Talk:Led Zeppelin

Restored Posts

---

An event in this article is a January 12 selected anniversary

---

I don't think that the information about the band's formation is right. I believe that Page and Jones first started the band and then recruited Robert Plant. And finally, Plant reccomended Bonham to finish out the band. Although Page considered Dreja but I have never heard of them acctually playing together. If any external information confirming the current wikipedia page can be found then great. But after today, since it's easter, I'm going to start working on compiling information on what I believe to be the correct version of the band's formation, so that my eventual update will be Wikipedia quality. - Michael J. McGuirk

---

By the release of "Presence" and the disappointing "In Through the Out Door"

Begging your pardon, but I would have written it the other way. I find "Presence" rather disappointing (well, to be frank, unlistenable) but am quite pleased with "In Through the Out Door." Critics at the time weren't unanimous in calling it a step down, either, as most of them were unimpressed with the previous efforts also. Critics now are not unanimous in calling it a step down, as there are such a wide variety of critics in such divergent fields writing on music of the 70s. Perhaps the comment should be made much more specific or removed altogether. --KQ

When "In Through the out door" was released, at least a few in my neighborhood (heh Teter Quad) were incensed by the "disco" influence. We hated it! In retrospect, I would have to agree with KQ, "Presence" fell flat and ITTOD is a much better work.

---

Critics, shmitics. BOTH ITTOD and Presence are solid records, reflecting the varied tastes of the band. Recorded mostly live in studio, Presence simply rocks. Maybe it's one of the unsung proto-punk albums of the 70s. You can be sure the Meat Puppets dug it.

---

When people "choke on their own vomit" what happens is that the autonomous nervous system shuts down. If you threw up in your sleep, it would wake you up sputtering, but if you are in a coma, the mechanism doesn't work. I just performed the same service for Bonham that I earlier performed for Hendrix, removing this popular phrase and replacing it with "died in a coma" which is what really happened. Going back now to italicize album titles. Ortolan88 18:30 Aug 20, 2002 (PDT)

Besides, when did anyone ever choke on somebody else's vomit? Graham 00:09, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe that happened to one of Spinal Tap's drummers!!User:Zoso Jade 15:37, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

After those concerts the name was changed to Led Zeppelin after Keith Moon, drummer with The Who, suggested they would "go over like a lead balloon".

In a television program yesterday I heard a variation of this story. According to this version Jimmy Page had a conversation with John Lennon. Lennon apparently said that Page's band "wasn't going to come off the ground, just like a lead zeppelin." I have no clue as to which version is the right one, though. D.D. 10:13 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

---

I don't agree with the current revisions by Jgm. It is extremely negative seeming to concentrate on the so-called "curse" and other "excesses". I am a Led Zeppelin fan and don't believe in superstition - blaming witchcraft for eveything that goes wrong is something that happened in the Dark Ages, not the 21st century. People have accidents everyday, it has nothing to do with curses. Nobody would say Elvis's death was caused by the occult. It looks like the same sensationalist gutter-sniping written up by Stephen Davis and Richard Cole (two authors that should be avoided at all costs). Also the period which is described as "The Curse" was a very productive one for the band. Fans refer to it as the "Power & Glory" era not "the curse" era. Box office records were broken and record sales were still going through the roof. I also don't believe punk music was as popular as the press made it out to be. Most of it was generated by pure hype and Malcolm McLaren milked it for it was worth. Led Zeppelin were still out-selling the Sex Pistols even if people hated In Through the Out Door - Leanne

My edit was a cleaning up of the additions made just before me by a big fan of the band. I downplayed and NPOV'd the "curse" as much as I could without eliminating mention of it -- it is part of the band's legend and makes an interesting way to frame the darker days of the band. It might not be appropriate for a section header; feel free to change that if you can think of something better. I agree with your statement about punk rock and made a slight change to reflect it as a change in critical more than popular focus.

Jgm 12:29, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Comments about this article from user at 129.78.64.101, moved from my user page:

You wrote: "deleted inaccurate/redundant item, DVD had different name from CD"

Are you a Led Zeppelin fan or not? The DVD-Audio version is being released this month of How the West was Won. It is a multimedia version which includes extra songs and images not included in the How the West was Won CD. There is a difference.

If you don't believe me read this page:

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

I'm restoring the edit

Please use neutral language in your edits. It is Wikipedia policy to reach for a NPOV in articles. ---

I've restored much of the framing information deleted by the user at 129.78.64.101, hopefully in a more NPOV way that will be mutually acceptable. The intent here isn't fan advocacy or whitewashing the band's history. LZ was famous for its excesses -- whole books have been written about it -- and mentioning it in a NPOV way in a single paragraph is entirely appropriate and perhaps even a bit charitable. Likewise, the fact that fans discussed a "curse" is just that; the current edit is not claiming that the curse was real.

Re: "darker days" vs. "latter days" -- I think a period marked by at least three deaths related to the band is fairly characterized as "dark". NPOV does not mean no interesting language.

