Talk:Led Zeppelin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Led Zeppelin article.
Article policies
Led Zeppelin is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Led Zeppelin as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Hebrew or Bulgarian language Wikipedias.
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
Archive
Archives
  1. July 2001 – December 2005
  2. January 2006 – April 2006
  3. April 2006 - January 2007
  4. February 2007 - July 2007


Contents

[edit] Why the Need For Plagiarism Section?/Got Rid of the Plagiarism Stuff

(I united these two topics since they talk about the same thing anyway --Champaign (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC))

If anything it deserves a passing mention, but from the size of that seciton, one would think that the band was more famous for stealing music than selling albums. I also went ahead and deleted the pointless 'other controvesy' section. It's the kind of thing that should probably be added to the individual album sections, or the articles about those individual songs. I'm starting to see this article delve into very unencyclopedic controversy. Next there will be a section all about playing stairway to heaven backwards. Anyone agree that this section needs to be reduced and put somewhere else?-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.15.27 (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Be BOLD and remove it then. Unless proven in a court of law, it isn't fact as someone else below has already mentioned. MegX (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This info is not needed on the main article. Add this info on the seperate songs, or delete it fully —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duff man2007 (talk • contribs) 04:06, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I am at a loss for why people here think it is not necessary to have a section on something that is actually of great importance when studying Zeppelin. The plagiarism allegations are among the most famous things about the band and it would only seem natural that a section deal with it rather than, as you suggest, having the info in each individual song's article (making it unneccessarily difficult for anyone wishing to research this aspect of the band's legend.--Zoso Jade 14:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
It's better if large removals like this are discussed first. The first paragraph should at least be kept. It deals with multiple songs and how the band snubbed Rolling Stone afterwards. -Fnlayson 14:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Zoso Jade, you're either a blind troll or is simply delusional. The plagarism stuff is NEVER talked about when discussion Led Zeppelin, you rarely heard music historians or critics talk about it, never; stop makin blanket statements and GTFO wikipedia. Duff man2007 04:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have a strong opinion on the plagiarism stuff. But may I suggest to Duff man2007 that he/she reads this Wikipedia:Civility and this Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Have a nice day. Edelmand 13:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Edelmand, I was being civil. Calling somebody delusional is not hostile, you need to get out more. Duff man2007 02:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you're right. Calling someone a "blind troll" and telling them to "GTFO" is perfectly civil, without a trace of hostility. My mistake. Edelmand 12:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
/cough. The plagiarism section as I recall was a bit iffy. At the time of Zep's first coupleof albums and certainly their earlier history, taking the ideas of others and reworking them was part compliment and part expected. When it becomes too blatant (and perhaps too successful - ching ching hear the cash register) it leads to court cases. I remember three big ones ... Bowie taking the Sweet to court over Blockbuster=Jean Genie, Stefan Raab being sued by the Spice Girls (European song entry I believe) and Zep settling out of court to Willie Dixon's widow over Whole Lotta Love
I would probably not have that in the main article. Better to have it in Led Zep I and II info where it is more pertinent. Well just my 2cents worth. -cough. Must take some linctus ... Candy 19:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Making no presumptions about the age of "Duff Man" here, I beg to differ. Most music historians do make reference, if not always in great detail, to Led Zeppelin's use of blues numbers without credit (I will remind you that Zeppelin were actually sued for plagiarism and paid out a settlement). I have read just two Zeppelin biographies and they both mentioned it. I also looked through my copy of the in depth special magazine that Q magazine did into the band a few years back and the topic is, again, mentioned. Wikipedia is a place for sharing relevant information, not for one-sided band-worshipping. There is barely a lyric on the first album that wasn't taken from another artist, usually with no credit given. I think this is quite important.--Zoso Jade 09:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

lmao music historians? ya okay what historians? All the historians that I've see on special music DVDs, or in interviews, or when describing a band in a conversation with a group of critics, they have NEVER mentioned this.

oh, you read two biographies from some fan/casual listener on a website? Good for you buddy, really congrats.

And about the Q magazine, they think that a Radiohead album is the greatest album of all time. So they lost the shred of credibility that they had.

And ya overall in their career they may have taken like 6 songs or so, all of which are hardly modified. BARELY notable at all. And yes I'm aware they have been sued by a couple or few people but that does not outweigh, or even match their acclaim and legendary impact on the music industry.

Try again

Duff man2007 03:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Duffman, you criticise me for allegedly just reading some websites for my sources and yet yours are from band-sponsored DVDs, that are neither comprehensive nor independent. A biography, by the way, is not necessarilly a "website" for "casual listeners". The ones I spoke of are actually books (without pictures or pop-ups, Duffman). I can send you the Amazon links if you would like to read them, or any other biographies, or books.
Most of what you have written here is irrelevant. You seem completely unable to divorce admiration for the band from the fact that they did plagiarise. You attempt to discredit Q magazine by attacking their opinion (a pointless exercise on Wikipedia, as the opinion of any particular source is of no importance) but fail to realise that what Q said about Zeppelin's plagiarism was fact and not merely their (obviously flawed, according to Wikipedia contributor "Duff man2007") opinion.
Further proof that you have neglected to actually find out anything about this topic before developing a hard line and being generally rather rude comes when you say they took "like 6" songs. I can think of the following songs for which proper credit was not given:

1. Babe I'm Going To Leave You 2. Dazed and Confused 3. Your Time Is Gonna Come 4. How Many More Times 5. Whole Lotta Love 6. The Lemon Song 7. Bring It On Home 8. Gallows Pole 9. Rock and Roll 10. Stairway To Heaven 11. When The Levee Breaks 12. In My Time of Dying 13. Boogie With Stu 14. Nobody's Fault But Mine

These aren't a few unimportant Zeppelin songs; these are amongst their biggest hits. To say that this is irrelevant information is barmy, and clearly biased.--Zoso Jade 15:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Duffman, you criticise me for allegedly just reading some websites for my sources and yet yours are from band-sponsored DVDs, that are neither comprehensive nor independent.

Yeah I'd say DVDs, (some of which are popular) are more notable from some website or whatever

A biography, by the way, is not necessarilly a "website" for "casual listeners". The ones I spoke of are actually books (without pictures or pop-ups, Duffman). I can send you the Amazon links if you would like to read them, or any other biographies, or books.

Okay then, how big are the writers? There have been books published by groupies talking about certain band members dicks. Let's say some certain band member in that band had an abnormally small dick, should we put that info in the article JUST BECAUSE a book an Amazon said it? If it were a somewhat notable writer then yes. And if that notable writer went to great lenghts, (i'm talking enough info to rival their prodigious critical acclaim in the book, then we might consider it.

Most of what you have written here is irrelevant. You seem completely unable to divorce admiration for the band from the fact that they did plagiarise

they did steal a few songs but it's not in the least bit notable enough to make a whole seperate article about it, that's asinine on so many levels.

You seem completely unable to divorce admiration for the band from the fact that they did plagiarise. You attempt to discredit Q magazine by attacking their opinion (a pointless exercise on Wikipedia, as the opinion of any particular source is of no importance) but fail to realise that what Q said about Zeppelin's plagiarism was fact and not merely their (obviously flawed, according to Wikipedia contributor "Duff man2007") opinion.

Either way my point still stands that Q magazine is laughable

Further proof that you have neglected to actually find out anything about this topic before developing a hard line and being generally rather rude comes when you say they took "like 6" songs. I can think of the following songs for which proper credit was not given...

Yeah about those songs, you're wrong for the following reasons:

A. The artists never bothered to copyright them B. they're old enough not to credit them C. Only small, short, brief instrumental similarities in the songs are present. Hardly enough to say that they stole the song from them D. Only small, short, brief lyric similarities in the songs are present. Hardly enough to say that they stole the song from them

So like I said, they only blatantly stole like 6 songs or so

Duff man2007 04:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Denny Somach, who runs Classicrockcentral.com has covered this topic exclusively. If you followed this subject closely, you would know that Led Zeppelin sold the rights to their entire song collection to Atlantic Records. The fact is, these people did have these songs copyrighted and they eventually sued Atlantic Records (because Led Zeppelin no longer owned the rights to their songs). Atlantic Records now credits those artists on Led Zeppelin's greatest hits album. So, if you say CD booklets are notable, then you must acknowledge that the greatest hits album now credits the original artist rather than Jimmy Page and Robert Plant. And, if you are going to try to discredit Somach as a non-notable critic, I can give you his resume. Coumarin 16:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So.... Coumarin...What did all that just mean? Duff man2007 06:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It means, their own record company and now owners of their material now recognize the original artists as the writers of those songs. Coumarin 20:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect. When Led Zeppelin originally licensed the songs under Superhype Music Inc, their publishing company, they were in a 26 year agreement with Warner Music, at the end of the term of which the copyrights reverted to the members of the band. That licensing agreement expired in 1996. They own the copyright to the songs. From there they've provided publishers like Warner Chappell mechanical license to reproduce the works while retaining ownership. MegX (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
LOL Duffman, "So, like i said they only blatantly stole like 6 songs or so." That's not important or substantial? You're making the case for inclusion of information on Led Zeppelin's flagrant plagiarism.

