to the issue. As others have noted above, there is already a page for List of Led Zeppelin songs written or inspired by others, which is linked in the See also section. There would need to be significant coverage in multiple reliable sources making the band's plagiarism well known to be covered in its own section. Meatsgains (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Interestingly, the threshold for sourcing content into an existing article is less than the threshold for supporting the inclusion of a separate article; If you accept the notability of List of Led Zeppelin songs written or inspired by others, you should accept the same sourcing for content inclusion here.--John Cline (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - I believe this information should be included within its own section, most likely a level three sub-section of Led Zeppelin#Musical style. The information is not fringe and it also appears to be well sourced. Care should be given to ensure the presentation is not biased or undue.--John Cline (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mick Wall book

Today someone added a reference to a Goldmine article (through ProQuest) that appears to be an excerpt from the Mick Wall book From When Giants Walked the Earth. Specifically chapter 11 "We Are Your Overlords". I do not have a copy of this book myself. Could someone with a copy perhaps check it and replace the reference that no links to the Goldmine article that is behind a University of Arizona paywall. Thanks. Done. Karst (talk) 09:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Treatment of the untitled album in Discography

I would like to modify the Discography section's treatment of Zeppelin's fourth album. Presently it is listed as:

This is not bad in so far as it adheres to WP:COMMONNAME, but it's not accurate, nor is it in accord with the consensus reached after extensive discussion on the talk page of the album article. To remedy these shortcomings I'd suggest the following:

This (a) correctly notes the lack of title, (b) retains the common name for ready identification, (c) accomplishes both goals by adding a mere two words, which strikes me as a bargain. I'm not 100% in love with the double parenthetical, and I'd be open to alternate punctuation/formatting.

I get the sense that Mlpearc Phone opposes this change due to his or her prompt reversals of my edits, so hopefully he or she will comment here. Cheers! —jameslucas (" " / +) 22:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

It's indeed true that nothing what so ever is written on the LP cover. And on the record is four symbols written, + titles of the tracks etc. But there really is no indication of any name. And this is deliberately done so. However what to do ? "Led Zeppelin IV" must at the very least be searchable. I think. Boeing720 (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Boeing720: Do you have any concerns about the current implementation? The vernacular title is still quite prominent. —jameslucas (" " / +) 02:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
No, not really. We must have a title that can be searched. And " " simply won't work. Reason to my comment was just that the word "album" is used everywhere, like vinyl records (which in this case is the original) no longer counts. (Dispite of the fact that vinyl record now sell for more money than CD's) I just explained how my LP looks like, and I think it's the UK original (or perhaps a second pressing). Boeing720 (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

"A foggy day in Vietnam" ?

If the band ever has released a tune (without song) called "A foggy day in Vietnam" could this be of benefit to the article. I have though all LPs (known to me), LZ, LZ II, LZ III, "four symbols", "Houses of the holy", "Live 2xLP", "Physical Graffiti 2xLP", "Presence", "In through the outdoor" and "Coda" and cannot find it. But somehow have obtained an MP3-file called "LedZeppelin_AFoggyDayInVietnam.mp3" (presumably labeled like that by myself, but I'm not quite certain). Did they ever release a single ? It does sound like Led Zeppelin, indeed. Boeing720 (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Boeing720, thank you for taking your time to discuss it here, the answer would be no. The song was written and recorded by one its members John Paul Jones and produced by Andrew Loog Oldham in 1964 and was released by record label Pye Records in the UK as a single that same year. That was 4 years before Led Zeppelin formed. As a sidenote, "A foggy day in Vietnam" was a B-side to another John Paul Jones recording "Baja." Just search up "A foggy day in Vietnam" and "Baja" and see if you know I'm right or not. The song has also been discussed in Led Zeppelin forums and Led Zeppelin-related books. Kevinmuniz115 (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh Thanks! Thank You ! Very much indeed !! Although "one of its members" wasn't necessary - not for me, I'm a quite huge Led Zeppelin listener, still. I have once watched Jimmy Page live, in the band he joined around -83/84. If it was "the Firm" ??, but I can find that one out easier. Of their LPs (as I want to express it, or "real records") have especially "Presence" kind of grown in my ears. But I like them all. The short guitar solo in "Celebration Day" on III is also something I especially like. Just as "The Rover" / "In my time of Dying" from Physical Graffiti are some other "golden oldies". Cheers Boeing720 (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Content Improvement Suggestion