Finally, I've clarified the issue about the DVD-Audio release, hope this is acceptable.

No it's not acceptable. You removed a perfectly legitimate link without even doing an iota of research on it, based on your own incorrect uninformed opinion that the DVD didnt exist. If you don't know anything about the band Led Zeppelin you shouldn't be editing this article.

If you have further issues with this edit let's discuss here rather than fight an edit battle, please. Jgm 02:52, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You didnt reframe it - all you did was restore what you had previously written. You could at least be honest about it. I have tracked down the history of edits. Most of garbage about curses and drug addiction was added by you Jgm, no-one else, so it's hardly been a consensus when you refer to the Talk page. It is Wikipedia policy to reach for a NPOV in an article. Language such as "dark" or "cursed" are opinions, but not neutral ones. John Paul Jones was hardly a heavy drug or alcohol user so the generalisation that they were is questionable on that paragraph.

• I replaced some sentences verbatim, attempted to make others more neutral (for example, the factual statement that some critics considered the band dinosaurs in the burgeoning days of New Wave was countered by the fact that the album reached #1 on the basis of fan support). All of the original information about a "curse" was added by the editor prior to me, I NPOV'd it significantly while respecting the content that contributor added. Jgm 03:16, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

And if it is wrong, as it is, it should be removed regardless if it is by a previous editor or not. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a message board. Btw in a previous edit you had written that John Paul Jones was the drummer. Another editor changed it before I could. How much do you really know about the band? I'm beginning to suspect not a lot.

Similarly, people die every day, that does not mean that every day is dark. Many of those were accidents or caused by their own personal problems - they had nothing to do directly with the band. Moon died after taking an accidental overdose - does mean the Who were cursed? No-one has suggested that yet Zeppelin get blamed for it. Similarly, Bonham's death was an accident, and Zeppelin can hardly be blamed for the death of Karac when he died of a stomach virus thousands of miles away in England when the band were in the US.

• C'mon -- of course people die every day, but if 3 people in your family die in a year, that's a "dark" year for your family. Blame or causation has nothing to do with it. Neither my previous edit nor the current, possibly more nuetral edit claim that the curse is real, nor that anyone is to blame for the tragedies; the current edit reads that some fans discussed a curse -- this is undoubtably true, as evidenced by the fan who wrote the edit prior to mine, as well as the recollections of many of us who lived through it. Jgm 03:44, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

But thats' it. They weren't three members in a family and they were hardly related. Moon, Bonham, and Karac Plant weren't related. True because a "fan" before you wrote it? That's the weakest argument I've seen in a long time. That passage could have been written by anybody who didn't like the band.

If you dont want an edit war, remove the opinionated garbage about the band. Who cares what was written by some has been hack about the band. The fact is Led Zeppelin have publicly disowned many the statements made in those books. Just because someone knew the members of the band does not mean they are saying the truth. None of the rags published by Stephen Davis, Richard Cole or Pamela DesBarres has ever been approved of by the band and in fact the remaining members have threatened suit. If you dont want an edit war, remove the opinionated garbage about the band. Who cares what was written by some has been hack about the band. The fact is Led Zeppelin have publicly disowned many the statements made in those books. Just because someone knew the members of the band does not mean they are saying the truth. None of the rags published by Stephen Davis, Richard Cole or Pamela DesBarres has ever been approved of by the band and in fact the remaining members have threatened suit.

• None of the particular claims from the books you mention are cited in the article. Your opinion of the books you cite (you named them, not I), or the band's "approval" of them is not really pertinent. Nevertheless, it is fact that the band -- even at the time, prior to the publication of any books -- was famous for excess, including the types of excess mentioned. If you can find a more neutral way to present this information, go for it, but you can't just edit out the parts you'd rather not be mentioned. Also, please sign your contributions here for clarity. Jgm 03:44, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

That's the problem, you say please write in a neutral way yet you still revert the edits back to your own which is not neutral to begin with, for instance the historical fact the Dixon lawsuit was 25 years after those two songs were recorded. That should be important to note. If Dixon truely believed he should have been given credit he should have started the lawsuit back in 1971, yet anyone reading the article with no knowledge of Led Zeppelin (a bit like yourself) would think he sued right away. It is a historical fact yet you removed it. Someone should tell you that you don't own the article. There appears to be no concensus with you. Anything that removes or edits out anything you say is reverted back. If you cannot allow others to write NPOV over your edits then the only solution would be to make a formal complaint about you to an admin. Clearly removing chronologically neutral titles like "Latter Days" and "Coda" back to your own "Darker Days" and "The Fall" is not going to win you many arguments. Please also refrain from the excuse, "but the editor before me did it". If the editor before you did it you wouldnt be defending the reverts so vigourously. Everyone knows including yourself that your edit history can be seen. It is not your article period and you should stop trying to make it your own because it will win you no friends with the hierarchy.