1337wesm 17:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the section should be restored based on the fact that the case has not been made for its deletion. I personally haven't reviewed the section that was written so I don't know how neutral it was so if we do restore, we should make sure that it's not biased. Coumarin 20:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

YegLi :

As a fan I would be highly interested in reading an objective, “non angry”, fact based article on the subject; and must support the addition of a section or link to a full article into “plagiarism (allegations of)” hopping the author will properly describe the historical context. Specific songs with details on sound, techniques and roots of it all would be great.
Blues is my favorite kind of music now, mostly “old scratchy stuff”. I discovered blues thru Led Zeppelin (big thanks) after years of admiration for their music. Nothing gets me kicking like finding an old Blues rhythm reminding me of that great rock song I tripped on with Led Zep.
To me “plagiarism” is a bit of a strong word; in those days things where just not so black and white. Many blues artists “steal sounds” from each others all the time. Remember that Blues was mostly done in live shows with a lot of improvised parts, trying to impress other players present. Actual ownership was imposible to track as each would change it a little bit, overall creating better blues. Like we hear in Blues movies: “Can I steal that from you? Of course, It comes from something I stole from you years ago (laughter)”. (And yes, DuffMan sounds like an angry 15 year old kid, so lets move on.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by YegLi (talk • contribs) 02:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Come on folks. This is all looking a bit silly now. Someone puts it in, someone deletes it. All without comment. Can we not come to an agreement on plagarism and stop making Wiki look like it is run by 9 year olds?--Egghead06 08:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Why not just leave this in the individual songs. As I stated previously, during the time this was done it was not particularly notable in rock music. It was commonplace. There are better things to write about Zep imho Candy 13:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'd love to agree with you Candy, but it WAS notable. Led Zeppelin were notorious for their bitter relationship with Rolling Stone magazine, so much that their initial reviews of their first album was mainly an accusation of them plagiarizing other blues artists. Remember, this was back when they (Rolling Stone) had credibility. So it WAS reported on, therefore it should be included on the main Zep article, rather than individual songs. Unless someone has the time to track down each song article, cite their research, and post the same exact info there, THEN we can get rid of this info. But in my opinion, Led Zeppelin's influences are important for casual fans of the band to read, such as myself.--71.183.84.51 18:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The best place to discuss possible plagiarism is on the song pages. I do support having a short section that discusses this aspect of the band in general.Alcuin (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia deals with facts; Wikipedia:ENC. Wikipedia is not a soap box; Wikipedia:SOAP. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Trivia is discouraged from articles. Until these allegations of plagiarism are proven in a court of law, they remain nothing more than speculation, and as such its place within Wikipedia is questionable. (NB The Willie Dixon case never went to trial, it was settled out of court.) Iam (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I personally think someone should get rid of the whole paragraph or maybe just reduce it to a few sentences. Reworking old blues songs aren't really "plagarising" them is it. The whole paragraph makes Led Zeppelin look like a rubbish band and makes people think bad of them.--Omarraii (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well be WP:BOLD and remove it then. With the lack of peer review, decent references, and editing/vandalism by faceless anonymous IPs (or by anyone with a "I'm a Led Zeppelin fan" template on their user page, when they clearly don't even know the band history), no music researcher worth their salt would or should take Wikipedia seriously anyway. I don't and neither should people wanting to find out about the band. MegX (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This article really has gone to hell in a hand basket since the summer. People say that the "case for deletion of the plagiarism section" has not been presented - but then if you remember far enough back you'll know the case for its inclusion was never made previously. The article did mention plagiarism in the summer, but it was not a huge section seemingly randomly placed at the bottom of the article. Many of these claims of plagiarism were not proven in a court of law. A settlement out of court is not the same as being proven guilty in court, even if it suggests guilt. --FrasierC (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Frasier. The article is not in good condition. As for Rolling Stone, when it has a reviewer whose writing style is "Like, I listened to the break (Jimmy wrenching some simply indescribable sounds out of his axe while your stereo goes ape-shit) on some heavy Vietnamese weed and very nearly had my mind blown. Hey, I know what you're thinking. "That's not very objective." But dig: I also listened to it on mescaline, some old Romilar, novocain, and ground up Fusion, and it was just as mind-boggling as before. I must admit I haven't listened to it straight yet – I don't think a group this heavy is best enjoyed that way". In what way was that review informative or credible? You can understand why the magazine asked Jim Miller to write the encyclopaedia entry for them instead. MegX (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop arguing about this, all of the people commenting here like Led Zeppelin (at least I assume they do, or else they just wasted a rather large amount of time reading something that holds no interest for them at all) but this article isn't about celebrating Zeppelin and saying how awesome they were (and they were pretty awesome) this article is about providing a full and truthful account of Zeppelin's career, impact and controversy. Readers must be able to make up their own mind. Led zeppelin033 (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Not when it's hasn't been proven in a court of law. Encyclopaedia's deal with facts, not rumours, and certainly not defamation. MegX (talk) 06:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The thought of Jimmy Page sitting at home reading Wikipedia is quite bizarre. Firstly he knows where they got their music from and secondly in the UK we have not yet reached the epidemic stage in our tendancy to litigate as appears to be the case in the U.S. --Egghead06 (talk) 10:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This isn't a UK only encyclopaedia. You single out Jimmy Page - there were three other songwriters in the band. More importantly, the owners of the copyright are the publishing companies. Led Zeppelin's publishing company is based in the US. Furthermore that section was added by a known sockpuppet. There is only one argument used in regard to Dixon, that's been attempted to apply to all other songs. One swallow does not a summer make. Unless there is a court case involving the other songs, that argument applied here is spurious. MegX (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

What? Plagiarism isn't proven in a court of law, even if it was Zeppelin settled when sued by Willie Dixon (can you say guilty). So, yeah, I think Zep's plagiarism should be considered a FACT. As far as defamation goes, Wikipedia is here to give people facts, not defame people (this isn't a site people come to for gossip) but equally not to glorify bands we like to the extreme because we can. Led zeppelin033 (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe you to be a sockpuppet, so your opionion doesn't count. I intend taking this issue to the admins. MegX (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what a sockpuppet is but if my username is Led Zeppelin, that should mean that I like Led Zeppelin and I shouldn't want anyone to know about them plagiarising songs. That's all true but I also know that Wikipedia is about giving people the facts which we should, so if you take this to the admins, so will I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Led zeppelin033 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It means nothing. It's no different to me setting up an account called User:ILoveABBA. It's no different to someone like egghead putting a Celine Dion fan and a Led Zeppelin fan tag on their user pages. You can fool some people some of the time but you dont fool everyone, particularly those who know that section was added by a known sockpuppet, found guilty by an admin investigation sometime ago. HelenWatt (talk) 08:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah youth!!! Well HelenWatt seems you have taken the usual Wiki approach of attacking the person rather than the data in dispute. I am old enough to remember Led Zeppelin forming and to have bought all their albums (on real vinyl) on 1st release and to have seen Celine live in Vegas. I am also wise enough to know that plagiarism has to be mentioned in a Led Zeppelin article. Allegations have been around since Led Zeppelin 1 but then you wouldn't remember that! --Egghead06 (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
If your're going to make a statement like that please provide proof fo your age and identity. MegX (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The admins should be brought in. I've sent an email. Iam (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going read this entire discussion but I just want to say being a gigantic fan of LZ, I'm aware that they indeed have "stolen" many bits and pieces of songs, and thus people go purposely looking for even more "suspicious" sounding similarities between songs. However as of right now, I would say the only verifiable statements in the 'plagiarism' section would be the Whole Lotta Love royalties, and the Boogie With Stu credit to Valens. The first paragraph of the section, and the Stairway to Heaven allegations, may indeed warrant removal as their sources are questionable to me. The source for the first is one critic from Rolling Stone, and the latter source is some internet radio website.. these references either need to be improved for reliability, or the statements removed. IrisKawling (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

IrisKawling I tacitly agree with your logic, but In My Time of Dying should also stay in there as it's just two older blues songs put together (can't remember names, but look around and you'll finds them). And HelenWatt you are a tool, because you trying to sound smart by implying that I'm some evil Zeppelin-hating bastard that is out to ruin their reputations through my opinion that all the facts should be presented in the article might fool most people, but it doesn't fool me. Led zeppelin033 (talk) 11:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In My Time of Dying is a traditional number, and if anything is a cover, certainly not plagiarism. IrisKawling (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

They didin't credit the original writers though... Led zeppelin033 (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Original writers? When a song is traditional there is no "original" authors to be credited, that's if you can even find them. There is no law in the US Copyright Act which demands writers state "Traditional" in any credits. HelenWatt (talk) 06:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I remember reading in the all music guide description of led zeppelin III that since i've been loving you was actually copying a muddy waters song. i think it is imperative to include copyright infringements. it is a large deal with the band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.35.109 (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Not when it involves speculation and not proven in a court of law. MegX (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Present tense?