The article line referring to the fourth album which included "Stairway To Heaven" ends with "it helped to secure the group's popularity". This may be slightly overstating the importance of the composition, and also, of that particular album. As I recall it, and you may take this as a primary source recollection of the time having been lived in, the actual album that secured the group's popularity was their first album under the Led Zeppelin name, being "Led Zeppelin" (with the Hindenburg image on the cover), which even today stands as a go-to recording for listening to simply the best hard rock and roll ever recorded. They sold out colliseums and arenas wherever they toured on the basis of that one album the year after it was released, and the fans never looked back. If they had never recorded anything else, they would still be held in high esteem for brilliance and undeniably exceptional musicianship. In other words, I would suggest that the comment "it helped to secure the group's popularity" would be better assigned to their first album. The same could be said about King Crimson, Jethro Tull, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, and so many others. Those first albums were all pure youthful genius. Sort of like Mozart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.24.147 (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Led Zeppelin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Fourth Album

It's understandable that we keep going back and forth on this subject, as far as what to call it. However, I think Jimmy page himself has put the issue to bed for us, and I see no reason why we shouldn't adhere on Wikipedia. On the band's official website, the album is referred to as IV. That's pretty straight forward. And honestly, when it was first release, the idea was not to have an album with no title, it was to have an album cover and spine with no writing on it. That was the only reason it didn't say IV on the sleeve. UtahCountryBoy (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

This issue is discussed with admirable clarity and references in the section devoted to this album's title, and I don't see how anyone benefits by pretending that this deliberate artistic gesture was never made. The world is complex, Led Zeppelin is complex, and we're just here to make illuminate what we can. (Since you cite the official website, I'll also note that on the album page they use only the four runes, so despite the phrase 'Led Zeppelin IV' appearing on the menu, there's no clear verdict to be taken from there.) Cheers! —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 15:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Led Zeppelin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation of the band name Led Zeppelin

For some reason, changes are being made in how to pronounce the name. They were a favorite band growing up, and we always said the name as "Zep-pel-in", but the pronunciation as listed says it's to be said "Zep-lin". One dictionary checked had the word "zeppelin" pronounced either way: "Zeppelin |ˈzep(ə)lən|". Perhaps the the WHOLE band has its own way of saying it to clarify? Misty MH (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Stairway to Heaven never released as a single?

I had long-read that "Stairway to Heaven" was never released as a single. Look at these discs in this list, and also at the links below the list, to see if that is true. List Source: RateYourMusic.com (link below).

  • Stairway to Heaven [p] 45 rpm, Promo

1972 Vinyl 7" Atlantic / PR-269 United States

  • Stairway To Haven / Hey Hey, What Can I Do 45 rpm, Promo

1972 Vinyl 7" Atlantic / PR-269 United States

  • Stairway to Heaven 45 rpm, Promo

1972 Vinyl 7" Atlantic / PR-175 United States

  • Stairway to Heaven 45 rpm, Promo

1990 Vinyl 7" Atlantic / PRO1051 Germany

  • Stairway to Heaven [This entry's number is the same as next which says "promo".]

1990 Vinyl 12" WEA / 6WP.2003 Brazil

  • Stairway to Heaven Promo

1990 Vinyl 12" WEA / 6WP.2003 Brazil

  • Stairway to Heaven / Whole Lotta Love 45 rpm, Promo

1990 Vinyl 7" Atlantic / LZ 3 LC United Kingdom

  • Stairway to Heaven / Whole Lotta Love 45 rpm, Limited Edition, Promo

1990 Vinyl 7" Atlantic / LZ 3 United Kingdom

  • Stairway to Heaven Bonus CD, Promo

1991 Vinyl 7" Atlantic / PRCD 4424-2 United States

  • Stairway to Heaven - 20th Anniversary Commemorative Edition Limited Edition, Promo

1992 CD Atlantic / PRCD 4424-2 United States

SOURCE: Stairway to Heaven page on RYM.

—These basically all say "promo" (except one that looks like a duplicate entry of another with the same number which does say "promo"). Do any of those classify as a release as a single?

Also, in addition to this list, I thought I read an exception once – though it might have been for a different LZ song – which says it was actually released as a single in some country....

Also, this link lets you buy STH all by itself without having to buy the whole album, off the LZ IV Remaster. Does that not qualify it as a "single"? https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/stairway-to-heaven/id580708175?i=580708180

And this one too, off of LZ IV Deluxe: https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/stairway-to-heaven/id902620286?i=902620521

Plus compilations of the studio-album songs, plus Live versions by LZ, from both of which you can buy the song by itself.

