Talk:Dazed and Confused (Jake Holmes song)/Archive 1

Archive 1

POV in article

i have a strong POV in this case, so I wont edit the article directly, but i disagree with the amount of credit given to Led Zeppelin for reworking the song. IMO what they did is <blatant pov>reduce the quality of the lyrics</blatant pov>, then have Jimmy Page noodling away over the outro, put another verse after the outro, then cover the whole thing in strange soundeffects.

"The original idea for this tune came from folk singer Jake Holmes, who had previously written a very similar psychedelic acoustic song"

This implies the Holmes' version only provided a nugget of the Zep song, which is true if you think half an hour of running up and down a pentatonic scale constitutes good song writing, but is misleading given that the whole structure of the song is what was written by Holmes, the rhyme scheme, the repetition of the lyric "I'm dazed and confuse" at the start of each verse, the chomatic riff that forms the majority of the music, the instrumental section from 2:00 in the zep version (just after the bit that sounds like Paranoid (which, admittedly Zep wrote, and a year before BS).

I suggest someone take a listen to the song (available here, probably fair use) and give Jake Homles more credit in the article.

Insist it persists 04:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• You know the argument that this is a Led Zeppelin copy can be immediately thrown out the window by the fact that ASCAP (http://www.ascap.com/index.html), which assigns serial codes on the basis of published songs, did not give the same ASCAP code to the Led Zeppelin title. ASCAP assigns a new number if, in its opinion, the song differs markedly to warrant a separate entry. Jake Holmes was given the code 340119544, Led Zeppelin was given the code 340128276. Note the ASCAP catalogue also lists on its website if the song has been covered by other artists - Holmes has had no versions, Led Zeppelin's has. It is therefore incorrect to say that the Led Zeppelin song is a "cover". I would therefore argue on the ASCAP evidence that this article be spilt into Dazed and Confused (Jake Holmes song) and Dazed and Confused (Led Zeppelin song). Regardless of what Holmes has said though, he has never taken this matter to court. If he strongly believes he should be paid a credit royalty, he has doesn't anything to back up his claim where it matters most. Furthermore the neutrality of this article is questioned when it uses a notorious website as a reference that spends a considerable number of pages referring to Jimmy Page as a "magpie". That to me doesn't sound very neutral or credible. MegX 06:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Greetings MegX, Hadn't read this before editing the article and including that bit 'bout the cover. I wouldn't have included it without first having discussed it here. Several points come to mind, many of them generic to the whole concept of song-writing and originality itself, but we'll let that pass 'cos it's too complicated. Suffice to say that there is not a songwriter on Earth who hasn't incorporate someone else's riff into their "original" work, intentionally or otherwise. This is even more true when a musician plays an improvised solo. Even though I am a diehard Zeppelin fan - still have all the original vinyl LPs, enthusiastically bought as soon as they were released - it would be ridiculous to insist that they, like every other UK-based rock band of the day, did not heavily copy - and/or rework - tunes written by others. As to your

    I would therefore argue on the ASCAP evidence

    - my italics -, the fact that ASCAP didn't (at that point in history) consider it a cover is largely irrelevant. At best, it is only the private criteria=opinion of a private organisation - ASCAP is not the be-all-and-end-all of music. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    • You might consider it "private criteria", but the court system certainly doesn't. The US federal copyright law (Section 106) says if you use music in a public performance, you must have the permission of the copyright owner to do so. Copyright for published music is registered with ASCAP in the US. ASCAP has the legal authority to collect royalties on behalf of the copyright owner, as well as licence songs on behalf of the music publisher. This has never been challenged. Btw "Dazed and Confused" is also registered overseas under "J Page", in Australia with APRA (www.apra.com.au). Both ASCAP and reciprocal overseas collection organisations also licence in overseas countries. MegX (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Greetings MegX. It's not a case of yours truly considering it "private criteria" - it is, whether or not the courts uphold the right of the PROs (Performance rights organisation) to enforce it. ASCAP is only one of four US PROs, and one of several dozens (?) in the world, and while I don't doubt for a moment that their business has all the ingredients for being termed a cartel, and that between them they form a nice little lobby - that is a group of persons defending their private interests/criteria - this is not the place to deal with that issue. A song/tune/melody that is recognisably based on another is termed - albeit not in the strict terms of a court sentence - a cover. Even if it has been modified and given a heavy metal beat to it as opposed to a jazzier take... Regs. --Technopat (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
        • You are correct, the appropriate place to discuss it is not on the pages of an encyclopaedia, but in a court of law. In 40 years, Holmes has never challenged Page's claim in the proper forum ie. a court of law, the only place that counts in settling disputes. MegX (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Greetings MegX. The "fact" Holmes never - as far as we know - challenged Page's claim is again irrelevant to it being referred to as a cover. It is well-known that songs get copied and original composers not duly credited. And LZ, like countless bands/musicians/composers before and after, were inspired by things they'd heard before. If you haven't already done so, it might be interesting to take a look at the following two articles - chosen at random - on songs from early LZ: Babe I'm Gonna Leave You & Black Dog (song). Would a court of law interpret the spirit of the thing or the letter of the law? Regards, --Technopat (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
            • I'm not interested in hypotheticals. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a forum. Encyclopaedias deal with facts not hypotheticals. The credit for "Dazed and Confused" stand as "J Page" and until ordered to do so by a court of law that's not going to change just because you think it should. MegX (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
              • Whoa, there! You're right, of course - this is not a forum, but it is a discussion page on which editors can, in good faith, try to reach Wikipedia:Consensus. Sorry to have wasted your time on what you seem to consider unmeaningful discussion. --Technopat (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
                • The fact that ASCAP has assigned separate serial codes is mostly irrelevant to whether the song is a "cover" or not. (Look no further than "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You" for an example of a cover version with a separate code number). Furthermore, I think we need a citation for the line "ASCAP assigns a new number if, in its opinion, the song structure differs markedly to warrant a separate entry". Where did ASCAP state that? Also, it's meaningless to use ASCAP's list of cover versions as evidence that no one has covered Jake Holmes' song, because ASCAP does not publish all cover versions on their website.216.65.144.24 (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm

Well i dont see where Zeppelin is getting all this credit, you are right about them not needing all the credit, but if you are suggesting that the article should reduce the bands credit completely then it would also reduce the objectivity of the article, Led Zeppelin added their own touch to it, no ones subjective opinion about the quality of the song is important enough to influence these articles.

5:14, 27 February 2006

Holmes entry

I've done an entry on Jake Holmes, which may alleviate your criticisms, Insist it persists. I don't think the article is POV -- to be fair, Zeppelin did make the song famous -- Holmes' part as a songwriter is worth noting, but it's an interesting factoid, no more, no less. Dazed and Confused makes people think of Zeppelin, not Holmes. -- Palthrow 22:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC) I understand the legal reason for putting Jake Holmes as the original but his music and lyrics differ widely from the Led Zeppelin version Page put it (Holmes Dazed and Confused original) on one of his archive CDs to demonstrate tribute, but they are the same in name and concept only. Jack Bowman 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.139.29.90 (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see something about Page denying that it belonged to Holmes.

Dazed and Confused

"Dazed and Confused" was one of Led Zeppelin's signature numbers, but this song was originally written by Jake Holmes and included on his 1967 album The Above Ground Sound of Jake Holmes. A 1990 interview with Jimmy Page in Musician is revealing. MUSICIAN: I understand "Dazed and Confused" was originally a song by Jake Holmes. Is that true? PAGE: [Sourly] I don't know. I don't know. [Inhaling] I don't know about all that. MUSICIAN: Do you remember the process of writing that song? PAGE: Well, I did that with the Yardbirds originally.... The Yardbirds were such a good band for a guitarist to play in that I came up with a lot of riffs and ideas out of that, and I employed quite a lot of those in the early Zeppelin stuff. MUSICIAN: But Jake Holmes, a successful jingle writer in New York, claims on his 1967 record that he wrote the original song. PAGE: Hmm. Well, I don't know. I don't know about that. I'd rather not get into it because I don't know all the circumstances. What's he got, The riff or whatever? Because Robert wrote some of the lyrics for that on the album. But he was only listening to...we extended it from the one that we were playing with the Yardbirds. MUSICIAN: Did you bring it into the Yardbirds? PAGE: No, I think we played it 'round a sort of melody line or something that Keith [Relf] had. So I don't know. I haven't heard Jake Holmes so I don't know what it's all about anyway. Usually my riffs are pretty damn original [laughs] What can I say?

If Page never heard of Holmes version but "extended" it from the one he was playing in the Yardbirds that Relf had, why did he list himself as the composer? If that's the case, he knew he didn't compose it. This crap is indefensible. Carlo (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Dazed and Confused movie

Typing "Dazed and Confused" into search leads directly to this page. There is no disambiguation page, and no redirect to the movie at the top of the article.

Is there a reason for this? I would think the movie is even better known than this song.

this song is pretty famous more so than the movie probibly just because its sbeen around longer the good news is you can create a page for the movie and disambiguation page, that was a good movie! -ishmaelblues