Should this article be edited to reflect the fact that Led Zeppelin is no longer an ex-band...they are current and rather than statements such as "Led Zeppelin were an English band," should it read, "Led Zeppelin are..."? Also, should Jason Bonham be included as a member in the list of members?144.135.254.67 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No.58.172.187.10 (talk) 08:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


Why not just go for it, and use the word is. Led Zeppelin is an english rock band. any other word there, is either portending personal feelings of the writer, or is just bad grammar. bad english I should say. Marvelous marvin (talk) 12:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Experimental Rock

I added this label to Led Zeppelin, because it's a very accurate way of describing a lot of their music. "In The Light", "No Quarter", and a lot of their post-zoso album material is very experimental in nature, and even Led Zeppelin 3 is relatively innovative in nature because of their choice to make a fair portion of the songs acoustic. If anyone disagrees feel free to say so and give your reasons. - Razorhead July 31, 2007

I'm not sure I really agree with labeling them experimental. While there's no arguing they were incredibly innovative, glancing over List of experimental musicians I fail to see any bands that are similar enough to LZ to let them fall into this specific genre. Besides that, User:Peter Fleet has already reverted it. IrisKawling 11:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

i added it back. "Experimental rock or Avant rock is a type of music based on rock and roll which experiments with the basic elements of the genre, and/or which pushes the boundaries of common composition and performance technique. Performers may also attempt to individualize their music with unconventional time signatures, instrumental tunings, compositional styles, lyrical techniques, elements of other musical genres, singing styles, instrumental effects or custom-made experimental musical instruments." pretty much describes LZ to a tee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk)

I think it should not be called experimental. because, what I hear is rock and roll. Some blues, some rock. I think one is going to gain much more ground, much more ground if this article is written in black and white. You can always go back and fill out the branches. Marvelous marvin (talk) 12:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with marvin. Led Zeppelin is about rock and roll, with a lot of influences from blues. Sure they did experiment, but that doesn't make them an experimental band at all. Almost all of their songs are 4/4 - no unconventional time signatures there. Also, almost every band eventually uses different tunings for certaing songs, not to mention compositional styles. All one could argue is that their live performances were very unusual, containing a lot of improvisation and very long solos. But that's all. Fmneto (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is entirely fair and appropriate to label Zeppelin as "Avant-Guard." This should not be the primary label but it is applicable--not on account of their use of alternate tunings (trite), blending of genres (un-original), or forays into glam/pop in the late 70s (some of us like to pretend that never happened), but because of their truly original styles and techniques. Examples include Page's use of the violin bow to create the distinct sounds of his guitar solos, and his use of the Theremin on Whole Lotta Love. I don't think it matters if they are labeled Avant-Guard or not, as they are generally perceived as just a plain Rock n Roll band, but adding the label is not innaccurate or inappropriate. Another, perhaps irrelevant, consideration is the band's extensive use of improvisation in live shows, which suggests elements of psychedelia (cf. Cream). 69.249.55.6 (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NEWS

announcements recently - a new release "Mothership", 3cds 'best of', as well as a new extended release of the DVD and CD versions of The Song Remains the Same from MSG '73. Zep will also allow the Mothership release to be sold online. Someone want to change the article to reflect these developments? 144.135.254.163 08:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename the article "the fourth album" to Led ZeppelinIV??

The article about the fourth album should be renamed Led Zeppelin IV or at least include Led Zeppelin IV in its title, because Jimmy page has often called "the fourth album" Led Zeppelin IV in many interviews (Even the main article on the fourth album is called Led Zeppelin IV). Therefore, we can rename the article Led Zeppelin IV and mention in the article that it was called the "fourth album" by robert plant.

It is mentioned in the article that it was called the fourth album by Robert Plant. But that section of the article should stay the same, as the the symbols are its official title. --FrasierC 23:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As to the statement that the fourth album was not labeled or titled, to the best of my recollection, your honor, the LP came wrapped in plastic with a sticker on which credited Led Zeppelin. Or was that just a later re-issue?Toddsschneider (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily a reissue, just a later pressing most likely. First-run fourth albums are very hard to find but they included absolutely no indications as to who it was. It was designed that way, read the full article about the album. TauntingElf (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] John Bonham a "Former Member"?

I have a problem with the edit made to the band's lineup. John Bonham really can't be considered a "former member". Almost immediately after Bonham's death, Led Zeppelin disbanded, even saying that without their irreplacable drummer they can't continue as they were. No new material was recorded with a new drummer. All the artists went their separate ways to record solo albums. So to say John Bonham is a "former member" is misleading, as all the material we know of was recorded with the original four.

SpartanMurph117 00:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

then fix it Duff man2007 01:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and it's been reverted. IrisKawling 01:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

First off Duff, I don't want to be that bold. If there was a good reason, I'd want to hear it. But since Kawling reverted it, I'm going to change the opening section to include Bonham in the list of band members.

SpartanMurph117 13:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This matter is coming up again it seems. There's no reason to list him as a former member, he was active throughout their entire recording history, and when he died, they disbanded. Despite any reunions, Led Zeppelin has not been active since John Bonham's passing, and any drummers filling in during one-off shows are not band members, they're touring members... barely. It's almost debatable to note "deceased" next to his name for a casual reader of the article that may just be looking for facts, but there were only 4 members of Led Zeppelin, and no "past members" IrisKawling 17:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Led Zeppelin are active again as they have announced a concert. Since they are are playing the concert under the name Led Zeppelin, and John Bonham is dead, he is a past/former member of the band. People that are arguing against this obvious fact are too biased because they are purists and hardcore fans of the original lineup. This article must be kept consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. He is no longer a member of Led Zeppelin as they are about to play a concert without him. TomGreen 20:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
No, they are not active again. If they go on a lengthy tour, officially reunite, name a replacement drummer, and record new material, then they would be active again. They are simply playing a single one-off tribute show. If you continue going by the belief that they are active, your edits will not be helpful to this article, please take this into consideration. I also take offense to your "purist and hardcore fan" comment, truthfully I obviously am a big fan, and I wish Led Zeppelin were still active, however the fact remains that they are not. IrisKawling 22:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
This is ridiculous, Led Zeppelin are to reunite and play a concert. Bonham is dead and is therefore a former member. At the very least the '(deceased)' must remain beside his name. This is NOT a fan site, it is an encyclopedic article. We'll have to seek arbitration from an admin if there is no willingness by people to accept facts. This is the way other band articles are presented when bands are in similar situations. TomGreen 08:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
If the reunion was not to take place it could be argued that all 4 members were former members as the group was no longer active. It could equally be argued that they were all current members as their material was still available to buy. Thus if you asked 'who are/were Led Zeppelin' the only proper answer would be to give the 4 names of the original members. With the reunion, LZ are playing with 4 members making Jason Bonham a member and John Bonham a former member. --Egghead06 08:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm pleased someone has voiced their agreement with plain logic. However, I wouldn't be sure to include Jason Bonham as a current member as I'm not sure if he is counted as a member of the band. He could play with them without being classed as a full member, in the same way that Darryl Jones plays bass with The Rolling Stones following Bill Wyman's departure, but he isn't classed as a member of The Rolling Stones. John Bonham is definately a former member. Even if IrisKawling believes they are not active again, then he must agree that ALL four must be listed as former members, as per the musical artist template box guide (I can't remember the link). TomGreen 09:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomGreen (talk • contribs)
Tom, if you're getting so angered by this, here is what I suggest. On November 26th you may change them to an active group, and the members to your liking, but as soon as they're done performing, it goes back, because that'll be the only time they're "active". And as I already said, if they go on tour or decide to record again, you're in the right. But until then, all that has happened was an announced one-off gig. That does not make them an active band, I'm sorry. IrisKawling 12:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
So we will have 'Active for one night only'? Are Cream an active band as they did 4 gigs in 2005 but have none further planned or The Who? Surely the fact that LZ make even one appearance in the 21st century makes them 'active'? After that concert they will have 4 active members and one former member::::--Egghead06 13:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Both of those bands have done more than just one show, I don't know much about them but I'm just trying to say that one single get-together by 3 guys doesn't make an inactive band for 27 years active again; the 'partial reunions' notation is enough. People tend to get a little carried away with the whole reunion buzz by many bands. Look at Pink Floyd, they play one gig in 2005 at Live 8, and all of a sudden their fans are clinging to hope that they'll keep going, and thus label them as active but on "indefinite hiatus". Again I don't know much about the details of Floyd's status either, but I do know that if you ask any member of Zep if they're active now, they'll say NO. IrisKawling 13:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
So is it Led Zeppelin 'were' a band or 'are' a band? The article for Pink Floyd has 'are a band'!--Egghead06 17:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
My point exactly. Neither band are active, this article is currently correct, Floyd's probably isn't. IrisKawling 18:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
So the band is inactive, I am therefore changing 'members' to 'former members', as per the Wikipedia guidelines on infoxes. TomGreen 14:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomGreen (talk • contribs)

I can't figure this discussion out. I've tried. I think the reason is, something is missing. or someone? mhmm. and, honestly, I just commend you folk, for your sensitivity on the subject of Bonham's death. You've done enough, you've done well, just in being careful, just remember you are not gods or angels, you are just mere men. or ladies. my point is, in laboring like you have.. in this discussion, you did get it right. IMO. Marvelous marvin (talk) 12:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Led Zeppelin Reuniting?

I heard this at the Yahoo! home page.

Please note the disclaimer above: "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." Thanks Edelmand 11:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


I know how led zeppelin is saying there waiting till after the reunion show to discuss further shows if any, but I am hearing something now about a possible show in Canada? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.28.66 (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think rumors about 2009 Belfast show and possible tour are nonsense and should not be on this page. Robert Plant has stated that a tour is not going to happen (from Uncut magazine interview). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.250.98 (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zeppelin airship?