Misty MH (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Misty MH (talk) 12:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

IIRC, "Stairway to Heaven" was never released as a single in the UK during the entire 1970's and 1980's. It was only released later. That's why it never had a chart entry in the UK at the time of the album's release. I believe the first time it was released as a single in the UK was sometime around 1990-91.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.189 (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Plagiarism

11 thousand words and just one almost cassual mention for the several accusations of plagiarism that Led Zeppelin had to face in justice courts over the years.

"Music good articles under the good article criteria"?

Come on guys, a good article should not be written by a fan.

200.50.126.98 (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Pablo, from far south.


It's really just a matter of them being a part of the American Blues scene, even though they aren't from here. John Lennon, Bob Dylan, and other prominent musicians have stated that there are no more songs left to be written, and that you can only find ways to rearrange what's already there. Zeppelin have only been drug through court because of their popularity. Many blues musicians have lifted music from each other with no shame, for many years. We should be giving Zeppelin a leg up in this category, because unlike their predecessors, they added distortion, volume, and swagger to the songs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UtahCountryBoy (talk • contribs) 20:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The point is that this article should have a paragraph about this important issue. No matter what Lennon or Dylan (whose quotes are needed, by the way) could have said about their problems to compose, nobody can denie Page and Plant booked several songs as authors, earning royalties from them, that were found to be booked earlier by other musicians.

200.50.126.98 (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Pablo, from far south.

My point is, so have many, many others. If we add a paragraph to Zeppelin's page, we need to do it for every other artist who's lifted riffs, lyrics, and/or melodies. The only reason it's talked about with Zeppelin is because of their popularity. Page has at least gone back and talked about the songs and parts they've lifted, and given credit where it was once due. I've never seen The Beatles, Stones, AC/DC, Aerosmith, Queen, or any of the other huge acts say anything about the stuff they've stolen from others. Also, we don't need links to quotes in the "Talk" section. Their words aren't hard to find on the search engines. UtahCountryBoy (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 17:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with most of the comments , seems that we need to do a better synthesis of Led Zeppelin. AlfaRocket (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
The comment that it is the same for many other artists is odd, considering that Led Zeppelin were in fact sued for copyright infringement, for example for "Whole Lotta Love" and "Dazed and Confused". In cases where the artist got sued for copyright infringement, for example "My Sweet Lord" by George Harrison, the lawsuits get specific mentions, see George Harrison. There is also a paragraph in the Bob Dylan article that deals with an accusation of plagiarism, and it is not even a lawsuit. There is a case for stripping the article of Good Article status as it appears to be written by fans putting a positive gloss on the band, therefore does not comply with the neutrality requirement. Hzh (talk) 13:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Coda as a studio album

I rejected a change by 174.119.211.163 that removed Coda from the Discography section. The attached comment was that Coda isn't a studio album. I reverted because it was described as a studio album on its own page. I see that it's since been changed to being described as a compilation album with the comment "do not change to "studio album" as this album is a collection of unused tracks". I'm not sure about that, since previously unreleased tracks recorded in a studio are still studio recordings. Still, it seems a fair question to ask, so I'm raising it here for discussion. Mortee (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

It's an arbitrary rule based on arbitrary classifications of album types. Leave it in as there is no justification other than mindlessly following an ill-conceived guideline. Piriczki (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
The term "compilation album" is better for a collection of previously released material, such as a "best of" release or box set. An album of previously unreleased material should not be excluded in a discography section because it was drawn from different periods, studios, etc. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Good question Mortee. I am persuaded by Ojorojo's cogent explanation. A studio album it is.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

They are haveing a 50th anniversary book done.

In 2018 led Zeppelin is getting an anniversary book done in 2018 Danny231 (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

No mention of Hammerwood Park

"In 1973, rock band Led Zeppelin bought Hammerwood at auction with the hope of turning it into a music centre, recording studio and flats. Although the house did make an appearance at the beginning of the film The Song Remains the Same, their plans did not progress." See http://hammerwoodpark.co.uk/ https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Hammerwood_Park — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4B15:C800:708E:53F6:7392:CF4E (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Instruments in Members section

[COPIED FROM User talk:Ojorojo#Zeppelin article]

