Talk:Led Zeppelin (album)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Led Zeppelin

I've moved Led Zeppelin I to Led Zeppelin (album). The album was never called Led Zeppelin I, it simply had Led Zeppelin as a title, no I afterwards. Iam 22:52, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)

A massive day in rock history. --Spirit2112 21:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Songs

The articles on the various songs (most of which were just one or two paragraphs) have been merged into this article, unless they were covers, or actually notable on their own (like Dazed and Confused). Proto||type 09:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Why just the songs on this album? If we leave the pages, they will grow over time. The goal here is to encapsulate the sum of all human knowledge. Surely there's enough that could be written about each of these songs to fill out an article. I intend, over time, to restore the original song pages. I don't understand the crusade against song articles. If people have enough interest in a song to write about it, that constitutes sufficient notability to me. Alcuin 13:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Paranoid

Dazed and Confused seems to have a little brother or sister, Black Sabbath's Paranoid. LIllIi 23:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

How do you figure? --Bentonia School 09:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess the little four-note bass part that Geezer Butler plays at the end of every bar kinda fits. Plus both songs are real slow but turn fast in the middle. Vonbontee (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The riff from Paranoid sounds much more like Communication Breakdown to me. Like N.I.B. sounds like Sunshine of Your Love. However these kind of incidental similarities don't belong in articles unless plagiarism has been publicly asserted or proven in court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.121.58 (talk) 06:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Good Times Bad Times

I've changed this section to state the song was hardly ever played live. This is claimed by the book "Led Zeppelin - A Celebration" by Dave Lewis, and backed up by the fact that if the song was regularly played live, it's surprising not to appear on the BBC sessions CD, not to mention any number of bootlegs from that era. --Ritchie333 17:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

White Summer

why does The Yardbirds' White Summer redirect here?

Controversial album cover?

The caption of the Hindenburg disaster, both on this page and the main Led Zeppelin album, both say how it was famous and controversial. How? Neither article explains. Ninetigerr 01:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)ninetigerr

Is it only me seeing this, or is the album cover one of the largest (even in scale) phallic symbols ever shown on any rock album? I would call it the No.11 "Smell the Glove". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.210.144.214 (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"Blueprint"?

This line "the album was the blueprint Led Zeppelin continued to follow for the rest of their career" is misleading. There is a graded difference between Zep 1 and In Through the Out Door. In fact, there is a graded difference between Zep 1 and Zep 2. The group became progressively more pop oriented and by the end had almost completely moved away from their Blues roots. The only song in their later career that even resembles a Blues tune, and loosely at that, is "Tea For One". --Bentonia School 10:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Since no one is responding, I'm going to remove the line "the album was the blueprint Led Zeppelin continued to follow for the rest of their career" from the article. It simply isn't true, and the citation is in the music itself. --Bentonia School 11:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

UK Charts

The article doesn't say what position the album reached in the UK. ---Revolver66, 10:21 19/02/07. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.183.205 (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Heavy Metal?

Although Led Zeppelin's brand of hard rock ushered the heavy metal genre immensely, why are they considered a heavy metal band?
Could someone clarify this for me?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zepboyo (talk • contribs) 02:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Their connection to the genre is well referenced. Only young people who don't have any musical history/knowledge don't include them as part of the genre.similarly for other early 70's HM acts like Deep Purple, Alice Cooper...etc). Their labels are cited and verifiable. In order to disconnect them from the genre it would would take 20-30 refs just to back it up. And teen blogs don't count as references. 156.34.211.162 02:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Listen to dazed and confused; especially the middle part, and tell me thats not heavy metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.73.65 (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the only place I've seen where Led Zeppelin are considered heavy metal. --The monkeyhate (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Master guitar writer and transcriber Wolf Marshall pointed out that if one follows the chord progression in "I can't quit you babe," there is a point when the tradition blues pattern I IV V returns to the tonic (I) and then moves to a cromatic riff. HIs assertion is this technique alone qualifies as one of the birth statements of Heavy Metal. I cannot imagine what heavy metal would be without chromaticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.127.181.211 (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright people!