Actually I have not reverted the header titles; I quite like "Coda" especially. I still think "Darker days" is appropriate and more interesting, but, as you say, it's not my article.Jgm 07:23, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

I don't necessarily agree. The band never called themselves "heavy metal" and one listen of Led Zeppelin III is proof enough that trying to class them as purely "heavy metal" is fraught with difficulty. I have contributed to the heavy metal article, but my view is Blue Cheer and Black Sabbath, with their use of excessive volume, distortion and formulaic sound are definitely "heavy metal". Both bands lack that variation and subtlety that Led Zeppelin had. Personally i would class Led Zeppelin simply as Classic Rock. For example, how do you class "Tangerine" and "Black Mountain Side" as blues or hard rock or heavy metal? Iam 23:02, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

In addition to some copyedits, I've changed the first description of the band from "blues/rock" to "heavy metal". An LZ article that never mentions heavy metal is simply unforgivable, in my view (the heavy metal article credits LZ as one of the original heavy metal acts). While the description "blues/rock" is also accurate, the band is more famous as a heavy metal icon, and "heavy blues" is even more accurate and is mentioned in the first sentence. Jgm 00:01, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Deep Purple Reference

Removed the grotesquely worded non-sequitur discussion of "Led Zeppelin were often called "the first heavy rock band" and the subsequent non-debate of whether Deep Purple was more deserving of such a title. The passage was POV and fairly irrelevant.

Jones's name

Just saw that it is already included in the John Paul Jones Page. Look's like this case is already settled. --Johnnyw 15:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, had heard that about the name being suggested to him. So is, for example, his passport under John Baldwin? I am still curious as it would therefore be strange for his wife to be known as Mo Jones. That said, it might be even stranger for her to be known as Mo Baldwin despite being married to John Paul Jones! --HighHopes 19:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually I can confirm that it is a pseudonym. His birth name is John Baldwin (his father is Joe Baldwin). "The name John Paul Jones was suggested to him by a friend, Andrew Loog Oldham, after seeing a movie poster with that name on it in France" [1] I will include this info about John on the Led Zep wiki page and on the John Paul Jones page.. Also mentioned in [2] [3] [4] --Johnnyw 15:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm if John Paul Jones is a pseudonym or an actual name change? Album credits refer to his wife as Mo Jones; the article mentions his daughter as Jacinda Jones. If John Paul Jones is his actual name now, his family's names would make more sense. This point has also been raised on the page for John Paul Jones. --HighHopes 13:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Presence

Recent edits chaned the desctipiton of Presence from (I paraphrase) "dire" to "wonderful". Neither is NPoV. Andy Mabbett 10:12, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

1975 MSG shows

The article had been claiming that the shows used for the movie The Song Remains the Same were filmed in '73; a recent edit says that 1975 footage (eventually released on the DVD) were used. From what I've been able to find out I don't think there was any overlap between the shows and tours used for the two projects. I've reverted for now, if we can find out for sure we need to correct consistently. Jgm 11:59, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin did perform at MSG in 1975, but the footage is not the same as the 1973 shows on the DVD. Only the 1973 shows appear, albeit briefly. Also, remember the band did film some shots, mostly close-ups, in 1974 on a "mock-up" of MSG back in England. Iam 23:06, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

D'Yer Mak'er misconeptions

Right now the article has some nonsense about Did you Make Her being English slang for sex and that being why Zeppelin named the song so. This is untrue. It's an old joke which goes:

First man: My wife and I just came back from the Caribean.| Second man: Jamaica?| First man: (mishearing his friend as having asked "d'yer make her?") No. She wanted to go.|

And that is where the name of the song came from. After writing such a reggae heavy song, trying to come up with a name, Zep thought "D'Yer Mak'er" would make a perfect subtle homage to Jamaica (considered the birth-place of reggae).

Anyway, I'm going to change the page now.

03:38, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)Zoso Jade

Blues-Rock or Blues-Rock?

I'm changing the first link in the article to direct to Blues-Rock from Blues-Rock. Blues-Rock is a term/classificaton in wide use on "pro" databases like allmusic.com but for some reason Led Zeppelin (or Cream) aren't mentioned in the wikipedia article on Blues-Rock at this time. --apecat 13:30, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Categories

What's the rationale for categorizing this article as Category:American musical groups ? — B.Bryant 23:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What a rubbish!

Quoting ... "When adopting the name, the word 'lead' was misspelled deliberately to avoid confusion, fearing Americans might pronounce it 'lead Zeppelin' (as in 'lead singer'), as opposed to a zeppelin constructed of the metal lead."

?!?!?! What the FREAKING hell has this to do with Americans?? Oughtn't 'Americans' be replaced by 'people'?

• Any* English-speaking person might pronounce "lead" as "LEED" like in Leeds.