Their name has nothing to do with the Zeppelin airship? Their site [1] does show one, but I did not see any mention here.--BBird 12:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sort of - from the article: "One account of the band's naming, which has become almost legendary, has it that Keith Moon and John Entwistle suggested that a possible supergroup containing themselves, Jimmy Page, and Jeff Beck would go down like a lead balloon, a term Entwistle used to describe a bad gig." So Led Zeppelin is a play on 'lead balloon'. — Zaui (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
they were sued by a member of the Zeppelin family for the LZI cover. they had to play shows in germany billed as "the knobs" or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
They were never sued. Eva von Zeppelin threatened suit if they set foot in Denmark using Zeppelin in their name. They changed their name in 1970 to the tongue-in-cheek title of "The Nobs" when they played in Denmark in response. She never followed through with her threat, even when Led Zeppelin later played in Denmark in 1971, 1973, and in 1979 for the Knebworth warm-up shows, without changing their name. MegX (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox and reunions

I noticed that the reunion happening this year was in the infobox, and then taken down with somebody adding a comment to NOT add 2007 until it actually happens. Considering that Robert Plant himself has said this is going to happen, and is actually talking about it in the first place, and the fact that tickets are on sale now, oh yes, its gonna happen. So, 2007 stays in the infobox, mkay? --Bluorangefyre 01:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, now that it has been confirmed it can be listed there. although it technically should probably wait until they actually take the stage, it's kind of futile and will just cause many edit wars, so let's just leave it. IrisKawling 01:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Having it there will be OK. If somehow the appearance falls through, the info can be updated. -Fnlayson 03:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
John Bonham MUST be listed under former members. He is dead and as the band has decided to reform with the name Led Zeppelin, he is NOT a current member of Led Zeppelin. I understand the value people place on John's presence in the band but let us stick to facts, regardless of opinions. TomGreen 16:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomGreen (talk • contribs)
No details go in the box other than names. Read the rules: Template:Infobox musical artist, no other notation other than names. 156.34.225.235 08:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Led Zep Sales

There's mentioned that Led Zeppelin has sold more than 300 million albums. Since 25 September 2005 16:24 [2], is this mentioned like this way at Wikipedia. The article [3] (the source) however is published at 7 November 2005 (more than a month later than it was mentioned at Wikipedia). I can believe that Led Zeppelin has sold more than 250 million albums, but there is no (correct) claim (yet) that date before 25 September 2005 to suggest that they've sold more than 300 million albums. So, is it possible to change the 300 to 250 million, please. Christo jones 08:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

An official press release [4] claimed that Led Zeppelin sold 200 million albums. So, an album sale of 250 million worldwide anno 2007 is more realistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christo jones (talk • contribs) 10:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Out of context sentence

The following sentence at the end of the paragraph about the Yardbirds breaking up makes no sense: "A large part of their success can be credited to their lawyer Steve Weiss" The "they" mentioned is really ambigious and there's no obvious context nearby that implies anyone at all was successful. It's also worth mentioning how Steve Weiss contributed to whoever's success. Zytsef 06:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The sentence was not only out of context, but also pov and unsourced. It has been removed Edelmand 11:54, 30 September 2007

(UTC)

[edit] Americans please take note

Sorry to be pedantic, but since the 1800 Act of Union, English people became British, this is the correct nomenclature, like it or not.. Try to imagine the concept of Texans claiming not to be American and then u might see how irritating it is to have to correct this error on a daily basis. Natalie West 03:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

No error - you are repeatedly removing detail from the article and pov pushing. The band are neither Scottish, Welsh or N. Irish - they are English. There is no requirement to muddy the waters here. Try this tactic on Scottish articles or on Irish articles that refer to the time it was part of the UK and see what happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.3.45 (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Try not to paint the edits as anti-British. True they British, but more specifically they are all are originally from England. If we're limited to listing nations and not states/regions then Scottish is incorrect too. -Fnlayson 21:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disable editing of the Led Zeppelin article!!!!

I am sick of amateur writers who keep changing the article and adding a load of crap about the band on the main page. Someone a while back wrote an extremely well written and informative article which even for fans who grew up with them like me could learn new things from.

Some asshole Beatles fan actually suggested on the main page for the song The Rain Song that the first few notes were based on the beatles song, Something!

I have no idea how to do it but whoever the hell is in charge, please delete the current version and write a more literary minded piece about the band.

I Agree, im sick of it to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.143.74.60 (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Then disable the editing of it so more people can view an historically accurate bio of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.235.163.110 (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So to Wikipedia, Led Zeppelin is not one of the most ...

... revolutionary, praised and influential bands of all time. Give me a reason why you won't admit they are.

Honestly everybody knows this yet the front page rarely, RARELY talks about it. Why? Several other bands have different articles talking about their influence an impact, if anything Led Zeppelin should be among the top 5 bands to have one yet. Yet they don't, no they just have one bashing Led Zeppelin. Why is this? Littlenickle 02:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Someone(s) has to write it and provide verifiable sources to back it up. Just that simple. -Fnlayson 02:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: Littlenickle is a sock for Shutup999/Zephead999/Zabrak/Dragong4/Duff man2007/Pie76/Zubt555.. etc. Don't feed the trolls. 156.34.221.137 02:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References in lyrics

There are repeated references to the works of Tolkien in the lyrics of Led Zeppelin. Surely this should be mentioned somewhere in this article or on the articles for particular albums or songs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.162.107.4 (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Presence + Heroin

Though it is widely accepted that Jimmy Page began suffering from the effects of heroin use in the late 70s, I'm not sure I've read that the Presence sessions marked the beginning of his use. In addition, I'm not sure that Page himself has ever confirmed or denied his usage of heroin, officially.

I think it's a bit slippery to state this as fact in the article when it is mostly speculation and hearsay.

Perhaps I'm forgetting an interview I've read, but I feel if the article is going to say that Page's use of heroin contributed to the downfall of the band it at least needs a citation.

I believe the band's tour manager, Richard Cole, made some statements in his autobiography about himself and his relationship with the band. I've also read that several inaccuracies appear in his book. It's been several years since I've read it and I too felt that some facts didn't seem to add up.

I'll do my best to find a source for this, but while I'm doing that someone else might find it more quickly.
Cheers. Rockthing 02:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Page's drug use is discussed extensively on his own wikipedia page, with references: see Jimmy Page

Edelmand 06:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll have a look at that. Rockthing 11:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1990s Page/Plant

Does someone have a credible source saying that Charlie Jones is Plant's son-in-law? If so, I think this would be relevant to John Paul Jones' exclusion from the Page/Plant project. I've heard/read this before, but don't want to add this information without a source handy. (on a purely speculative basis, however, there was probably no way they could have avoided calling the project 'Led Zeppelin' with JPJ involved). Rockthing 02:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Oakland1977.jpg

Image:Oakland1977.jpg 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 17:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

A rationale has now been added Edelmand 14:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final appearance in US

I corrected the statement in the section headed The Song Remains the Same, as the Oakland shows were NOT the band's last US appearance. I was curious if the statement was part of the cited source. Excuse me, the book - which I own and which does not have the cited material, now that I think about it.

I had tickets to see Led Zepplin - they must have been in the week following the Oakland shows, as the show (in Phoenix) was canceled. Unfortunately, I do not recall the date they finally did the show but it had to be at least 6 months later. Me713 22:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The Oakland shows were the band's last in the United States. See Led Zeppelin North American Tour 1977. Edelmand 13:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origin in infobox

Why does the infobox say the band originated in West Bromwich? It's not referred to in the text. I'd always assumed they were all based in London. ---- Whoosher (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest they didn't really "orginate" from anywhere. Plant and Bonham were from the Midlands, whereas Page was from London and Paul Jones was from Kent. The band was essentially Jimmy Page's creation, so if anything it was London based. ---- 83.100.250.8 (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the localisation to West Bromwich is too specific. Origin in England would be about as close as one could really get I think. Candy (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American English and "were"

Is there a reason that this article is written in UK English when nearly every other article is written in American English? " Note: This article is written in UK English, which treats collective nouns as plurals. (i.e. Led Zeppelin WERE a band.) were Don't waste your time changing this to "was", it will be reverted back quickly." Rundar (talk) 02:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

???? WP:ENGVAR American subject=American English. Every other English speaking country in the world uses proper English. UK subject=UK grammar. And most musical artist articles are written this way. And if they aren't they need to be corrected. 156.34.223.191 (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
"nearly every other article is written in American English" is just a gross simplification. And just not true. LZ is from the UK, England specifically, so let it be.. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not let it be. According to this website, there are about 300,000,000 Americans and 60,000,000 people in the UK. Why should articles cater to their grammar instead? Articles about French subjects are not all written in French. The fact that Led Zeppelin is an English band is not a good reason for this page to be written with English grammar. If you want to use UK English grammar, then make seperate pages with UK grammar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.200.52 (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The French example is irrelvant as this is an English language wiki. Using British/Commonwealth spelling for British/Commonwealth subjects is within Wikipedia policy (see Engvar link above). -Fnlayson (talk) 19:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Mendelsohn

The first paragraph under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Led_Zeppelin#Allegations_of_plagiarism cites 33 http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/7287549/qa_robert_plant/ but there is no mention of any of that in said article, does anyone have a correct reference? Revrant 18:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've seen both the reviews Mendelsohn gave for Led Zeppelin. While the reviews were in general neative in tone, at no stage did he mention Traffic of Jansch or "plagiarism" in the reviews. Some editor has made a false attribution to Mendelsohn claiming he said something when he clearly did not. That section in the article therefore needs to be removed as clear bunk. MegX (talk) 03:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The section on allegations of plagiarism makes a claim on the original album review by John Mendelsohn for Led Zeppelin I. The wikipedia article avoids referencing the Rolling Stone article in question. After searching on the internet I've managed to find the original Rolling Stone review:

http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/ledzeppelin/albums/album/103294/review/18835333/led_zeppelin_i

The wikipedia article then states:

"When Led Zeppelin's debut album was released, it received generally positive reviews. However, John Mendelsohn of Rolling Stone magazine criticised the band for plagiarising music, notably "Black Mountain Side" from Bert Jansch's "Blackwaterside" (though Jansch himself acknowledges the song as being traditional) and the riff from "Your Time Is Gonna Come" from Traffic's "Dear Mr. Fantasy". He also accused the band of mimicking black artists, and showing off. This marked the beginning of a long rift between the band and the magazine, with Led Zeppelin rejecting later requests for interviews and cover stories as their level of success escalated."

If you read the Rolling Stone article and compare it with the above quote, it's quite obvious the claims made in the Wikipedia article appears to be bogus. Nowhere in his review does he even mention Jansch or Traffic by name or the word plagiarism. Someone appears to have made some false attributions on the current Wikipedia article to Mendelsohn and it should be removed. MegX (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hate site as reference

Can we please find a more appropriate reference for Bonham's death than the extremist hate/conspiracy site av1611.org? Surely there are other reliable resources out there. PenguinJockey (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

POV website, not a reliable source. Remove it if it hasn't been done so already. Could you link me to that actual article?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

i think that av1611.orgis a horrible site and should not be mentioned as a refrence Grandoldman (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed that reference. I put up the link to his entry in [5] instead. Fmneto (talk) 08:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Bonham?