We need a consensus. Does this count as psychedelic rock or acid rock? Let's get some opinions here damnit! Leodmacleod 06:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's neither of those as no RS labels them in that way. 156.34.226.99 08:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. I looked over the talk page for the ip address that made that modification and it seems that they've been doing this for some time. I've given them another warning, their final me thinks.

Leodmacleod 08:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

4 track tape machine?

I have an article from a magazine, (AudioTechnology, Issue 56) which has an interview with the then studio assistant at Olympic Studios, Roger Quested. He appears to indirectly say that Olympic Studios actually had a 3M 8-track tape machine at the time (he mentions recording the Rolling Stones in 1968 onto an 8-track), and this appears to match with the technical restraints of the time: I don't think you could have recorded multiple guitar overdubs on a 4 track, while having a mono submix of the drums, a channel for bass and another for vocals. There is also more information about the techniques employed in the recording of the album, such as the fact that it was 4 mics on the drumkit. Would this be worthy of consideration? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.139.21.152 (talk) 06:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Four mics on a drumkit doesn't necessarily mean four tracks on the tape. It's not uncommon to run several microphones into a mixer before recording onto one or two tracks. Refer to the recording of Sgt. Pepper for endless examples of getting more than four signals onto a four track machine. Dave b kc (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's true, but surely an interview of the Studio Assistant at the time is a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.139.23.185 (talk) 08:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, almost two years later and the article hasn't been altered re the 4 track tape, which I believe to be a false statement. Yay for wikipedia. 202.139.23.87 (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the reference to the 4 track as being unsourced, and the reference to the "warm sound" as POV. BTW, I personally agree that the album sounds "warm" because it was recorded on tape, but this is not about my opinion.

BTW also, IIRC, Olympic did have 8 track by mid-1968, but might also still have been using the Ampex 4 track machines they started with when they moved to Barnes. Radiopathy •talk• 14:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the 'Black Beauty'

His Gibson Les Paul Black Beauty, with 3 pickups, was stolen in 1969 on tour. This gave him the distinct sound of him and John Bonham on Led Zeppelin II.

He can clearly be seen playing this guitar on DVD, January 9, 1970. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamfaust (talk • contribs) 10:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It was stolen on the Led Zeppelin North American Tour Spring 1970 Edelmand (talk) 11:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

no 5 stars from rolling stone magazine

Rolling Stone Magazine didn't rate them ... they just wrote about them. It seems like they got rated because there is a rating given by members of the website, not from the magazine. This mistake is made a lot because rolling stone does this so much, be sure to always check rolling stone reviews for that mistake on albums. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hindenburg.gif

Image:Hindenburg.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Heavy metal?

I don't disagree with Led Zeppelin as a great historical band in metal history, but why is it the only genre listed in the info box for this album? Shouldn't hard rock, blues-rock, and psychedelic rock be added to it. 68.102.235.239 (talk) 03:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's the first true heavy metal album from the first true heavy metal band. Infobox looks pretty fitting for what the album is and who the band is. Libs (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There are arguments against Led Zeppelin being a heavy metal band (see Sam Dunn's Metal: A Headbanger's Journey). Also of note is the origin of the term section of the Heavy metal music page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.17.36 (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Vise grip?

Isn't 'vise' grip a typo? Shouldn't it be 'vice' grip..? MarkRae (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Vonbontee (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Plant on "Occasional bass"

Although a citation has been given for this via an interview, I think this may have been said in jest, given there has been well publicised animosity between Robert Plant and John Paul Jones in the past. I have a late 80's vinyl reissue, an earlier "Orange" vinyl reissue, and a early 90's CD, and all of them simply credit Plant with "Lead vocal, harmonica". Also, recording and mixing an album in 36 hours on a 4 track tape pretty much requires you to get the bass track right on the first or second take, something Jones could easily do given his session experience, but which Plant couldn't. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I dunno what that's about. I've encountered many copies of the LP, CD etc. since the early '80s and have never seen any that credit Plant with anything other than "Vocals, harmonica" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vonbontee (talk • contribs) 04:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Lewis comments

"Page virtually invents the guitar riff as a key songwriting component."