This wording definitely puts Americans in a very ridiculous light, because it suggests that only Americans would mis-pronounce it. ;) -andy 80.129.47.116 16:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Might be that anybody might mis-pronounce it, but what was the band thinking when they came up with it? If they did it because they felt that Americans might get it wrong then it has to stand. The band can't be expected to be NPOV. If however there is no evidence for that being their thinking then it needs to go. — KayEss | talk 16:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

It is probably that Americans pronounce many words different to the British and lead(ie LEED) is more likely to be said by Americans than other British who are more likely to have heard the correct pronunciation on British radio/T.V.. Tunney 23:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Until we see a reference I don't think there is any reason for Americans to be singled out in this article. I'm a big fan and have read numerous books and articles on the band and am familiar with their wishes not to have the name pronounced incorrectly. However, in none of the research I have done on the band have I heard the band were thinking about Americans in particular. I find the above argument that Americans were more likely to mispronounce it than the British to be completely baseless (on the contrary, Zeppelin famously had a better relationship with the American press than the British). This is likely the usual anti-American rubbish made up when someone changes a name (eg a similar falsehood was made up as a reason for naming the film adaptation of The Madness of George III, "The Madness of King George". According to (false) rumour it was so Americans wouldn't think it was a sequel.--Zoso Jade 14:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I've read this in Stephen Davis's (admittedly inaccurate) book among several others. The info is accurate. Bcarlson33 23:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I always thought it was cause 'Led' looks cooler then 'Lead'--KaptKos 14:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Mandolin

The article was edited to show Page played the mandolin and that Jones didn't - have reverted, as Jones was as likely to play mandolin in the studio (not that they used it much) and always played it live. Sure, Page used (Jones's) mandolin on Battle of Evermore, but then you could add 'guitar' next to JPJ - the opening to Celebration Day is him. Would be misleading, which also explains the revert. If you insist, take mandolin out altogether rather than move back to Page. --High (Hopes) 06:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VH1

My thought is that the VH1 thing doesn't belong in the lead; it is a made-for-TV thing and not really a recognized "honor" or historical milestone in the big picture. Can we discuss here, if not I will move the mention elsewhere in a day or so. Jgm 02:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some consideration could be put in relating that Zeppelin was more of a "Live Act" than Studio as that was the only way fans could see Zeppelin because of the media shunning them.As well,the fact that their studio works may not be considered "Heavy Metal",when the songs were played live{Dazed,The Song Remains the Same,ect},it was the heaviest shit then and still heavier than some stuff now.

album sales

The article claims that Led Zeppelin is the 2nd highest selling band after the Beatles, which according to the Best Selling Artist list on wikipedia is clearly not true. I have no idea what the actual numbers are, but I am pretty sure Led Zeppelin is not number two.

Hm, I don't know if the info originates from a RIAA article that was up-to-date 2 years ago... This news article refers to a RIAA document which lists Led Zeppelin as 2nd best selling artists of all-time (US only). A more up to date list can be found here. This list too, is US only. All in all, I would say you are right, this info is inprecise if not incorrect. --Johnnyw 22:16, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Article box : "The Song Remains the Same" V's "How the West Was Won"

In the Led Zeppelin article box at the bottom of every Zep article it has:

The Song Remains the Same under "Original albums"

V's

How the West Was Won under "Other albums"

Aren't these comparatively the same thing? Live albums done when the band was touring in the 70's?

Maybe "Original" should be "Studio" and The Song Remains the Same moved to "Other"?

WikiDon 00:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

===>Likely rationale The Song Remains the Same was recorded and released while the band was still functioning, whereas How the West Was Won was released over 20 years after they had ceased to be. Justin (koavf) 03:58, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Wow! So Much Missing

Here's just a FEW of the things that, far as I can tell, this article COMPLETELY misses.

LZ and the groupies. This is huge. Page is rumored to have had a 15 year old 'girlfriend' for quite awhile and their antics are rock scene legendary even memorialized in Zappa's classic Live at the Filmore back in 1971.

LZ and satanic images. I can understand the reluctance of zep fanatics to include material such as this, but it's very important to the overall record, much in the same way the whole "Paul is Dead" issue should be included in any comprehensive piece on The Beatles. Page was apparently enamored with Alistar Crowley and even perhaps Anton Levay. (sp?) When the 'backward masking' issue arose, Stairway to Heaven was found to be a chief culprit. There's a whole lot of material on this topic that ought to be covered. I'm a big Zep fan, but you can't just sugarcoat everything.

Also, missing was how SAVAGED they were by most 'professional' rock critics, especially Rolling Stone Magazine, which makes 'Almost Famous's' use of an LZ tune especially ironic.

LZ are frequently accused of flat out RIPPING OFF old school blues legends without giving them proper attribution and these charges are almost certainly legit. (Although, personally I'm quite glad they did! :) In fact, I think the caretakers of Robert Johnson's estate actually won some kind of settlement. Big Daddy 18:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I've dug up some stuff. Amazing stuff. First of all Jimmy Page's girlfriend wasn't 15. She was 14! My deepest apologies to her. She was then 14-year-old “supergroupie” Lori Maddox. Check out this link for the support - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,21132-1549424,00.html more to come! Big Daddy 11:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Stairway to Heaven

"Stairway to Heaven.... is often estimated to be the most-played song in the history of radio."