How dare someone not even mention John Bonham in the band members section. Jason Bonham has never been part of the band, he has filled in for his father in a few concerts, thats it. You wouldnt mention Pat Smear on Nirvana's members so why put Jason Bonham on this one. I'm replacing Jason as John--Omarraii (talk) 11:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disgusting picture

Is anyone else seeing a tubgirl-like picture that scrolls down with the article? Pullarius1 (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC

i noticed a big picture that was fixed when u scroll down but luckily it never loaded for me

  • Yep, a hacker must have got in.. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] $100,000 a ticket?

Just general discussion here, but did tickets for the latest concert go for $100,000? Or where the certain levels of tickets in which someone could record the concert? Is that what I am seeing on Youtube today?

Eltownse (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You've probably heard about the guy who bid £83,000 on a charity auction on national radio (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/events/cin07/wogan_auction_thu.shtml). The tickets themselves all cost £125 + booking fee. --Whoosher (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I was reckoned that the average ticket was for £5000. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Can we get the old picture back and move the 2007 one down to that tour, this is since the old picture is comlete Zeppelin-RREDD13 (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree the current picture is not very good. You cannot even see the faces of the band members. However, it appears that the old picture you are referring too (1968 publicity photo) has now been deleted from Wikipedia due to an inadequate free use justification. This page needs more photos generally I and I have added some in the past, but they have always been removed for fair use reasons.Edelmand (talk) 01:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 reunion

Unfortunately, I am really pushed for time otherwise I would do this ... The info regarding the 2007 reunion needs spinning off to its own article and replacing with a short para. Otherwise, too much emphasis is done on this just because it is a recent event and is given unnecessary weight in the article. --Candy (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, but is a list of celebrities who went to the show really necessary? Funeral 14:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Done. I have created a second article for the concert and the vast bulk of the information has been moved there Edelmand (talk) 12:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice job Edelmand. Thanks. --Candy (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spirit

Link to Spirit (band) corrected. Dunks (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Good. Include that in your edit summary and you won't need to mention it here. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Fourth album

This sentence: "The album also featured "Stairway to Heaven" (sample (info)), which became a massive album-oriented rock FM radio hit despite never being released as a single." is very wordy, I've taken several looks at it but cannot decipher its meaning, suggestions? (Note: please look at the original sentence as it contains wikilinks)TauntingElf (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't feature Stairway to Heaven. The album wasn't even titled. It didn't have "Featuring Stairway to Heaven" on it as a sticker!!! I guess it is simply inappropriate English. Trying a quick edit. Feel free to revert or amend. --Candy (talk) 06:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


…Hello Dunks i read your paregraphical setting and was wondering about the political portion of it ,reason why is there is an exsistance to what you mentioned before your calculation,i'm going to try to relax and capture some Led Zepplin perhaps though my freikin radio is a disater and the darn thing very rarely plays any of it all well that ends well i am of a posible satisfaction by the way concerning a Polotic and even a history of it check the DeLancey Faction 1700's before the revolution o the tears well there somewhere o crap my heads getting moist.12:02 p.m.e.s.t.

…above was David George DeLancey/12:04 p.m. e.s.t. search David_DeLanceywith or without @Yahoo.comDavid George DeLancey (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Live

There is precious little mention of the band's stage show. The unique aspect of no opening act, so as not to be upstaged on a bad night, was brilliant. The incorporation of an acoustic set on the III tour wasn't a first by a rock band, but was still notable for a *HARD ROCK* band. They were a very loud band I recall.

Vytal (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

See Led Zeppelin concerts Edelmand (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Led Zepagain

Is Led Zepagain notable enough to warrant an article, you think? I mean they're pretty popular on iTunes. --Gp75motorsports REV LIMITER 22:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Top Ten

Led Zeppelin aren't the only band to have all their studio albums hit the Billboard top ten. See Stone Temple Pilots, Pearl Jam, etc. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. The information is cited to a website which was dated 2000. Since then, all Pearl Jam's albums have gone top 10 on Billboard. I have removed the sentence. Edelmand (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Obviously, all of Pearl Jam's albums had gone Top Ten in 2000, too. And all the years before that going to their first album in 1991. The website isn't out of date. It's just plain wrong. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiality

All of the sources for 300 million albums sold are from after this wikipedia article claimed it. This is wikiality. This is this website promulgating a lie that is subsequently picked up by the press. That's disgraceful and everyone involved in it ought to be ashamed. You aren't a true Led Zeppelin fan because you lie about the band and inflate their sales as if that means anything. A true Led Zeppelin fan would be committed to accuracy and truth. An official Led Zeppelin press release claimed 200 million sales a mere five years ago. This 300 million figure is crap.