Did I imagine 'Day Tripper', 'Satisfaction', 'Sunshine of your love' or 'Purple Haze' to name but a few?. I know it's a quote , but it's a very inaccurate observation and clearly not factual. Metafis (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess the word "virtually" is supposed to be the qualifier. But yeah, it's a pretty lazy, if not downright inaccurate claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vonbontee (talk • contribs) 15:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

RIAA certification

It seems that the RIAA have this album listed twice in the 100 Top Selling Albums; firstly as Led Zeppelin I selling 10 million units in the U.S. and secondly as Led Zeppelin (album) selling 8 million units in the U.S. Can anyone verify the true sales figure for this album? Brettpam Brettpam (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not listed twice, those are two different titles. Led Zeppelin (box set) is 10x platinum and Led Zeppelin (album) is 8x platinum. Piriczki (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Composition Section

I find the following passages doubtful: "The conceptual originality of the album was displayed on tracks such as...", "Dazed and Confused is arguably the album's centerpiece: a foreboding arrangement...", "The bowed guitar in the middle section of the song brought psychedelic rock to experimental new heights..." They look like they're taken from a review and are purely opinion-based, hence as easily contradicted by a different opinion. They could be altered in order to heighten the standard of that section. Revan (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

So. Altered. Looks much better now. Revan (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted unsourced statement

I have removed the following from the track listing section: "How Many More Times" was listed as 3:30 on the record sleeve deliberately by Page in order to trick radio stations into playing the song. It had a citation needed tag since June 2009. Nite-Sirk (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced Statement: Bad Reviews.

The statement that the album got bad reviews on release but later resurged to popularity... Can we get a source on that? Because the article's contents seem to contradict that directly; all of the reviews listed are extremely positive except for two 3/5's, one from 2006 and the other (whose link seems to lead to a store and not an actual review) is supposedly from Q Magazine, a magazine that started publishing in 1986. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.3.233 (talk) 07:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Rolling Stone

Rolling Stone trashed the album in its review. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/led-zeppelin-i-19690315Dogru144 (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Genres

I've managed to find a good source to support the claim that Led Zeppelin is a psychedelic album. Permission to change the genre? ClashFan2 04:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clashfan2 (talk • contribs)

I really feel that the four genres that should feature are in this order: Blues Rock, Hard Rock, Heavy Metal, Psychedelic Rock I would stress the issue that most of this album is blues rock with frequent sections of psychedelia. I will therefore change the genres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmypagestar (talk • contribs) 17:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

How can it be listed "heavy metal" as a genre ? If you click any of songs on album, you will not find heavy metal listed on any of it. I think that blues rock, hard rock, psychedelic rock is the real thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.129.41.208 (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Psychedelic rock?

The album has some psychedelic songs like "You Shook Me", "Dazed and Confused", "I Can't Quit You Baby" and "How Many More Times". Amb1997 (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Led Zeppelin (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150723101040/http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/11027261/the_long_shadow_of_led_zeppelin/print to http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/11027261/the_long_shadow_of_led_zeppelin/print
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141220191325/http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/robertplant/articles/story/7287549/qa_robert_plant to http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/robertplant/articles/story/7287549/qa_robert_plant
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090917093806/http://www.blender.com:80/guide/reviews.aspx?id=2234 to http://www.blender.com/guide/reviews.aspx?id=2234
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071205000838/http://www.rollingstone.com:80/news/story/11027261/the_long_shadow_of_led_zeppelin/print to http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/11027261/the_long_shadow_of_led_zeppelin/print
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090108013622/http://www.charts-surfer.de:80/musiksearch.php to http://www.charts-surfer.de/musiksearch.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140209065218/http://www.billboard.com:80/charts/1969-04-19/hot-100 to http://www.billboard.com/charts/1969-04-19/hot-100

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Led Zeppelin (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090917091045/http://www.billboard.com:80/bbcom/esearch/chart_display.jsp?cfi=305&cfgn=Albums&cfn=The+Billboard+200&ci=3068880&cdi=8729737&cid=05%2F17%2F1969 to http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/esearch/chart_display.jsp?cfi=305&cfgn=Albums&cfn=The+Billboard+200&ci=3068880&cdi=8729737&cid=05%2F17%2F1969
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090917091806/http://www.bpi.co.uk:80/platinum/platinumright.asp?rq=search_plat&r_id=32718 to http://www.bpi.co.uk/platinum/platinumright.asp?rq=search_plat&r_id=32718

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)