Any sources for this? I was under the impression that, worldwide, 'Yesterday' by the Beatles was easily the most played. TheMadBaron 04:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• 1) Well, for one thing this song is mainly played on "Album-oriented rock" stations, there are a lot of county, classical, pop, stations out there. I would think that Frank Sinatra, the Beattles, Elvis, etc., would be right in there. World wide, I would guess a classical or opeara piece would be in there also. Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, around the world, what about "Moonlight Sonata"? And what do they play in China and India? Now what about the 50's stations? They seem to play the same songs day-after-day, week-after-week, month-after....well you get the idea.

• 2) Now, back to "Album-oriented rock" stations. I would say this was probably true from 1975 -to- 1990. But after that, I would have to think that the Rolling Stones, The Police and U2 would be in the race. What about: Eric Clapton - Layla

• 3) U2 gets airplay on more "Modern rock" stations in major markets, something Zeppelin rarely does.

• 4) According to Classic Bands:

1. The Righteous Brothers - You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin'
2. The Association - Never My Love
3. The Beatles - Yesterday
4. Ben E. King - Stand By Me
5. Otis Redding - Dock Of The Bay

Stairway does NOT make their top 100..!

• Short answer....NO. WikiDon 08:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Don. Comment removed, accordingly. TheMadBaron 19:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• • BMI's Top Ten [5]:

• 1 You've Lost That Lovin' Feeling
• 2 Never My Love
• 3 Yesterday
• 4 Stand By Me
• 5 Can't Take My Eyes Off of You
• 6 (Sittin' on) The Dock of the Bay
• 7 Mrs Robinson
• 8 Baby, I Need Your Loving
• 9 Rhythm of the Rain
• 10 Georgia On My Mind

• • "Album-oriented rock" - how about some of this selections:

(some of these are more playable than Stairway, lenght and style)

• 1. Born to Be Wild -
• 2. Evil Ways -
• 3. American Woman -
• 4. All Right Now -
• 5. Locomotive Breath -
• 6. Walk Away -
• 7. Maggie May -
• 8. I'd Love to Change the World -
• 9. Long Cool Woman (In a Black Dress) -
• 10. Frankenstein -
• 11. Saturday Night'a Alright for Fighting -
• 12. We're an American Band -
• 13. Rocky Mountain Way -
• 14. China Groove -
• 15. Radar Love -
• 16. Sweet Home Alabama -
• 17. You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet -
• 18. Bad Company -
• 19. Hair of the Dog -
• 20. Never Been Any Reason -
• 21. Slow Ride -
• 22. Show Me the Way -
• 23. (Don't Fear) The Reaper -
• 24. Cold as Ice -
• 25. Cat Scratch Fever -
• 26. Just What I Needed -
• 27. Two Tickets to Paradise -
• 28. I Want You to Want Me -
• 29. Hold on Loosely -
• 30. Lunatic Fringe -
• 31. White Wedding, Pt. 1 -
• 32. Rock You Like a Hurricane -
• 33. Here I Go Again -

Intro to Zeppelin

Having watched this site changed, it is indeed appropriate to label Zeppelin as 'one of the most popular and influential bands of all time' without a doubt.

Lord of the Rings in Led Zeppelin

A friend of mine is telling me that Led Zeppelin frequently references Lord of the Rings characters and places. I havent read the books or seen the movies, so i dont know anything about LOTR. Can someone please clarify or disembaru this claim. Gracias por nachos--Gephart 04:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Several Zeppelin tracks reference Tolkien books. Take a look here [6] --86.137.54.95 10:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

This is correct, Robert Plant was a huge LOTR fan and incorporated stuff from the books into Zep songs. For example in the song Ramble On

"I ain't tellin' no lie. Mine's a tale that can't be told, My freedom I hold dear; How years ago in days of old When magic filled the air, T'was in the darkest depths of Mordor I met a girl so fair, But Gollum, and the evil one crept up And slipped away with her. Her, her....yea. Ain't nothing I can do, no."

"..the darkest depths of Mordor" this was the mountain/thing that houses the 'big bad' of the books - Sauron. Gollum is also from the book, an emaciated Hobbit creature, quite important in the general storyline. Days of old when magic filled the air could also be a reference to the days of LOTR and middle earth, and the "girl so fair" could be a reference to The Ring, but then again we could all be overanalysts and be over-reaching, its all down to interpretation but who cares just listen to the awesome musi.

Also in the Song Misty Mountain Hop. The Misty Mountains are in Wales. They are referred to in J.R.R. Tolkien's The Return Of The King.

