Jump to content

Talk:Dazed and Confused (Jake Holmes song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genres in articles

[edit]

Inclusion of genres in articles should follow WP policy of neutral point of view, specifically Due and undue weight. It is easy to comb the web searching for some mention of a musician's or song's influences or elements of style. However, "giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." Genres in inboxes should aim for generality and be limited in number. According to Template:Infobox single genres "should be stated and referenced in a 'Composition' section of the article." If it is not discussed in the body, it should not be included in the infobox. This allows for the quality of the source(s) to be weighted – a reasoned and detailed opinion should be given more weight, whereas an unsupported brief mention in passing should rarely count. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Labelled by whom?

[edit]

In the Jake Holmes section, the statement "The song has been incorrectly labelled as a tale about a bad acid trip." was tagged as requiring a citation.

This was reverted with the claim (in the edit summary) that the statement is already cited.

The immediately following reference states "Holmes’ original version has usually been described as a song about a bad acid trip.", but fails to mention by whom.

I have tagged this statement with {{By whom}}.

We should either make clear that the referenced publication claims that the song has been described or labelled ... or reference an actual description or labelling of the song as such; there is no source backing up that the song was in fact ever labelled this way, only a source telling us that it was.

We cannot state that the song has been incorrectly labelled - only that the source says so. fredgandt 22:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has been addressed/fixed a couple of times by different users and then the BOT comes through at some point and undoes the edit. The problem may be that one has to scroll down the Classic music vault source "Jake Holmes artist bio" to get to the relevant content, which is Wil Shade's interview with Holmes in 2001. Shade asks Holmes what the song is about, saying he's "read that it's about a bad acid trip, but the lyrics don't seem to justify that interpretation." We've got Holmes' response quoted in the wiki article, so the idea that the song was misinterpreted by some is really just part of the context for Holmes' response.
I further addressed this on the most recent edit by citing what I believe is the source of the misinterpretation, Stephen Davis' notorious Hammer of the Gods, which was published in 1985 and read by a lot of people prior to Shade's 2001 interview with Holmes. There on page 34 of the Amazon preview we find: "'Dazed and Confused' had a sinister descending bass scale and jittery, paranoid lyrics that described a bad acid trip with unsparing accuracy." I've cited page 34 of "Hammer" so now we have a double citation in hopes that this will prevent another AnomieBOT undoing.
So it was Stephen Davis super-confident yet unsparingly inaccurate writing that is to blame. Probably good fodder for a footnote in the article, but for now we have it on record here on the "talk" page. And I really hope the double citation keeps the botters away. morganj9000 19:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Disagreement over the text of the lead statement

[edit]

This change or similar has been made repeatedly over the last couple of months, and should be properly discussed by the interested parties before the dispute becomes disruptive.

Please leave the related text as is until consensus is reached.

The discussion should not be thought of as a vote; it is the most reasonable agreed state that should be published. fredgandt 15:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The language regarding a "separate copyright" was initiated by a banned user in an attempt to whitewash from Wikipedia any information which may reflect negatively on Led Zeppelin. This effort has been pursued for years through numerous sockpuppet accounts and now through the use of proxy servers. The copyright claim was meant to support a somewhat ridiculous claim that Jake Holmes' song and Led Zeppelin's recording were two distinct songs that happened to have the same title. That they filed a copyright claim is completely irrelevant—George Harrison still has a copyright on "My Sweet Lord," Ray Parker Jr. still has a copyright on "Ghostbusters." The only relevance in a copyright infringement dispute would be whose claim was first. Piriczki (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of the two cited sources say that LZ holds a separate copyright. In fact, Fast writes "First, Zeppelin's piece is a cover version of the song by the 1960s American folk singer Jake Holmes". ASCAP does not show the song's copyright status. They manage the performance rights and list Page (not LZ) as the writer. In any event, the lead does not follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and needs to be rewritten. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trim

[edit]

I've trimmed some of the unsourced content out of the article, particularly with respect to Led Zeppelin live performances. I've had a look around for sources documenting the development of the piece live, but all I have is Dave Lewis' book which simply says it included lots of improvisation, threw in bits of songs, and featured the guitar being played with the violin bow, and stretched up to 40 minutes or so. As for what got expanded when, I'm sure you could go through the bootlegs and work it out, but it would be original research and probably of not much interest beyond hardcore fans. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, re the {{fact}} tag on the 2007 performance being a tone lower than the 60s and 70s versions, this can be "verified" by playing along on an instrument that doesn't need tuning (any modern keyboard) - do we really need a cite? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One performance(?) doesn't seem important enough to mention, but things like key, tempo, meter, etc. should have a RS. Good start, but the article could use more trimming. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dazed and Confused (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

13/7/2017 edits

[edit]

Russo's 2001 edition (224 pages) of The Ultimate Rave-Up is used for some recent edits. The earlier info was based on his 1998 "updated first edition" (160 pages). There's a new September 2016 edition (304 pages)[1]. In the Glimpses 2011 liner notes, Russo lists "Dazed and Confused (live) – Track 23 Unknown Venue in England, Jan '68". I wonder why he didn't identify Middle Earth (10 years after his 2001 bio)? Clayson lists three January gigs in England (page 190). The Chrome Oxide Yardbirds page (probably not RS) lists two dates for January 1968: January 3, 1968, Corn Exchange, Chelmsford; and January 19, 1968, Middle Earth Club, London. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russo also lists two January dates in the 2001 edition of "Ultimate Rave-Up": The Corn Exchange on the 3rd and the 19th at the legendary Middle Earth club. The original text before edit read that the recording was from "mid-January, around the time the Yardbirds recorded their last single." As the only show in mid-January, it follows that the Middle Earth club was the venue. Russo's researcher is still not convinced the Luton show took place, so I'm wondering if this inability to absolutely confirm with a paper trail that the "Glimspes 2011" version was from the Middle Earth club is the reason Russo is hesitant to ascribe the venue. If we say "mid-January" as in the original text, the venue has to be Middle Earth. A change to simply "January" would leave it vague. Change? Morgan johndavid (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Unless there's a later RS that says differently, Russo's 2011 liner notes should be used. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Made these and some other changes/additions from Russo's new edition. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics quote