http://www.led-zeppelin.com/news/pressrelease5_20_03.html

74.77.222.188 (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The press release link provided above is from 2003. The December 2007 edition of Classic Rock magazine (page 55) states 300 million. I would have thought this magazine be a fairly reliable reference, but I guess it's possible that Classic Rock cheated as well and used wikipedia as their source. The exact number might be difficult to verify Edelmand (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course Classic Rock magazine cheated. There isn't any organization tracking worldwide sales. That's why all worldwide sales figures are bunk. Classic Rock magazine is far from a reputable journalistic source, anyway. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't feed the troll, Edelmand. User:74.77.222.188 has a long history of article vandalism. MegX (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Troll? Vandalism? Screw you, MegX. I'm a user committed to accuracy on Wikipedia. ESPECIALLY when it comes to my favorite bands. That includes Led Zeppelin. I have seen outrageous sales claims, inadequately cited, on the pages of Pink Floyd, Deep Purple, The Who and others. I have worked to get them removed, battling against thick headed fanboys and fangirls who think they're doing their favorite band's article a favor by putting poorly sourced crap in it. They aren't. They're doing their favorite band's article a disservice. This is an encyclopedia. It has standards. Among those standards are WP:V and WP:RS. If you're a real fan of Led Zeppelin, you'll want their article to uphold those standards. You'll notice that my "vandalism" just got an erroneous claim deleted. The claim that Led Zeppelin is the only band to have all of their studio albums go Top Ten in the USA. Yeah, that claim was impressive. I'm sure Led Zeppelin fans liked seeing it in this article. But it just plain isn't true. A real fan ought to want truth in this article. Not lies. An official band press release from a mere five years ago says Led Zeppelin has sold 200 million albums and you're going to believe this garbage about 300 million? Come on. You think they sold 100 million albums in five years? Of course they haven't. Stick to what is VERIFIABLE, such as the RIAA figures. Vandalism my ass. I'm the OPPOSITE of a vandal. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Your version of "truth" includes adding "pklaassen = Yes". You've lost your argument. You are a troll, a vandal, and a coward.MegX (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Pklaassen = Yes? What the hell are you talking about? My version of "truth" proved that this article's claim that Led Zeppelin is the only band to have all their albums hit the Top Ten was complete bunk. All I've seen is that your mode of Led Zeppelin fandom means LYING. Mine does not. Trolls lie. Vandals lie. I don't. And a coward? A coward how? You're pathetic, MegX. Your kind make me embarrassed to be a Led Zeppelin fan. Deleting my comment from your talk page proves that you're the coward. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
You are a coward. You use multiple sockpuppets. You haven't added anything remotely constructive to any articles. And as for being a fan of a band, with your edit history I doubt that very much. MegX (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't use any sock puppets. I think you're projecting, sweetheart. I don't know what the hell you're talking about with "Pklaassen = Yes" and my edit history amply proves I'm a fan of Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Who and the rest. I'm simply sick of seeing publicist exaggerations reported as fact. As a journalist and as a fan, it offends me. You're the kind of fan I despise. Who removed a lie from the opening? I did. Led Zeppelin are not the only band to have all their "non-compilation studio albums" go Top Ten in the USA. That's the kind of garbage that misguided fangirls like yourself infect these articles with. It's a disgrace and so are you. And your talk page proves that you're the coward. I don't go around sanitizing my talk page. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
And I don't have to spend my time explaining myself to an anonymous user who has surrounded themselves in their own self-importance, editing behind sockpuppets. It's users like YOU that give wikipedia bad name. You claim you're a journalist but you don't have the balls to identify yourself. You really are full of it. The multiple 3Rs on you prove that beyond doubt. End of story. MegX (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
LOL! I don't have the balls to identify myself? I suppose "MegX" is your Christian name, eh? Get a life. I don't use sock puppets. Ever. Unlike you and your endless 156.34X cronies. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 08:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What about this official band release, dated 25 October 2007, which cites the 300 million figure? http://www.ledzeppelin.com/news/2007/10/25/led-zeppelin-release-digital-catalog Edelmand (talk) 12:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's just some guy writing for the website and the claim is obviously from Wikipedia. The truth is that no one knows what the worldwide sales are. Worldwide sales aren't tracked. That's why we'll never find a reputable source for a worldwide sales claim. The RIAA is reputable. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This 'worldwide sales' thing has become one of the most boring and repetitive features of articles on rock/pop bands. Not only LZ but articles on The Who, Queen, Pink Floyd etc etc regularly have spurious entries made for sales and then have them reverted by someone who doesn't like the entry.
As stated, above, no one tracks worldwide sales so any figures mentioned have no place in Wikipedia--Egghead06 (talk) 08:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That doesn't prevent a person or group from estimating total sales in specific cases. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
In this article the 300 million sales is cited by several sources all meeting and exceeding any standards set by Wikipedia. Editor opinion matter nil. It's a cited statement and remains so because of it. One editor under several diguises has shaded 3RR and attempted, several times, to remove the citations for reasons which are nothing better then original research and personal opinion. Wikipedia has a List of best selling music artists which is under a huge amount of scrutiny by dozens of editors who will not accept any reference they deem questionable. If the "uncitable worldwide sales" claim is true (and I personally believe it is... but again... editor opinion means nothing)... then the editor who wishes to blank references from this article should place his efforts on getting that main list deleted from Wikipedia. As long as it remains. Any citation deemed worthy for use on that list... is a reference valid enough to be included in any related Wikipedia article. On Wikipedia, right or wrong, consensus wins over personal opinion or bias. And on this article, the overwhelming consensus is that the referenced content stays unless other citations that say different outnumber the citations that already exist... and there are currently 5 concrete references. So any attempt to knowing remove the referenced content against article consensus = vandalism and should be treated as such. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
You have a point that some of the current citations meet WP:RS criteria. But the fact remains that they ALL appear AFTER Wikipedia claimed that figure. That's what I call wikiality. I've dealt with it on a number of issues, such as the history of the guitar smash. I'm not going to delete the worldwide sales figure from Led Zeppelin's page anymore, but I will continue to argue my case and hopefully persuade the fair minded who aren't blinded by fandom. The List of best selling music artists is full of references that are questionable and the article admits that. It's explicitly described as a list of sales CLAIMS. That's why I have no problem with it listing Pink Floyd at 200 million, The Who at 100 million, Deep Purple at 100 million, etc. That page is not presenting those figures as fact. But when those figures migrate to Pink Floyd's page, The Who's page, Deep Purple's page, etcetera, they are invariably presented as FACT. That's wrong. When I edit those pages to say that those are sales CLAIMS it gets reverted under WP:WEASEL, so I delete the figure entirely under WP:RS. And it stands because I'm right. I can't do that to Led Zeppelin's page, because some of the sources do meet WP:RS criteria. But it's illuminating that none of those sources make any mention of where the figure comes from. I think it comes from Wikipedia and I'm very disappointed in the sloppy research of organizations like CNN for claiming it as fact. Original research? Perhaps. So tell me where the figure comes from. It's not like CNN counted up all of Led Zeppelin's sales themselves. Where does the figure COME FROM? If you can't answer that question, then you know I'm right. I think all worldwide sales claims should be deleted from every page. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
You have provided no proof that 300 million figure originated from Wikipedia. HelenWatt (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Proof? Where does the figure come from, Helen? It's a fact that this article was claiming 300 million sold before ALL of the current references now "supporting" that claim. The figure comes from either Wikipedia itself or from a source that does not meet WP:RS criteria. If that's not true, then find the source it comes from. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Think the key phrase here is 'any citation deemed worthy'. Many used clearly are not worthy and are TV station fansites and foreign newspapers (South African and Swedish!!) etc. Before using these editors should consider reading wp:rs. To leave such vague figures in an article only diminishes Wikipedia even further.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
A news item from the May 22, 2003 Bristol Evening Post cites figures that make even the 200 million indicated in the official press release seem questionable. I'll quote the article at length. "If proof were needed that Led Zeppelin are the biggest rock band the world has ever seen, then you don't have to look further than the sales statistics. Every year the RIAA, the American recording industry body, issues the figures for the (certified) best-selling albums in the world. Despite having been released over 30 years ago, the arrogantly untitled album that's become known as Led Zeppelin IV is currently in the fourth position (behind The Eagles: Their Greatest Hits, Michael Jackson's Thriller and Pink Floyd's The Wall) having sold a staggering 22 million copies. That's 10 million more copies than The Beatles' Abbey Road and twice as many as Sgt Pepper. Also riding high in the list is Led Zeppelin II (12 million) and the debut album Led Zeppelin (10 million)." So, this 2003 article cites the top three Led Zeppelin sales ["in the world"] leaders as 22 million, 12 million, and 10 million respectively. If you were take all the other LZ releases and give them the huge benefits of doubt and say they all sold 9 million each, that would still sum up to a figure substantially lower than the 200 million cited officially by the band in the same year this Bristol article was written--much less the 300 million being argued about 5 years later.alainsane (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, I just found this off-handed snippet in the RIAA's official April 22, 2008 press release, which I will also quote at length: "Veteran rocker Paul McCartney earned his 15th Gold album for Memory Almost Full on Concord Records. McCartney’s former band The Beatles has sold a whopping 170 million albums - more albums than any band in G&P history." So, according to the RIAA, 170 million albums is more than other band has sold in Gold & Platinum history.alainsane (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Please provide links to your statements, rather than simply quoting. I should also point out that the figures quoted are for US sales only (and old sales figures at that), not worldwide as claimed by you in quotes. RIAA specifically states US sales figure of 23 million for Led Zeppelin IV, not worldwide. MegX (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I cannot provide a link to the first article because it's not freely available. I accessed it through LexisNexis. Here is the link for the second snippet: http://www.riaa.com/newsitem.php?news_month_filter=&news_year_filter=&resultpage=&id=D313E1AB-E770-847E-0466-26571362B178 also http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=tblTopArt It doesn't make sense for the RIAA to use old statistics. They only stand to benefit by trumpeting their efforts and the added value they provide by presenting recent data.alainsane (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

All of the current references for 300M meet and exceed WP:RS standards. Fair Deal (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 300 million

I'm laying out an open challenge to anyone to find a source for the 300 million claim that meets WP:RS criteria and predates its first mention in this article. Good luck. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

To aid you in your search, it first appeared in this article, without a citation of course, at 16:24 25 September 2005. It was added by 24.194.171.143 (talk), a known vandal. All the subsequent citations are after that date. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

My, the silence is deafening. Look at where the 300 million sales figure came from. It's clear as day. It came from a known vandal, stayed in the article for months because Wikipedia editors aren't doing their job, and was subsequently published in "reputable" sources because lazy journalists used Wikipedia as a reference. Principled Wikipedia editors shouldn't stand for it. True Led Zeppelin fans shouldn't stand for it. I'm not standing for it. Are you going to just look the other way, or are we going to fix this? 74.77.222.188 (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You're basing you entire debate on a Stephen Colbert comedy gag? Wikiality is Colbert Report hijinx. Are you sure you aren't looking for Unencyclopedia? You can quote Colbert all you want over there. The links in the article opening are all from reliable sources. A lot more reliable than Colbert's Wikiality foolishness. 216.21.150.44 (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikiality is real. This article is a textbook example of it. I just proved that the 300 million figure first appeared in this article as a contribution from a known vandal without a single corroborating source. It remained in this article for months without challenge because the editors of this article were derelict. It was subsequently picked up by lazy journalists and published in "reputable" sources and now those same sources are used to back up the original claim after the fact. None of the sources say where the 300 million figure comes from. All of them are dated months after the initial Wikipedia entry. It's plain as day what happened. So get rid of it. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's one for over 350 million (http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2007/11/21/9103_opinion.html) - It's a nice, provincial Australian newspaper. Shall we now use that??? No, of course not, because none of these claims for 300/350 million etc come from repuatable sources. Get rid until someone finds a proper figure from a reputable source and not a mag, fanpage or newspaper.--Egghead06 (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
And unproven allegations of plagiarism, don't belong in an encyclopaedia either. I agree with you on mags not being reputable sources, Rolling Stone for instance. MegX (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Unproven allegations? I've already proven it by proving that this article has been claiming 300 million sold since long before all of the citations currently "supporting" it. If you want to prove me wrong, find out where the known vandal that added the figure got it from. Good luck. You're going to need it, because I'm right. Stop flying the false flag of 300 million sold and start flying the flag of truth in Led Zeppelin's article. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This is what I'm talking about. Your inflated self-importance. You thought I was talking to you. My comments were in regard to Egghead's statement, not yours. MegX (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't care who you're talking to. Either answer the challenge or admit that I'm right. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

While not convinced about the 300 million figure, this struck me:

" Get rid until someone finds a proper figure from a reputable source and not a mag, fanpage or newspaper."

What would you consider a reputable source if you don't think magazines and newspaapers aren't reliable? You start on a slippery slope if you claim that none of these sources are reliable, you bring up the question: "what is reliable?", which you're not going to be able to answer without a flurry of questions about the validity of such sources.

Having said that, the figure is no more or less correct than any other; the fact is we don't know how many albums the band have sold worldwide. I'd vote for removal.