    Robert Plant was not referencing Lord of the Rings.  He Said so in an Interview here: [7] Qballony 21:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

He actually says in the interview that he didn't intend "Ramble On" to be a Tolkien allegory or anything, just that it was about what was going in his life, but there's no doubt that "Mordor" and "Gollum" are direct lifts from LoTR. Dharmabum420 23:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

(Umm he didnt say it wasnt in that interview and if anyone knew J.R. Tolkens works better you may just know where that ZoSo simble came from ;))

There is also a reference in "The Battle of Evermore" (which some people think refers to the battle in which they defend Gondor in LoTR): ... the drums will shake the castle wall, the ring wraiths ride in black... Dharmabum420 23:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Alternatively, He could have just been using Lord of the Rings as Symbology, but not actually talking about Lord of the Rings.

Qballony 23:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Links to "Lyrics" Web Pages

i don't know if there's an official wikipedia policy regarding this, but i don't think the led zeppelin (or any band) page should link to "lyrics" sites unless the lyrics are official (or at least verified with an official source cited). thoughts? (by the way, if anyone has the true, robert-plant-written lyrics to "ten years gone" i'd appreciate them) Streamless 16:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Need more bands like these gods

Alright it's fact that all the bands in the year 2001+ are just pure S***, MTV NEWS even stated that we need more bands like Audioslave. Which is a supergroup of Soundgarden and Rage Against The Machine. But yeah, we really need more talent in today's music. Like we need a new Nirvana or something, you know? Like remember in the late 80's when everybody was tired of metal? And then out of nowhere Nirvana came out..Yeah, we need something like that..maybe not happen for another 5 years or so...(It's 2005 now)

dude i wish i was alive when led zeppelin was around....and it is very depressing that we have crappy bands who don't know anything about solos or singing.....i would love to meet them...jimmy page robert plant and john paul jones..come find a chick named xochitl in richlands nc!

led zeppelin cover

Hi this is my first wikipedia thing so I hope i do it ok and apologise if I don't. I bought a record from a charity shop called Hard To Beat Rap Mania, a compilation album. It has an interesting old school rap cover version of Whole Lotta Love by somebody called Vicious Rumour Club on it and I wondered if this could be mentioned? The record is copyright 1989 and has caddalogue number STYRL005

It also features a song Def Beat by Beware Affair which samples Heartbreaker, along with some speech from Mission Impossible.

• • This is not relevant enough to be included, since there are upwards of hundreds of bands/artists that have performed covers of Led Zeppelin songs. firenexx 18:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

200.77.160.252 07:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Has anyone noticed that in the "long" version of Whole Lotta Love, the "orgasm" part is the exact same song as On The Run from Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon?... at the last part (After the Solo, around 4:20) you can even hear the laughter that can be heard several times throughout Dark Side of The Moon (In Speak and On the Run), and the "Airplane" part is also noticeable. Due to release dates, I guess Pink Floyd covered this song. Is this a Pink Floyd's homage to Led Zeppelin biggest hit? or the effects were added later?

Blue-rock

Just edited the beginning a bit. Led Zeppelin cannot be introduced simply as a "blues-rock band" since many of their famous songs are definetely not blues-rock (Stairway to Heaven, for example). Probably there are no blues-rock songs in fourth album at all since even two first songs are a bit too "heavy" to fall in that genre. Later they got even further away from blues-rock. --80.221.30.182 19:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This is accurate. Led Zeppelin did start out as a blues-rock band, although it was mainly their first album and some songs in their second that were blues rock. Their second album was when they started delving into hard rock, although their third album was folk tunes. Their fourth album was really when they started playing only hard rock. Of course, we all know that the majority of the later stuff was crap (at least, it didn't live up to their previous standards) because of Page's heroin addiction. firenexx 01:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Zeppelin not being a blues-rock band? No blues songs on the untitled album? Try Black Dog and even more blatant "When the Levee Breaks" is a direct cover of a blues song. I would say blues-rock would be defined as any rock (no matter how "hard") developed from the blues. For instance, the White Stripes is a blues-rock band.--Zoso Jade 15:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Blues-Rock, the truth

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

"D'yer Maker"

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

Some minor grammar issues

Is "Led Zeppelin" plural or singular? I ask because "Zeppelin" and "the band" seem to take on both plural and singular identities in the article...is there a general Wikipedia consensus when referring to musical groups? InTheFlesh? 17:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC) ```` i love the song d'yer mak'er

it's singular, since the name of the band came from a critic who quipped that the band would sink faster than a lead (the metal) zeppelin. Streamless 17:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Led Zeppelin..not neccesarily Heavy Metal

It is to be noted that Led Zeppelin didn't like being categorized as Heavy Metal

Neither does Motorhead, who prefer to be called simply "rock 'n roll". Nevertheless, Led Zeppelin are commonly considered the first proper heavy metal band. WesleyDodds 13:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Is Led Zeppelin Progressive Rock?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Willie Dixon

Jimmy Page and Robert Plant were blues fanatics; two of Led Zeppelin's early hits, "Whole Lotta Love" and "You Shook Me", were very similar to earlier songs by Willie Dixon. (The band were subsequently accused of using his lyrics without crediting Dixon, and it was not until Chess Records brought suit 15 years later, that proper credit—and a monetary settlement—was given.)