It used to lead the the led zep song with links to the magazine and movie at the top, i might set up a DAB page but could a more competant wikipedia please change it so that dazed and confused (led zep song) is the default page again since it is by far the best known use of this title--Ninandnirvana 23:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move. Duja► 08:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Dazed and Confused → Dazed and Confused (song) — And also Dazed and Confused (disambiguation) to Dazed and Confused. Both the film and the magazine by this name are well known. The magazine gets top spot in a Google search, followed by the film's IMDb profile. I don't think that priority should be given to the song. PC78 11:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Support. Not sure about the magazine, but the movie is a cult classic. --Bobblehead 11:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, as the nominator. PC78 11:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. As one of, if not the best known songs of Led Zeppelin, it's probably better known internationally than the film. Palthrow 17:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Better known to Led Zeppelin fans perhaps, but it's no "Kashmir" or "Stairway to Heaven". Besides, I'm not suggesting that any of these articles have priority over the other, merely that Dazed and Confused should become the DAB page. PC78 23:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Changing to Support OK, I'll support it being a disambiguation page -- I'm cool with it as long as it doesn't go directly to the film. -- Palthrow 07:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. Croctotheface 10:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Per WP:DAB. The song is not unquestionably the primary topic, so there should be a dab page at this name. --Serge 21:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (continued)

The title of the film was derived from the song, as mentioned by the director in interviews. Does this make a difference? Edelmand 15:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jakeholmes.jpg

Image:Jakeholmes.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 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 09:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Led Zeppelin Dazed and Confused.ogg

Image:Led Zeppelin Dazed and Confused.ogg 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 ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin Live Performances

The article cites Luis Rey as mentioning the inclusion of San Francisco and Woodstock into "Stage 4". Mr. Rey forgot to mention the occasional inclusion of Love's "Old Man" and Buffalo Springfield's "For What It's Worth". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.162.186 (talk) 02:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

?

The same song cannot have to authors who recorded it at different times, either the early authored it or the Zeppelin version different page. --Ishmaelblues (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

hello... i wil be changing it back to how it was before unless i get a meaningful response --Ishmaelblues (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

How it was, was before you kept calling it a cover. Your English grammar and spelling is some of the worst I've seen on this project. I'm willing to bet you don't have a history degree as claimed on your userpage. B.S? B.S. = Bull Sh*t. The only thing illogical is your long standing targeting of Led Zeppelin songs. I also suspect you have a number of sock accounts. BelowGroundSound (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC) this comment has been marked as WP:NPA; and I've posted a warning at User talk:BelowGroundSound.

ok this was set up for the article not personal attacks on me, would you mind adressing the topic please, until then i am putting the article back Ishmaelblues (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue has been addressed ad nauseum. Led Zeppelin's song is not a cover. PS. Addressing is spelled with two d's. BelowGroundSound (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

When has it been Addressed? and does that mean it can never be again? --Ishmaelblues (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Listen Ishmaelblues. You're edit-warring with multiple editors on this one. Led Zeppelin's version is NOT a cover, however the Yardbirds one is. Am I clear now? Scieberking (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a wide range of opinions on this subject and I think you will find there are a number of editors that share Ishmaulblues' position. As for the notion that the Yardbirds' version was a cover but the Led Zeppelin version was not, that really doesn't make any sense given the history of the song. I thought the passage from the Susan Fast book used as a reference (see [1]) offered a very detailed and authoritive description of the evolution of the song. Piriczki (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Susan's book does NOWHERE imply that Led Zeppelin's version was a cover. Plain and simple. Find a reliable source then feel free to add anything you want. On the other hand, I'm not either saying that Zeppelin's version is totally original, however Page and Co. "reworked" Jake's song. It was/is credited to Jimmy Page and that's all that really matters. "In the Houses of the Holy" says almost the same thing. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

In the book, Fast explicitly states: "First, Zeppelin's piece is a cover version of the song by the 1960s American folk singer Jake Holmes, which Page reportedly heard while the Yardbirds were on tour in the United States". Piriczki (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah.. sorry Piriczki, didn't get to notice that line. My bad. Zeppelin still doesn't credit Jake, however. IMO "a song by Jake Holmes, which was covered by The Yardbirds, and later reworked by Led Zeppelin who hold a separate copyright on the song" is a good compromise. Because this "cover version" does not satisfy the technical definition of aforementioned term. Feel free to add what you want. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That looks OK to me. Piriczki (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

thank you, this is all i wanted and that is the line i have written. --Ishmaelblues (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's the truth and it's good that Piriczki has found strong references and we've reached consensus on its content. But Ishmaelblues- you better stop edit-warring with multiple editors on this and many other articles. Settling things on the talk page always helps. Secondly, this line was added by me. Thanks, Scieberking (talk) 06:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

yes you re added the copyright mention in the intro that i wrote.--Ishmaelblues (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Technically, the "Yardbirds cover" could be termed a "reworking," too, seeing as it features completely different lyrics and is (essentially) musically the same as the 1969 Led Zeppelin version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.70.167 (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No, because it credited Jake Holmes. Scieberking (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Only post-2000. The original album version of Live Yardbirds: Featuring Jimmy Page credited Jimmy Page. Anyway, the point's moot: The Yardbirds "cover" was instigated by Keith Relf, who gave the basic melody to Page who then crafted the song as it came to be - essentially the form it would later be recorded by Led Zeppelin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.97.126 (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Dazed and Confused which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1