I noticed you added mandolin back to Jones. I don't have a problem with it being there, however, with it's use frequency, we would have to include many other things in order to be fair to the other musicians. Jimmy Page's use of Theramin, and Steel Guitar would need to be added. But these, including Jones' mandolin, aren't used very frequently. The instruments they are known for are all that should be included in the main article. Additional instruments are listed in the albums articles. Don't you agree? UtahCountryBoy (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@UtahCountryBoy: I'm not interested in loading up the "Members" section, but I think it should contain more than the bare bones. Jones didn't play mandolin that often, but unlike Page's steel and banjo, he did play it live during the acoustic sets. Maybe add theremin to Page, since he also played it live. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
@UtahCountryBoy: Some of Jones' mandolin performances:
There are probably more. The fact that Page and Jones played a variety of instruments for LZ shows their diversity and could be worked into the Musical style section. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Jimmy actually played Mandolin on Battle of Evermore. Along with a handful of other songs. Out of nine studio albums, JPJ only actually played it on 3 of them. I don't want to discredit him, he's an amazing musician, with a large library of instruments played, but when someone asks "who is John Paul Jones," the answer is Zeppelin's Bass player, and maybe some would add keyboard player as well. Mandolin just isn't a main instrument. I don't know. Maybe i'm overthinking it, but it seems lately, wikipedia is coming down hard on excessive info in the articles. And the Zeppelin article is watched over more than most other music pages. It seems like we should stick to what they guys are known for most. UtahCountryBoy (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Shadwick starts by saying Jones played the mandolin on BOE, but then talks about Page (p. 159). Strawman, in Led Zeppelin Gear: All the Gear from Led Zeppelin and the Solo Careers, says it was Page, who apparently he played it live (with Jones on guitar). However, he notes the rest were played by Jones and talks about his various mandolins, including custom made models.[5] I wonder about the usefulness of many of these "Personnel" sections, since they are already discussed in the text. Also, percussion by Plant and Bonham and Jones on backing vocals probably aren't that what they are best known for (and most of the guests don't rise to a level of importance in LZ's history), so maybe the whole section could be removed —Ojorojo (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Let's discuss and hopefully reach consensus regarding instruments in Members section

Recent edit to Members section

An edit by an unregistered user, which was not approved, modified the current instrument list:

Robert Plant – lead vocals, harmonica, percussion

Jimmy Page – guitar, backing vocals

John Paul Jones – bass, keyboards, mandolin, backing vocals

John Bonham – drums, percussion, backing vocals

to:

Robert Plant – vocals, harmonica, percussion

Jimmy Page – guitar

John Paul Jones – bass, keyboards

John Bonham – drums, percussion

Archived discussions

I found only one previous discussion regarding this topic, from 2007: Archive_4#Bad sentence. - The discussion starts with a critique of the first sentence of the article (at that time), which leads to a related discussion regarding which musical instruments to list for each band member. They reached a similar conclusion as you all did in December 2017. Representative comment:

If I were to read about a band I know little about and read that one member played the bass, I would not automatically assume that on every single song the band ever released that person played the bass and no other instrument. As we all know in the vast majority of Led Zeppelin songs Page played guitar, Plant sang, Jones played the bass or keyboard and Bonham played the drums and I think anyone reading the article will be intelligent enough to know that these designations are not necessarily limiting.

Question

Should we add a sentence or two indicating that the Members section simply lists the band members and the instruments they played, but does not include information about other aspects of the creative process, e.g., songwriting, composition, arrangement, improvisation, audio engineering, music technology, and production (record producer)?

I realize that list is too detailed. I mainly listed all those components because they are particularly relevant to Led Zeppelin, e.g., Jones (and Plant) doing more of the songwriting, composition, arrangement on the last two albums, and of course Page's expertise and innovations with regard to audio engineering, music technology, and production. Those points are covered nicely in the body of the article, which we can mention. Perhaps something like:

This section lists the band members and the instruments they played, but does not include information about other aspects of Led Zeppelin's creative process, e.g., songwriting, arrangement, audio engineering, and record production, all of which are addressed in the body of the article (above).

I'm thinking that if a Zeppelin neophyte scans the article, we want to pique their curiosity with a succinct sentence which conveys Led Zeppelin's musical sophistication, both individually and collectively.

  - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I added a hidden note to the Members section: Please do *not* edit this section before participating in the discussion on the Talk page under "Instruments in Members section".   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
And I removed it. Editors are not required to join a discussion before editing, if someone changes something you object to, then "you" go to their talk page. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Not when there is already an active discussion about this specific section; and not after an edit to this specific section, quite germane to the discussion on Talk page, was just removed (unapproved) today. I put the hidden text back where it belongs. Take the time to read this section of the Talk page to familiarize yourself with the issue.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Please point me to this policy. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Oy vey, have it your way. If we have to have a policy for every common sense, common courtesy action, we will continue to drive away potential good editors with the unrelenting officialism.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
It was just one question, but Ok. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Rock 'n' Roll