The lawsuit concerned only "Whole Lotta Love"; "You Shook Me" always had been properly credited. Richard K. Carson 19:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Favourite Song

I'm just curious of what other people's favourite three Led Zeppelin songs are. I'll start off, please right you're favourite Led Zeppelin songs below

• When The Levee Breaks
• The Lemon Song
• In My Time of Dying
• Hats Off To (Roy) Harper
• Going to California
• Stairway
• Heartbreaker

Very tough. I love all of them, but here goes:

• Ramble On
• Whole Lotta Love
• Hey, Hey, What Can I Do 71.76.212.61 22:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Crappy article + Citations

• I've set out to see that the articles concerning my favorite bands get cleaned up, and cleaned up well. Led Zeppelin's article needs some serious work done on it. It's extremely POV in its writing, and opinions abound. Even worse, practically nothing is cited - there isn't a single external link, reference, or footnote contained within the first third of the article. I went through only the first third and found over half a dozen instances where citations need to be provided, ESPECIALLY concerning the band's formation. I mean, all this stuff about the "New Yardbirds" and forming a group with Beck, Entwistle, and Moon is news to me - people need to cite this stuff or not post it at all. With work and time, this can be a very good article - but it's a looooong way from that now. TheImpossibleMan 04:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Someone deleted a lot of the "Citation needed" tags, saying that the histories were explained in the External Links section. But that's not good enough - you have to supply the link right next to the claim. In addition, all embedded external links should be converted to Wikipedia:Footnotes. TheImpossibleMan 04:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I can see some of your point regarding the article. Having just recently browsed through it myself I was quite shocked the first time I read it. I have no time for article re-builds. In this article, like many others, it's simply a matter of taking it 1 paragraph at a time. It's always useful having another set of eyes read over it. I have been an LZ fan since 1970. So when I read through it quickly...everything seems so 'matter of fact' since most of it is just rehashing everything I've been reading about thee band for over 35 years. In contrast when you(or anyone else with absolutely no knowledge of the band's history) reads it, obviously some statements might leap out at you as unfamiliar. Citations are easy. Citations, footnotes and overall cleanup take time. Time I certainly don't have. For the "early days' section though it only took about 2 minutes to link the areas you felt citations were needed. If you have more free time for Wiki then perhaps you can finish off the task of footnoting and clean-up. As for the rest of the article, grammar in particular. This is the Wikipedia...90% of the articles here read like junior high school book reports. Especially the music articles. This article may seem poorly written at first. But then you go and read articles on Cream, Moody Blues, David Bowie or Queen and you see they're all pretty much in the same boat. Even articles that have reached FA status like Iron Maiden, Sex Pistols or the soon to be FA'd Rush article still could use some tweaking. But, like I said before....it's all just a work in progress. Cheers! Anger22 12:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Early Days and Latter Days

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

• Is everything that comes after the fourth album bad?

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

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

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

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

Why is this listed under the Bulgarian language featured article?

Images Needed

• The history section is an absolute BRICK, if anyone has some images that can be added legally, that would greatly improve the article. TheImpossibleMan 22:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Article decimation

Okay, this edit resulted in the vast majority of the article's content being removed, and moved to other articles. The result of this isn't good (a barren, unencyclopedic article), and I've reverted it back to its prior status. Break-out articles are only good practice in situation where one specific aspect of a subject is significant enough that it warrants a full article to itself. Given that 75% of the article is the "History" of Led Zeppelin, it's not a good candidate, since it pretty much is the Led Zeppelin article. Have a look at Pink Floyd (which has FA status), The Rolling Stones, or any other historically significant band, really, and that's how things play out in other similar articles. Warrens 19:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Whatever about the length of the History section, whats going on with a full track listing of the 2003 DVD and only a link to the discography? --KaptKos 10:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandals?

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

Error?

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

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

Zeppelin is uncategorizable

Zepplin: Heavymetal-Country-Hardrock-Blues

I have had this argument with my various friends countless times. What it all comes down to is that zepplin has no genre. They draw the best sounds and feelings from every musical category there is. Take zepplin 4, or ZOSO. It has such rock ballads such as The Battle of Evermore. Blues-Heavy metal song "When the Levee Breaks" The most poetic song ever "Going to California"

(If you have the same opinion I do I would appreciate it if you would expand upon my rambalings as this is one of my first posts I hope you absorbed my short message. Rock On)

• They're no more genre-less than the Beatles, the Rolling Stones or The Who. They're basically a hard rock band. Just because they absorbed elements of other genres doesn't change the fact that most of their music is hard rock, both electric and acoustic. None of their albums are any more diverse than The Beatles (white album) or The Who's A Quick One or the Stones' Aftermath. Obviously, you're a huge Zeppelin fan, and, like many Led Zeppelin fans, are very given to hyperbole. Calling "Going to California" the "most poetic song ever" given the existance of Bob Dylan is quite silly. It would be lucky to be considered as poetic as "Wish You Were Here" or "Behind Blue Eyes".