--FrasierC (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course there is inconsistency in the arguments over sources, because they don't want to be proved wrong (ie. no source they dont agree with is correct), but further to that, why only Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, Pink Floyd etc, classic rock bands are being targetted but not Michael Jackson's claimed figure of 750 million? That's absurd. This argument is nothing about figures, this argument is about attempting to discredit bands User:74.77.222.188 pretends to like. MegX (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You know nothing about me, MegX. I don't give a damn about Michael Jackson. If his sales figure is false, and it almost certainly is, then it should also be removed. My time is at a premium. I edit articles I care about. I adore Led Zeppelin. I also love The Who, Pink Floyd, the Rolling Stones, Deep Purple, AC/DC and many other classic rock artists. I want truth in their articles. It's that simple. Read my arguments again. You know I'm right. So stand up for truth and real fandom, not lies and blind fandom. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That's truly unfounded - first of all the Michael Jackson figure is entirely independent of what I'm saying about Led Zeppelin. I'm no MJ fan or any great expert on that subject, but I would guess that it is most likely the 750 million is equally open to criticism. What I'm saying is that the figure is probably inaccurate - that is not to say that I am somehow diminishing Led Zeppelin's achievements in terms of sales. Whether or not they sold 300 million albums, or 250, or 321 million makes no odds in real terms. And thus I'd like to ask how questioning how we know exact sales figures is somehow discrediting rock bands. As a fan of Led Zeppelin, I couldn't care less if they sold 300 million albums or not, and as a Wikipedia user I am interest in accuracy. --FrasierC (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There are several sources posted and all meet WP:RS and satisfy WP:CITE and WP:V. As with other questionable content on Wikipedia, if there is any question the editors who feel the text is not accurate need to find other sources which outnumber the first series of sources. Even then they can't remove the original text they can only add their second opinion along with their own sources provided those sources are trustworthy. The sources that have been included so far are more than adequate to support the content they are added to. Fair Deal (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? Have your read any of this discussion? I know the sources meet WP:RS, WP:CITE and WP:V. That's why I call this garbage wikiality. The 300 million figure first appeared in this wikipedia article as a contribution from a known vandal. I proved that. Look above. All the current citations for the 300 million figure postdate its addition to this article by many months, even years. So where did the 300 million figure come from? Did this known vandal have a freaking time machine? If you can't find where it came from, you know I'm right. None of the sources say where the figure comes from. It's a farce. It's lazy journalism. It's wikiality. How long are we going to let this fester? 74.77.222.188 (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Since I had nothing better to do, I decided to take up 74.77.222.188 on his offer. He was right, there is nothing I could find (I searched for at least an hour) that mentions Led Zeppelin selling more than 300 million albums until after that date. I found a few less than 2 months after it was put up here, but none before. The closest thing I could find was the website from a radio station claiming the number was between 200 and 300 million. Anything that meets WP:RS (I would like to note that WP:RS says right on the page it is not a policy, merely a guideline, and therefore nothing HAS to meet it) before the figure first appears on this page only has them down for over 200 million. The only problem is now all the sources say 300 million so if you tried to change it people would keep editing back. Then again, isn't the nature of Wikipedia just a collection of facts based on available sources? I am a fairly new editor so please correct me if I am wrong, but now the sources (ones apparently considered reliable) say they sold 300 million. I guess it just seems to me that if reliable sources have it, there is not much that can be done about it, even if we can "trace" it back. While it is likely the sources got the number from this very page, we have no way of verifying that. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That's right Rowdyoctopus, there is no actual proof of wikiality, just a strongly supported inference. Actually, it's highly likely that 74.77.222.188 is correct in saying that the 300 figure originated from wikipedia, then found its way into the mainstream media, only for those media sources to be later cited within wikipedia as reliable sources to back up the 300 figure. But "highly likely" is not the same as "proof". For proof you need to cite reliable sources. The problem is there is no reliable source that can actually be cited to prove that wikiality took place in this instance (or at least, if there is I am not aware of it). Edelmand (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coda is a studio album

Proof that Coda is a studio album lies in official Led Zeppelin releases. For instance, Complete Studio Recordings has a label stating that it contains all nine studio albums plus four bonus tracks (the Best Buy in my area has a copy, so I have seen it in person). A songbook on the official Led Zeppelin site also describes nine studio albums. I know there are other items that bear proof, but I can't think of any others off of the top of my head. I just wanted to make sure this was brought to others' attention. If the band itself feels that Coda is a studio album, then it is a studio album.--Ninjaryu (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've pretty much stayed out of the studio versus compilation edit wars that have been going on, but I agree with you, if you also consider that Physical Graffiti used previously recorded tracks dating back to 1970 and it's regarded by all and sundry as a studio album and not a compilation. Although at the time Page did consider putting together a live compilation album, but the others weren't receptive to it, at the time. MegX (talk) 07:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've tended to stay out of it, despite how much it annoys me. Recently, however, I have seen increasing evidence proving without a shadow of a doubt that Coda is a studio album. I feel that this should be changed, otherwise it is incorrect.--Ninjaryu (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not a standard studio album. It's a compilation of studio scraps that didn't make it onto any of the official studio albums. The Who started these kinds of releases in 1974 with their Odds & Sods lp. That's not considered an official studio album, either. They're both compilations. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
While I don't know much about Odds & Sods (I'm more of a Tommy person), I feel that if the members of Led Zeppelin consider Coda to be a studio album, then it is a studio album. I agree that it is unusual in the respect you say, but we should probably go with what the band says it is. Yes, they haven't said it directly, but other official releases speak loudly enough on the matter.--Ninjaryu (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Such as? 74.77.222.188 (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin expert Dave Lewis, in his publication The Complete Guide to the Music of Led Zeppelin (London: Omnibus Press, 1994 ISBN 0-7119-3528-9) lists Coda as one of the ten Led Zeppelin albums released in its own right (TSRTS being the only live album of the ten). That is, he puts the album in the same bracket as the other nine albums which preceded it. All of these albums he distinguishes from later Led Zeppelin compilation albums, such as Led Zeppelin Remasters. Edelmand (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Some additional sources which state that Led Zeppelin released nine studio albums:

[edit] Led Zeppelin is among the top 10 and arguably 5 most influential and revolutionary bands of all time, why not..

Led Zeppelin is among the top 10 and arguably 5 most influential and revolutionary bands of all time, so why not include a section talking about their prodigious impact on the music industry? No, instead we get a highly distuable section talking about their plagiarism? I find that hilarious in more ways than one. Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Having a section on plagiarism does not preclude adding a section you describe. As long as the information abides by wikipedia's policies of Verifiability and Neutral point of view. Previous attempts to add a section on the band's legacy have failed to do this Edelmand (talk) 11:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Why even bother having a source? It's common knowledge to any informed person on music that Zeppelin is among the most influential and groundbreaking bands in the history of man, argue against this and it's plausible that they're slightly mentally retarded. 17:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (talk • contribs)

The reason you need a source is Verifiability. Edelmand (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] plagiarism section needs expanded

Most zeppelin songs are plagiarized, where is the info on them stealing babe i'm gonna leave you from the beatles while my guitar gently weeps or stairway to heaven from the band spirit, who zeppelin actually played with before they stole the song....there are several others as well, but overall led zeppelin as an original band is probably the most overhyped concept in musical history 24.182.229.4 (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to expand the plagiarism section. As long as it abides by Verifiability and Neutral point of view there is no reason why you can't. Edelmand (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lemon Song and Robert Johnson

I was rather surprised to read that "The Lemon Song" was based on Howlin' Wolf's "Killing Floor". That may be, I have never heard that song, but it is also very similar to another song I am familiar with, that being Robert Johnson's "Traveling Riverside Blues." (See, for example, http://www.theonlineblues.com/robert-johnson-traveling-riverside-blues-lyrics.html .) I was listening to this song a few months ago, I recognized it as something I'd heard in a different version, and after some searching through my archives, I realized (or thought I did) that I recognized it as the Led Zeppelin song.

Robert Johnson's work has been covered by a great many artists. Whether or not Led Zeppelin or anyone else plagiarized his work, he never had an opportunity to sue any of the artists that have used his work, or, indeed, to make much of a profit from his work. But he is referred to as the King of the Delta Blues Guitarists. S459martin (talk) 01:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Much of the information referred to above is detailed in The Lemon Song page. Edelmand (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The information in the page cited actually suggests the point I was trying to make. "The Lemon Song" may have attributable sources to at least four different musicians; the plagiarism lawsuit led to crediting only one of those musicians. The fact is, musicians borrow from each other. Sometimes it seems rather flagrant, as in the use of the music of Robert Johnson and other Southern blues musicians not only by Led Zeppelin but many others, and often goes uncredited. But then too, the influence of Southern blues musicians on "modern" rock and roll is well known, it has been admitted by more than one musician.

My point is not to defend any possible plagiarism, nor to complain on behalf of those like Robert Johnson who never had the opportunity to sue for plagiarism, but to point out that musicians (along with writers, painters, and even scientists and other ordinary people) learn from each other. One watches another play, or sing, and borrows a guitar lick or a vocal effect.

That, in itself, is not a bad thing, it is one of the ways in which we learn. The extent to which anyone has flagrantly plagiarized from anyone else is a matter for the courts, I think. That make the whole subject seem, to me, rather a footnote to the whole page (and many others) on Led Zeppelin (and other musicians). Yes, they borrowed from other musicians. Musicians do that.

Sometimes musicians (and writers, painters, and even scientists and other ordinary people) get sued for using just too much work from another.

Robert Johnson may have borrowed from someone else for his ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_Riverside_Blues ) song. That makes me wonder whether, if he had survived to the 60's or 70's, he would have even been willing to sue for plagiarism.

S459martin (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor a crystal ball. Wikipedia doesn't deal in hypotheticals. Most artists anyway don't do the suing. It's the publishing companies which do, because for the most part, they own the rights to the song. Just for example, Chester Burnett died in 1976. It was Jewel Music which litigated because they owned the publishing rights to the song. Robert Johnson is sadly long dead, so is Albert King. It's up to the publisher/s of their music to deal with the lawsuits, and so far they haven't (and I don't think they will). I've read Willie Dixon's I am the Blues (is that an egotistical title or what?) in which he states he was thankful Led Zeppelin settled out of court because he feared that if it did go to court the case would be have been disallowed due to the length of time it took to bring suit. That's his words not mine. MegX (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: Just having looked at the claims in the article, and what it says is in fact incorrect. "Cross-cut Saw" is an R.G. Ford song. Albert King did a cover but he doesnt own the copyright. The publishing company for that song is Universal Music. The rights to Johnson's songs is administered by Music & Media International, Inc. MegX (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
That "Traveling Riverside Blues" article claims in its userbox that it was a single by Robert Johnson. While it may have been a Robert Johnson recording, he never released it as a single. Also under Wikipedia guidelines the fair use rational for that image does not cover it's use for that song, only the album. MegX (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I want to apologize, I fully agree the Led Zeppelin article is factual, I was not trying to generate controversy, but to put a stop to some of the comments on this particular discussion page. The post two entries before mine is about how influential Led Zeppelin was, and the post before mine is about why the "plagiarism" section should be expanded. There are numerous other posts . . . well, never mind all of that.