@Coldcreation: How does this edit summary; "Rock & roll is a genre of popular music that evolved in the United States during the late 1940s and early 1950s" support removing "rock and roll" from a list of genres for a band that arguably played rock and roll among its styles of music, from the late 60's onward? - theWOLFchild 05:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild:, Rock music is far more accurate than Rock and roll (though the latter was certainly an inspiration for this group, as is was for many others). As stated in the article: "The band also drew on a wide variety of genres, including world music, and elements of early rock and roll, jazz, country, funk, soul, and reggae, particularly on Houses of the Holy and the albums that followed." (Gulla 2001, pp. 153–159). Coldcreation (talk) 05:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@Coldcreation: Ok... so again, why remove it from the list of genres in the infobox? - theWOLFchild 06:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@Thewolfchild: ...for the same reason we don't add world music, jazz, country, funk, soul, or reggae. Coldcreation (talk) 06:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
That's basically a non-answer. - theWOLFchild 07:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC) (ping KevinGrem)
@Thewolfchild:. We remove Rock and roll from the list of genres in the infobox because, like world music, jazz, country, funk, soul, or reggae, Rock and roll was a genre the band drew on, not that defined their music. Coldcreation (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
That sounds to me like hair splitting. Is this your opinion? Or is there a guideline or perhaps a consensus on that that can be referred to? - theWOLFchild 08:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The fact that the term has not been present in the infobox for years (minus one addition quickly reverted in the article, July 2016) is evidence other editors do not deem it one of the Led Zep genres. Coldcreation (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

So in other words, the actual answers to my question were "yes", "no" and "no". Got it. The "qui tacet consentire videtur" assumptions aside, perhaps there should be wider discussion on this, and if possible, at least an established local consensus to refer to. Just a thought... - theWOLFchild 08:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Follow up; For a "wider discussion", I suppose we could post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Led Zeppelin (WT:LZ) or Wikipedia:WikiProject Music (WT:WPMUSIC), get the community involved and get this resolved, one way or the other. - theWOLFchild 04:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Yes that sounds like a wise thing to do. No need to edit war over this. Hopefully the community will reach consensus to include (or not) the term. Could you launch it? Coldcreation (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Green tickY Done. - theWOLFchild 08:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

There is absolutely no question about it that Led Zeppelin was a rock and roll band. How is this even in dispute? I added rock and roll as one of the genres and this guy keeps going in and deleting it. Why? He can't even give a legit answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinGrem (talk • contribs) 21:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@KevinGrem: You are welcome to participate in this discussion: RFC: Regarding genre listings in infobox for music band (Led Zeppelin). Coldcreation (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

They're still listed as a Rock group, which is the same difference as Rock and Roll, its not worth it to argue synonyms. You can keep broadening definitions, take "How Many More Years" by Howlin' Wolf, decades before Elvis yet has power chords in distortion, screaming vocals over 4/4 time back beat, and so on. Is that not rock and roll? Or is it Chicago Blues? To put it even broader, it's all dionysian folk music. This has more to do with journalism than music theory or theories of aesthetics.

RfC to include "rock and roll" in the infobox's list of genres

This is a note that there is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#RFC: Regarding genre listings in infobox for music band that asks, "For the band Led Zeppelin, should rock and roll be included in the list of genres in the infobox?" Cunard (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

For further reference, the archived discussion is here: RFC: Regarding genre listings in infobox for music band. There was consensus (albeit weak) to remove "rock and roll" from the list of genres in the infobox. Coldcreation (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


Nomination of Portal:Led Zeppelin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Led Zeppelin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at this MfD discussion page until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 23:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Origins

I think someone should add the origin of the group's name (Kieth Moon). 2001:1970:5324:D600:C48D:550D:AF00:12C0 (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Peter Feigl

Actually John Entwistle started it..however agreed it would be cool to add it 2600:1702:2340:9470:480:C883:A89A:D4A0 (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Negative Crictism

There should a criticism section..there are plenty of people who did not like this band myself included..with the severe beating their roadies gave to one of Bill Grahams stage hands for no particular justified reason than just to do it per Graham`s book which also describes the negativity they brought into the business..he had been producing shows for years dealing with security, substance abuse issues and concessions in a positive way..he stated that Zeppelin were the first to bring the major issues into rock concerts with drug overdoses..weapons and fights...Pete Townsend said that though they were friends he never liked their music as did plenty of others..I`ve been playing music well over 40 years..I don`t really know anyone that likes them to be honest. 2600:1702:2340:9470:480:C883:A89A:D4A0 (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Led_Zeppelin/Archive_9&oldid=942243272"