• Led Zeppelin is far more diverse than the Beatles because the Beatles never had ANY truly heavy songs, ever--not one. On the other hand, Zeppelin has upbeat light songs AND songs of the more heavy style, which they invented BTW. If you think Ringo Star is a better drummer than John 'hammer of the gods' Bonham, or that George Harrison is a better guitarist than the much more dextrous Jimmy Page, or that John Lennon could out-sing Robert Plant, you are out of your mind. The Beatles could write songs, yes, but their ability as performing musicians does not even approach Zeppelin. Bob Dylan, the Beatles, even the Stones to an extent--those are great composers, not great performers. They make blueprints of great songs, but they never flesh them out on stage or in the studio. Hendrix, Zeppelin, and Pink Floyd could take most of their songs and make them into something twice as great. Heck, listen to Hendrix's version of Dylan's 'All Along the Watchtower' for example. Dylan himself said his version was crap by comparison. 71.76.212.61 22:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"::Diverse does not mean "includes 'truly' (whatever that means) heavy songs", but in the White Album the Beatles had Helter Skelter. Anyhow, you seem to misunderstand the fact that people have different tastes, I enjoy all of your mentioned bands, but some people - as incredible as it may seem to you - enjoy Bob Dylan's, the Beatles' and the Rolling Stones' music. Some strongly dislike Hendrix's, Led Zep's and Floyd's music. You're just being silly, there's no point in saing "X > Y" for the arts. I'm sure I could sculpt a marshmellow stick with a few designs and, if I tried hard enough, I'd be able to find someone who found it more beautiful than the Pietà, and the person wouldn't be 'wrong' to feel more emotion from the Marshemellow Stick than the Pietà. --A Sunshade Lust 19:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)"

"::I enjoy all of the aforementioned bands as well, but I feel, along with many other people, that Led Zeppelin is the greatest popular music band of the 20th Century. Deal with it. If you want to make an argument for why I am wrong, do so. I would be happy to discuss.71.76.212.61 22:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"* You must not have listened to much of the Beatles, because "Sgt. Pepper Reprise", "Helter Skelter" and "(I Want You) She's So Heavy" are all "truly heavy songs". Led Zeppelin is extremely far from inventing a "heavy" style of rock. They were beaten to that development by The Who, Cream, Jimi Hendrix Experience, Blue Cheer, the Amboy Dukes, Steppenwolf, the Jeff Beck Group and Iron Butterfly. No one ever said the Beatles approach Led Zeppelin as performing musicians. Very few bands are extraordinary both on the concert stage and in the studio. At the top of that list is The Who. Hendrix is up there, as well. Pink Floyd don't stray much from their studio sound when performing live, which some view as a negative."

'Helter Skelter' strikes me as weird rather than heavy, much like 'A Day in the Life'. The others are pure pop. When I speak of heavy music, I'm talking about the cultivation of the modern rock, metal-esque sound. Not like the proto-punk Who, or simply amplified blues (Cream) or funk with Guitar feedback (Hendrix). Listen to a song like 'Dazed or Confuzed'--that song is conpeletly non-derivative--it's not blues, it's not folk, or classically based--and it was, at the time of its release, probably the heaviest song ever released by a major record label. Not only that, the way Zeppelin performed on stage formed the archetype of a rock band performance, much more so than the Who or the Beatles, both of which were often stiff and inactive in their earlier shows (the instrument smashing came later), and each repective member of the band provided a template of how each role should be filled in terms of hand gestures and stage movement, etc. You don't see anybody around today who wants to drum like Ringo Star, or play guitar like George Harrision--they want to drum like Bonham, and solo like Page. To be fair, the Beatles, as composers, are kings; but as performers, they don't cut it.71.76.212.61 22:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• You're really showing your ignorance now, because The Who were smashing their gear as early as 1964. That's just basic rock knowledge. Live at Leeds was recorded in February of 1970, but it was the same set-list they had been performing since mid-1969 and much of it goes back to 1968. It certainly qualifies as a "modern rock, metal-esque" sound and its roots come from the influence of Jimi Hendrix on The Who's already aggressive style of rock music. Led Zeppelin are certainly very important in helping to develop and especially popularize that sound, but the groundwork was already laid by all of the aforementioned bands before Led Zeppelin had released a record. As for The Who being "stiff" or "inactive" at their earlier shows, I have no idea how you could possibly come to that conclusion. Watch The Kids Are Alright and then tell me how "stiff" and "inactive" The Who were at the Monterey Pop Festival in 1967 or at the Rolling Stones' Rock 'n' Roll Circus in 1968. If any band "formed the archetype" or set the standard for the live rock show it is The Who. But don't take my word for it. Watch The Kids Are Alright. You're in for a surprise. Not for nothing did John Paul Jones say that after seeing The Who, "We felt positively tame."