Yes, it was the Willie Dixon remark in the plagiarism section of the article that prompted my (creating an account and) starting this thread, but primarily I was responding to prior remarks on this discussion board.

In regard to anyone's contribution to anything, I will let my previous words stand or fall. As I wrote, musicians learn from other musicians . . . or perhaps I should instead use a quote attributed to Isaac Newton -- "I stand on the shoulders of giants."

There are an extensive number of articles in Wikipedia about all of these people. So far as I have discerned, these articles are factual and duly give credit for what has been attributed to the individuals. (In fact, the Led Zeppelin article includes a quote from Jimmy Page that is rather pertinent to the point I was trying to make, that they did not deliberately plagiarize.)

Any other remarks on this subject are rather out of place. I will include in that category my original post on this thread: both Willie Dixon and Robert Johnson are duly noted in Wikipedia in various articles in the appropriate sections, I was already aware of that. I may have lost track of that point myself, especially in my second post.

S459martin (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I may be out of line in mentioning this (I'm writing this without having read the fair use guidelines), but in regards to Robert Johnson recordings, some of his work was released as singles (posthumously, as I recall), if it makes any difference, I can quote from a book I have here in my home office.

S459martin (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heavy metal?

"Led Zeppelin is regarded as one of the first heavy metal bands." Led Zeppelin is not one of the first Heavy metal bands. Its Hard-Rock, blues rock and classical Rock , please consider. Most of the distortions and effects aren't used by typical "Heavy Metal" bands. Most of their Solos, Chords and Progressions are minor pentatonic , Hence, blues rock , and particularly heavy rock when distorted/overdriven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosdapwn (talk • contribs) 08:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin has always been hard to categorise, because of the stylist diversity displayed from the eponymous debut album all the way to Coda. Heavy metal was still very much a new tag in the late 1960s and early 1970s. What we regard as heavy metal today is different to what people thought of back in that era, particularly when bands such as Black Sabbath had themselves only just started. Is Led Zeppelin heavy metal? Well Page and Plant have both publicly stated they are not. I tend to agree to an extent. I think the term "proto-metal" is a more accurate description for the heavier tracks, which are few and far between. Hard rock, blues rock, folk rock, psychedelic rock, heavy blues, prog rock, symphonic rock.. Led Zeppelin dabbled with them all so its very difficult to nail down one particular genre to the band that everyone can agree on. This was discussed previously and no-one could agree on one concrete position. MegX (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Led Zeppelin's connection with the genre is well referenced. I saw them twice in 1973 and once more in 1975. In the early 70s no one debated what heavy metal was. It was Led Zeppelin. An artist's own perception of themselves has never been accepted within Wiki music debates since an artist may not see themselves the way the general public has anointed them. Ian Gillan hates the term heavy metal and has never believed it should apply to Deep Purple. But they are heavy metal anyways. Lemmy doesn't like the term being used for Motorhead believing them to be nothing more than a simple rock and roll band. Away from Lemmy's opinion, no one is going to debate that Motorhead are most certainly a heavy metal band. Many editors have tried to remove heavy metal from the Rush infobox. The band themselves have never thought of themselves as a heavy metal band. But their own official biography labels them as a heavy metal band right on the cover. Led Zeppelin is heavy metal? In the grand historical overview of the genre - heavy metal IS Led Zeppelin. Since the genre would likely not have grown to what it has had they not pioneered it in the first place. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree. Led Zeppelin wouldn't fall into Heavy Metal mostly because of its blues influence and widespread use of acoustic sections. Most of their songs lack basic elements of Heavy Metal music. Even if they were at some point precursors to that music genre, they would be far from being HM themselves. Fmneto (talk) 05:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It is a tricky one. There is little doubt that some of the songs that Zeppelin made were influential on HM and these songs could plausibly be called HM (Communication Breakdown, Immigrant Song, for instance). However, the vast majority of Zeppelin's repetoire could not be called heavy metal with a straight face. A few songs cannot be enough to define a band - Zeppelin also dabbled with disco and reggae music - no one would think to call them a Reggae band. As someone pointed out earlier - even calling them a blues band would be more appropriate as they had more blues than HM numbers. I think they can fall under Hard Rock but not Heavy Metal, no.--Zoso Jade (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there is ever going to be 100% agreement over it because heavy metal means different things to different people. There was no consensus before and I doubt there will be consensus now. MegX (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It comes down to the citations that support it are in abundance. And that always overrides opinion. Now if only people would stop sticking progressive rock into the Led Zeppelin related pages. That would be a real win for Wikipedia. Either these users know nothing about prog rock? Or they know nothing about Led Zeppelin? Where does the urge to add that genre to any Led Zeppelin page come from? Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, what would you define as "prog rock"? I would agree Led Zeppelin is not a prog rock band per se but they do have a few tracks that could be described as such, no different from some songs being called heavy metal. MegX (talk) 06:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I would say prog rock involves very unusual song structures, experimental instruments, abstract lyrics and so on. Not to mention that progressive rock had its origins in psychedelic rock and Led Zeppelin certainly didn't come from there. Also, I don't think I've ever seen someone who heard anything from Led call them "prog". Or experimental for that matter. Fmneto (talk) 07:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed editors add prog to a couple of Led Zeppelin song articles. Both No Quarter and Rain Song seemed to get this erroneous tag. If they are prog then they are prog is the loosest sense of the term. And even if they were prog-like, I wouldn't think having 2 prog songs out of an entire catalog warrant the band having prog included in their infobox. The Rolling Stones have several country and reggae songs among their vast collection. They are quite good at both styles. But I don't think anyone would ever think of them as either a country band or a reggae band. The Stooges and MC5 were playing punk before anyone knew what punk was. So when everyone figured out was punk was the Stooges and the MC5 suddenly became garage rock? I would agree with the earlier statement about the NWOBHM and the splintering of heavy metal into its many modern sub-genres. But from 1968 to 1980 heavy metal was very much alive. Aerosmith, Alice Cooper, Led Zeppelin, Thin Lizzy, Mountain, Blue Oyster Cult, Uriah Heep - even Cream and the Jeff Beck Group - all these acts were heavy metal until Motorhead and Iron Maiden came along. The earliest use of the term was in a review of a Humble Pie album?? When Lester Bangs wrote about what heavy metal was... it was Led Zeppelin. And it still is. Five years from now this page will still have this debate. And they will still be heavy metal. Peter Fleet (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

-Side topic. The plagiarism sections are more than "loose" with original research and personal opinion and can be trimmed to a sentence or two. Unless they went to court over it, it shouldn't be in the article. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm... but if you settle out of court in order to avoid ever going to court it is definitely noteworthy. Doesn't make you guilty, but it means it wasn't a complete non-issue. Moving away from the rigorous needs of Wikipedia - if you were a blues fan, you would be pretty certain Zeppelin were guilty of plagiarism. The first album is made up almost entirely of cuts from blues songs, despite the bizzare original writing credits (some of which have since been changed by Atlantic records to include the original blues artists - another quite clear sign of guilt). I've never understood the denial of many Zep fans on this issue - even the band don't contest this claim, they merely point out that plagiarism was rampant in those days. I'm not sure one really does need more evidence than this!!!--Zoso Jade (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

OMG ! Led Zeppelin is one of the band that formed Heavy Metal (other one Black Sabbath) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.212.203 (talk) 09:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What we need to consider is both the historical and present definitions of "heavy metal". People forget that in its earliest years the music most commonly labeled "heavy metal" by critics and the listening public was essentially overdriven blues-rock. After a chain of stylistic shifts that stretches from Black Sabbath to Iron Maiden to Metallica to Napalm Death and beyond sped the music up, established a codified image and lyrical stance and successfully expunged nearly all blues influence, what was now referred to simply as "metal" had changed irrevocably. But the historical meanings of the genre/label are no less valid than the current ones, and if we remove the "heavy metal" tag we risk perpetuating the kind of pop-cultural amnesia that articles like this are supposed to guard against. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.155.209.26 (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jones/Plant Rift

It's never really explained in the article how or why the rift began (at least, not that I can find). All I found was a part near the end that said "At the induction ceremony, the band's inner rift became apparent..." I guess it is possible I'm just an idiot. Delta (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Plant said some things during the heat of a media conference announcing the Page-Plant collaboration in 1994, when journalists kept nagging him about where John Paul Jones is (journos expecting it to be like a Led Zeppelin reunion, but Page & Plant were not willing to discuss Led Zeppelin, they only wanted to discuss the project). Plant whether he said it as a joke or not came out with "He's out back parking the car". Jones took it as a slight but got over it after a few months. It's been pretty much all water under the bridge now. MegX (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] drums, percussion?

Just a thought here. In the introduction section, should it really say that john bonham played drums and percussion? Aren't drums a section of percussion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.217.51.168 (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Drums are the drum set. Percussion is various other single instruments. --Ŵïllî§ï$2 (Talk!/Cont.) 02:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soft Rock

I feel that soft rock could be added as a genre the band plays. Soft rock has greatly influenced them and some soft rock is seen in their songs. I think this topic would require some input. Thanks.--Ŵïllî§ï$2 (Talk!/Cont.) 02:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Which songs are you referring to? Edelmand (talk) 12:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. In a band article the genre statement should reflect what the band was known for, not every type of music they ever played. LZ was a very versatile band, and "rock" neatly encompasses everything they did. Jgm (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)