[edit]

Ritchie333: The four lines of lyrics you removed[2] is not "more close paraphrasing", it is a direct quote. This is permitted under WP:SONG#LYRICS: "Quotations of the work within the analytical framework can fall into the fair use provisions within US copyright law (and to a lesser extent fair dealing and related concepts within other jurisdictions). However, how much of a song you can quote is open to interpretation, but you should avoid copyright paranoia." WP:LYRICS lists examples of GA and FA song articles that should be used as guidelines. It includes "Like a Rolling Stone", that has four verses each with two to six lines. Your interpretation seems to prohibit quoting any lyrics, which is commonly done in critical or academic articles about songs. After all, including 30 seconds of a copyrighted song recording (often more than a verse) is permitted under fair use. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2018 July 6 - Led Zeppelin articles seem to be full of close paraphrasing and excessive quotations all over the place. Trimming these avoids copyvio problems and makes the article more readable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: Led Zeppelin articles are full of problems – frequent and large blocks of quoted text should be removed. However, that does not justify the removal of a single verse of lyrics from a "Composition" section in which the lyrics are discussed. I think this is a clear case of copyright paranoia. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more a case of having removed close paraphrasing from numerous articles I'm starting to get a bit twitchy about anything resembling it. Unfortunately, having first mentioned this on Talk:Stairway To Heaven and then on the Copyright Investigations page to little response, I was starting to wonder if it was just me out of step? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: LZ articles have been subject to so much sock puppetry, edit warring, OR, POV pushing, etc., etc., that most editors probably don't want to have anything to do with them. I think there may also be confusion over "close paraphrasing". Much of the text you removed are in fact direct quotations with references; they have not been superficially modified or attempts made to hide their origin or to pass them off as the editor's own wording. Overuse of quoted text is a different issue and should be addressed. However, I believe a bigger problem is large sections of unreferenced text (likely OR or actual closely paraphrased text without identifying the sources) and text with references that don't support the assertions. There is so much written about LZ, it should be easy to find material for their articles. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zeppelin personnel section

[edit]

FlightTime: The Holmes and Yardbirds sections don't include "Personnel section"s, so why should Zeppelin have one? It's better to have a consistent format, but adding them to all three seems like busy-work producing clutter. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because it has been there, it's not disrupting anything and a section can be added to Holmes and Yardbirds. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was added three months ago by a user who has edited a total of two days (seems like he was bored).[3] It could easily worked into the prose section (Page, Jones, & Plant are already there – just add Bonham). —19:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. That will work. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Separate sections for personnel, charts, track listings, etc., like infobox genres, are easy targets for single purpose-type editors who rarely cite any sources for their changes. Sometimes they engage in subtle vandalism by adding different instrument brands, types of percussion, dates and positions, etc. Requiring RSs may help, but is a "Charts" section with a table really necessary for one or two entries or a "Track listing" section needed to only list an A- and B-side? This type of brief info should be included in the prose. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources discussing the promo EP

[edit]

I thought about either reinserting the EP cover art (now used in "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You") that I removed three years ago or taking the EP cover art to FFD. Then I found just two sources discussing the promo EP. I would like to know whether one self-published source containing an interview with a Led Zeppelin collector and one guide whose "facts" are disputed (by one Amazon customer) are reliable sources to cite info about the promo EP. -- George Ho (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: I don't know why a citation regarding the promo should be added, but Frank & Lou Anne Reddon are arguably "recognized experts" and Thompson has written numerous rock bios. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I see. Thanks. I intend to add a prose info about the promo EP. I figured that the EP can be spared if that info were to be added. --George Ho (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

holmes/zeppelin lyrics

[edit]

It seems an odd omission for this article to not point out that the Zeppelin tune has entirely different lyrics. I think you can see the Yardbirds created a new arrangement for Holmes song, then Page w/LZ wrote a new song around the arrangement, leaving not much of the original save the title.

Gjxj (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, the article specifically states: "Singer Robert Plant wrote a new set of bluesier lyrics, according to Page,[3] though Plant is not credited on the album, due to contractual obligations to Chrysalis Records ... Other than the lyrics and vocal, the song remained very similar to that performed by the Yardbirds earlier that year.[1][47][48]" Do you have any reliable sources that add to this? —Ojorojo (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i missed that on first read. Something to that effect ought to be in the third paragraph in the lede section however. Gjxj (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "was further adapted" to "with new lyrics and vocal line". —Ojorojo (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
that works! Gjxj (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 June 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. – robertsky (talk) 07:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dazed and Confused (song) → Dazed and Confused (Jake Holmes song) – Insufficient disambiguation with Dazed & Confused (Ruel song). 162 etc. (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dazed_and_Confused_(Jake_Holmes_song)&oldid=1231787414"